[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford

Tue Jul 4 15:13:10 EDT 2006

Philip,

You don't seperate oil from National Security? If we were in danger of 
running out maybe I would agree but that is not the case. There is plenty of 
oil on the market and plenty more to be found.
We have all the oil we want. We just don't like the price. I wouldn't call 
that a threat to National Security and certainly no reason to attack a 
country that never attacked us.

I was all for attacking Afghanastan. We lost sight of our objective. As you 
say we didn't fly into buildings but same goes for Iraq, Maybe we should 
have attacked Saudi Arabia? Going after Bin Lidan was a good thing. I never 
heard of any intelligence indicating he was hiding in Iraq.

Wally

>From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.net>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:34:36 -0400
>
>Wally,
>     I don't separate Oil (i.e. resources) from National Security.  We need
>one to have the other; otherwise, we are at the mercy of anyone else with
>resources.   We did not fly into Arab buildings.  They flew into ours.  We
>didn't invade Kuwait, Iraq did.  We don't blow ourselves up around women 
>and
>children.  As a matter of fact, we willingly hamstring ourselves and cost
>our young men and women their lives as a result to be "culturally
>sensitive".  This baffles our friends there and delights our enemies.  To a
>certain extent, might makes right, as you put it.  History proves that.
>Knowing when to act and how is the trick.  I agree with the strategy, 
>though
>I may differ with the specific targets at the time.  We spent too many 
>years
>apologising and letting the radicals have their way.  Bin Laden said he
>based his decision to attack us on our response (or lack thereof) to
>previous attacks.
>
>Philip
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
>[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of TN Rhodey
>Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:44 AM
>To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
>Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
>
>
>Philip,
>
>I guess you are a proponent of the old might makes right theory? I  used
>that theory on my little brother and it worked out real well. I always got
>the big piece of cake. I am not sure if this is the best strategy for
>diplomatic relations. Should we not shoot for a higher standard?
>
>You ask what better reason then oil? We should go to war when our National
>Security is threatened.
>
>Wally
>
> >From: "3drecon" <3drecon at comcast.net>
> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:25:48 -0400
> >
> >Frone
> >
> >I didn't say I was comfortable with the Republicans, I said they are 
>closer
> >to the Libertarian philosophy than any other "electable" party to-day.  I
> >assume you allude to the Patriot Act in the "incessant drive by  the
> >Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private acts and
> >thoughts" as well as the moral chest pounding.  I am opposed to the 
>Patriot
> >Act.  I think it will be/has been abused just as the RICO act was and is
> >abused.  I don't agree with the moral grand-standing any more than I 
>agree
> >with the liberals banning "hate" speech, becoming anti-religious and
> >forcing
> >the Bill of Rights on the States, contrary to the Founders intent.  I 
>also
> >don't see a conspiricy in "a propaganda machine  leading us to 
>pre-emptive
> >war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies,  selling off our
> >resources to pay the unconscionable deficits".  The real problem with oil
> >is
> >the restriction on drilling, exploration and refineries; simply, supply 
>and
> >demand.  I don't know what you mean about the "agri/timber issues, but if
> >that's what it takes to make our country prosperous, then that is what we
> >should do.  A poor person never gave me a job (wealthy and corporations 
>did
> >(and government).  I will say here that I do one of the few legitimate
> >government tasks. . . defense (and as a civilian, declassification).  I
> >assume by your comment about oil, you believe we "went to war for oil".  
>If
> >so, what better reason besides retaliation?  Oil is in the national
> >interest.  If we can secure international oil routes and supplies by 
>going
> >to war, so what?  Liberals like to say we should go to war in Zambia, or
> >Zimbabwe or elsewhere in the African continent. If not for precious 
>metals,
> >oil or resources, why?  If it is not in our national interest, why?  What
> >the hell were we doing in Serbia?  That is a European created problem and
> >they should police it.  We have no national interest there.
> >
> >Philip
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> >[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On Behalf Of
> >FCrawford0707 at aol.com
> >Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:46 AM
> >To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] To DAVE about Virginia and in reply
> >
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 6/30/2006 8:47:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> >3drecon at comcast.net writes:
> >
> >Frankly, I see the Democrats relying on Big Government and  growing it;
> >however, having said that, the Republicans, in recent years have  changed
> >course to
> >appease the liberals (who will not vote for them, no matter  what) and 
>have
> >their own brand of government growth.  I am a  Libertarian.  The
> >Republicans
> >are the only electable party that come  closest to that philiosophy for
> >now,
> >so
> >I identify with them.  The  interesting thing is the Founding Fathers 
>would
> >have been considered  liberals!
> >
> >
> >
> >Philip - I am interested in your conclusion that as a Libertarian, you 
>are
> >somehow comfortable with the Republicans.  I find the incessant drive by
> >the
> >Republicans to limit personal rights and invade our private acts and
> >thoughts
> >to be at odds with my own Libertarian leanings.  The abuse of  power by 
>the
> >present administration is frightening - a propaganda machine  leading us 
>to
> >pre-emptive war, welfare for the agri / timber / oil companies,  selling
> >off
> >our
> >resources to pay the unconscionable deficits, not to mention the
> >corruption
> >and incompetence.  I am not a strict Libertarian, in that I feel  there 
>are
> >roles best filled by government - for example, dredging and  maintaining
> >the
> >ICW.
> >There was a great idea thirty years ago that, if  followed, would perhaps
> >have put our society in a happier and less contentious  frame than we are
> >going
> >thru now - that of the negative income tax, in place of  all the myriad 
>of
> >government administered support programs that don't really  serve the
> >constituency
> >intended, and which produce a whole lot of waste.   With a negative 
>income
> >tax, the neediest are supported without the cost and  waste of 
>bureaucratic
> >infrastructure.  No one makes out better financially  by not working, so
> >the
> >"welfare syndrome" is not present.
> >     Frone Crawford
> >     s/v Sunday Morning
> >__________________________________________________
> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list