[Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
TN Rhodey
tnrhodey at hotmail.com
Thu Jul 6 19:12:17 EDT 2006
Herb,
Heck I thought I did ask.....I didn't mean to ask wrong.
Wally
>From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
>Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:58:18 -0500
>
>Might I suggest that, in the future, if you REALLY want to ask someone a
>question, and hope they give you a simple straight answer, simply ask the
>question.
>
>I believe that the war was over many things, the most egregious of which
>are outlined in the Iraq war resolution, passed by congress.
>
>I think that oil, much like food and sex, is an underlying motivation in
>many things we do, but I don't think oil was a main reason we went to Iraq.
>
>Herb Parsons
>
>S/V O'Jure
>1976 O'Day 25
>Lake Grapevine, N TX
>
>S/V Reve de Papa
>1971 Coronado 35
>Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
>
> >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 7/6/2006 6:24:23 am >>>
>Herb,
>
>You are trying to clarify my post using double negative. I was sincere in
>my
>question. Many claim war is over freedom, liberation. WMD, and so on. Most
>seem to stay away from the war for oil claim. I was wondering if you felt
>the same. So I asked the question. I still don't know the answer.
>
>Wally
>
>
> >From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> >Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:10:27 -0500
> >
> >"Don't tell me ...." is a pretty clear implication to the contrary,
>hardly
> >a question.
> >
> >Don't tell me you didn't know that...
> >
> > >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 7/5/2006 10:06:28 am >>>
> >You didn't that is why I asked. If you had said so I wouldn't have asked.
> >Make sense?
> >
> >Wally
> >
> >
> > >From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> > >Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:34:16 -0500
> > >
> > >I don't believe I said anything about attacking for oil.
> > >
> > > >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 7/5/2006 6:35:08 am >>>
> > >Herb,
> > >
> > > I thought everyone has
> > >been
> > >trying to convince me this wasn't about oil?
> > >
> > >I will clarify.....my comment was directed towards the flying into
> > >buildings
> > >post. The post seemed to indicate that Iraqis flew into our buildings
>and
> > >as
> > >we know that is not true. I should have said Iraq never launched an
> >attack
> > >on our soil. I do agree that they did shoot at US Airplanes flying over
> > >Iraq.
> > >
> > >I hope that makes the baloney taste better.
> > >
> > >Wally
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Reply to Frone Crawford
> > > >Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:49:45 -0500
> > > >
> > > >" I wouldn't call that a threat to National Security and certainly no
> > > >reason to attack a
> > > >country that never attacked us."
> > > >
> > > >Actually, they did. Several time. They attempted to kill former
> >President
> > > >Bush, which is an act of war. They also fired on our aircraft several
> > > >times. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, but the "they never
> > >attacked
> > > >us" is pure baloney.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Herb Parsons
> > > >
> > > >S/V O'Jure
> > > >1976 O'Day 25
> > > >Lake Grapevine, N TX
> > > >
> > > >S/V Reve de Papa
> > > >1971 Coronado 35
> > > >Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
> > > >
> > > > >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 7/4/2006 1:13:10 pm >>>
> > > >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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________________________
> > > >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
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >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
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list