Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RLC-Action] Our Constitution

Expand Messages
  • Neil Galbraith
    I agree with the importance of separating mistakes from lies. Most reasonable people felt Saddam had WMDs. As a CIA officer friend of mine said, it s a
    Message 1 of 27 , Dec 9, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with the importance of separating "mistakes" from "lies."  Most reasonable people felt Saddam had WMDs.  As a CIA officer friend of mine said, it's a simple matter of his behavior.  It took South Africa six months of inspections for the IAEA to certify that they had dismantled their nuclear program, and after two years of further inspections, the UN resolved they no longer possessed the cacapabilitynbsp; That means, practically, if Saddam had complied with UN inspectors, he could have had sanctions lifted as early as 1993.  Then, in the following 10-years he could have reconstituted his WMD program.  I think what everyone missed was that Saddam wasn't opposing IAEA and US inspectors because he had something--he was opposing them to create the illusion he had something.  It was cheaper than actually pursuing nuclear weapons.  I am convinced that the US, EU, and UN fell for what amounts to Iraqi propaganda.
       
      Neil

      F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
      Actually Bill,
       
      the Theory worked rather well in Germany and Japan.  As I understand it it was part of the original plan.  I don't think the Bush administration lied, regarding WMD I think they went with the intelligence they had, and since you are a former military man, I'm sure you know intelligence can be pretty bad sometimes.
       
      EVERYONE, from the Clinton administration and the Bush administration believed that there were still WMD.  And some of us, myself included, point clearly to the underreported stories of nuclear production materials being burried int he back yard of a scientist under Saddams orders, to be dug up "when the inspection regiment was over".   I think the final story of the WMD has not yet been written.
       
      I supported the war, still do.  And I think Bush is right on when saying that only by bringing freedom can we stop the festering of terror in the world.
       
      The question is, do we stand for freedom or don't we?  If we do, do we take the slave from the slavemaster, by force if needed, or do we say, the slave is better off in chains?
       
      Frank

      bill Jambura <jambura@...> wrote:

       

      Since every reason for invading Iraq fell short of the truth, the White House now offers its �Domino Theory of Democracy�.  It�s a corollary to the �Domino Theory of Communism� that panicked America during the last half century into sacrificing many of our freedoms and liberties once enshrined in our Constitution. Now we are told to sacrifice what�s left of our privacy (via the Patriot Act and 911 Act) to further a slapdash crusade for Iraqi democracy.  

       

      In the balance are the costs and benefits of invading a sovereign nation on false pretenses and having our soldiers caught in the crossfire of a civil war where friend and foe look alike.  Yes the world is better off without Saddam, but it�s also much, much worse off with Iraq in a state of anarchy and breeding diehard zealots and angry martyrs faster than we can kill them.  But that�s what happens when Machiavellian politics backfires upon those that profit thereby.

       

      While this impugns our career politicians, it does not diminish the military. It�s our elected officials� job to define the enemy.  It�s the military�s job to kill it when directed to do so.  It�s a shame that our politicians are so careless with America�s blood and treasure; but it�s their shame and in no way diminishes the honor and bravery of those who fight and die in good faith defending our flag.

       

       

      Bill Jambura

      Major, USAF, retired

      Colorado Springs, CO





      "Omne verum a quocumque dicatur, a Spiritu sancto est." --St. Ambrose of Milan


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

    • DGHarrison
      Neil Galbraith wrote: [snip] I think what everyone missed was that Saddam wasn t opposing IAEA and US inspectors because he had something -- he was opposing
      Message 2 of 27 , Dec 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Neil Galbraith wrote: [snip] I think what everyone missed was that Saddam wasn't opposing IAEA and US inspectors because he had something -- he was opposing them to create the illusion he had something.  It was cheaper than actually pursuing nuclear weapons.  I am convinced that the US, EU, and UN fell for what amounts to Iraqi propaganda.
        Exactly the point I made earlier. A criminal enters a bank and says, "I've got a gun! Gimme all yer money!"  Then, even if all he had for a gun was his finger pointing inside his pocket, the bad guy goes down for armed robbery when the police finally capture him. Saddam's gamesmanship is sufficient for action to be taken against him.

        And, the Iraqi people and all of Saddam's military also fell for the propaganda. Perhaps he was just slingin' a big dick -- as warlords are wont to do -- in order to influence his neighbors, in particular, Iran.

        Doug Harrison
      • bill Jambura
        Well, okay Frank. You ve brought up some good points, but I must rebut. Before I do, let me say that I have no qualms about killing terrorists or going to war
        Message 3 of 27 , Dec 9, 2004
        • 0 Attachment

          Well, okay Frank.  You've brought up some good points, but I must rebut. 

           

          Before I do, let me say that I have no qualms about killing terrorists or going to war when the cause is clear, just and unwavering.  You don't get to make it up as you go.  You come up with the reason before you march your armies and the killing and dying starts. 

           

          Some may put your blind faith and trust in Pres. Bush, a mere mortal man with all the failings and trappings thereof; but I’ll put my faith and trust in God, only.  While it’s hard to reason with Bush's faithful, I’m guessing that every blind believer in Bush is already wearing a uniform and fighting for democracy in Iraq, unless they’re one of the faithful who wants someone else to go fight and die on their behalf.

           

          As I said before, when every reason for invading Iraq fell short of the truth, they offered up democracy like a shot over the moon.  But it’s funny that we are only interested in democratizing oil rich countries and ignore genocide and despotism elsewhere.  A fine parsing of moral imperatives don’t you think? 

           

          Anyway, let’s review the last 50 years in reverse chronological order without regard to party partisanship; but instead, in terms of Machiavellian foreign policies and transnational profiteering.

           

          In the fall, 2002, we were led to believe Iraq orchestrated the twin towers tragedy.  Now we know Saudi Arabia spawned the majority of the terrorists and Iraq provided NONE.   Talk about displaced anger; we gave Saudi Arabia a ‘get out of hell free card’ and invaded Iraq.  If “9/11” was your battle cry, we invaded the wrong country.

           

          In the winter, 2002, we were panicked into believing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were an imminent threat to our national survival.  Now, after many televised hearings on C-Span, we know the CIA was the scapegoat and that the reports were parsed and crafted to fit the designs of this White House. 

           

          In the spring, 2003, even though we had our thumb on Iraq and 2/3rds of the country was a no fly zone, we kicked the UN out for failing to uncover WMD and invaded a sovereign nation.  (As a matter of cost benefit, we could’ve kept our thumb on Iraq for the next 100 years for what it’s cost thus far to execute this ill-gotten crusade.)

           

          Next, we spent the summer of 2003 searching for Iraq’s WMD and found a culture of botulism bacteria, which grows naturally in soil and in decaying food.  Just dent a can of beans and wait two weeks.  Since we couldn't justify going to  war over a broken can of beans, our next excuse for invading Iraq was reduced to the mind sling that Saddam “wanted WMD”.  Well, who in hell doesn’t?  India? Pakistan? Communist China? Korea? Former USSR states?  Israel?  Et al?

           

          Next, we’re told Saddam was deposed on behalf of his neighbors.  But if they hated him, why did they loan him nearly $100 billion to keep him in power during the embargo?  And now, why aren’t they there fighting on our side instead of sending clandestine forces against us?

           

          As for democracy, the Mid-East once had a vibrant pro-American democracy.  But when Iran tried to nationalize the British Petroleum (BP) interests for skimming royalties, the Brits got us to overthrow that democracy.  Then, after 20 years under the Shah, the Iranians united behind religious fanatics to oust their BP puppet.  In retaliation, Britain called on America to do their dirty work once again.  We, in turn, gave our puppet, Saddam Hussein, chemical WMD to use on the Iranians.  Now Iran is another festering unintended consequence of our failed Machiavellian Mid-East foreign policies. 

           

          A few years later, Saddam was given another batch of poison gases to stop his Iraqi Kurds from carving out a homeland along Turkey’s southern border—a NATO ally.  Simply put, Saddam was our love child spawned out of Machiavellian foreign policies and oil profiteering.

           

          Since WWII, our entangling alliances have drawn us into a series of bloody disputes and coup de etas within Britain’s lost empire.  The cycles of violence and the epidemic of failed states are testaments to that.  If the Brits want to reclaim the spoils of their 19th Century Empire, let them die for it.  As it is, they are more of a dependent than an ally.  The cost of American blood and treasure is a testament to Pres. Washington’s wisdom when he warned us against entangling alliances.  What happens next in the Mid-East depends more on greed, war profiteering and Machiavellian muck than anything else.  So it is that the corrupt manipulate the befuddled while the blind lead the blind.
           
          Bill
           
          On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:43:30 -0800 (PST) F Worley <worley_f2003@...> writes:
          Actually Bill,
           
          the Theory worked rather well in Germany and Japan.  As I understand it it was part of the original plan.  I don't think the Bush administration lied, regarding WMD I think they went with the intelligence they had, and since you are a former military man, I'm sure you know intelligence can be pretty bad sometimes.
           
          EVERYONE, from the Clinton administration and the Bush administration believed that there were still WMD.  And some of us, myself included, point clearly to the underreported stories of nuclear production materials being burried int he back yard of a scientist under Saddams orders, to be dug up "when the inspection regiment was over".   I think the final story of the WMD has not yet been written.
           
          I supported the war, still do.  And I think Bush is right on when saying that only by bringing freedom can we stop the festering of terror in the world.
           
          The question is, do we stand for freedom or don't we?  If we do, do we take the slave from the slavemaster, by force if needed, or do we say, the slave is better off in chains?
           
          Frank

          bill Jambura <jambura@...> wrote:

           

          Since every reason for invading Iraq fell short of the truth, the White House now offers its Domino Theory of Democracy.  Its a corollary to the Domino Theory of Communism that panicked America during the last half century into sacrificing many of our freedoms and liberties once enshrined in our Constitution. Now we are told to sacrifice whats left of our privacy (via the Patriot Act and 911 Act) to further a slapdash crusade for Iraqi democracy.  

           

          In the balance are the costs and benefits of invading a sovereign nation on false pretenses and having our soldiers caught in the crossfire of a civil war where friend and foe look alike.  Yes the world is better off without Saddam, but its also much, much worse off with Iraq in a state of anarchy and breeding diehard zealots and angry martyrs faster than we can kill them.  But thats what happens when Machiavellian politics backfires upon those that profit thereby.

           

          While this impugns our career politicians, it does not diminish the military. Its our elected officials job to define the enemy.  Its the militarys job to kill it when directed to do so.  Its a shame that our politicians are so careless with Americas blood and treasure; but its their shame and in no way diminishes the honor and bravery of those who fight and die in good faith defending our flag.

           

           

          Bill Jambura

          Major, USAF, retired

          Colorado Springs, CO



           
        • F Worley
          Bill, I won t bother to debate the cold war politics and bad foreign policy. Nothing to debate. I think when you take things in the context of the times, it
          Message 4 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill,
             
            I won't bother to debate the cold war politics and bad foreign policy.  Nothing to debate.  I think when you take things in the context of the times, it made sense, but yes, it was a very short sighted policy, that created alot of problems for us.
             
            We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there.  So I take issue that we only support democracy in oil rich nations.  We helped create (to one degree or another) all of the democracies in south america as well.  I think that behind the scenes (at least from what I gather), the democratazation of the middle east was part of the original plan, the Bush administration did not try to sell that upfront.  We could debate whether or not that was the right idea.
             
            I would not call myself a faithful Bush follower.  Yes, I voted for him, but truthfully, I only voted for him because I support him and his team on National Defense issues, and not that much more.  Iook forward however, to see how successful he is on Social Security and tax reform.
             
            Back to the topic.
             
            Regarding other nations with WMD, I don't think Isreal is or will ever be a threat to us.  Pakistan and India are working with us, Russia is our friend of late and fighting China, might lead to the end of Human Civilization.  (Patrick Henry aside, People ain't free if they are dead)
             
            I guess if I were to sum up my beliefs as far as foreign policy goes, it would be something like this:
             
            1- Defense of the Nation
            2- Defense of Freedom
            3- Defense of our friends
            4- Pragmatism
             
            That's the way I am approaching this.
             
            And yes, I do think that we ignore alot of genocide, especially in Africa and southeast Asia.  I won't speculate as to why that is.
             
            Frank


            bill Jambura <jambura@...> wrote:

            Well, okay Frank.  You've brought up some good points, but I must rebut. 

             

            Before I do, let me say that I have no qualms about killing terrorists or going to war when the cause is clear, just and unwavering.  You don't get to make it up as you go.  You come up with the reason before you march your armies and the killing and dying starts. 

             

            Some may put your blind faith and trust in Pres. Bush, a mere mortal man with all the failings and trappings thereof; but I�ll put my faith and trust in God, only.  While it�s hard to reason with Bush's faithful, I�m guessing that every blind believer in Bush is already wearing a uniform and fighting for democracy in Iraq, unless they�re one of the faithful who wants someone else to go fight and die on their behalf.

             

            As I said before, when every reason for invading Iraq fell short of the truth, they offered up democracy like a shot over the moon.  But it�s funny that we are only interested in democratizing oil rich countries and ignore genocide and despotism elsewhere.  A fine parsing of moral imperatives don�t you think? 

             

          • Barry Moore
            Frank, We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there. Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil. ...
            Message 5 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Frank,
               
              "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
               
              Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
               
              --- Barry
               
              "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
               
              "�It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.�
              - George Washington, 1797

              F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
              Bill,
               
              I won't bother to debate the cold war politics and bad foreign policy.  Nothing to debate.  I think when you take things in the context of the times, it made sense, but yes, it was a very short sighted policy, that created alot of problems for us.
               
              We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there.  So I take issue that we only support democracy in oil rich nations.  We helped create (to one degree or another) all of the democracies in south america as well.  I think that behind the scenes (at least from what I gather), the democratazation of the middle east was part of the original plan, the Bush administration did not try to sell that upfront.  We could debate whether or not that was the right idea.
               
              I would not call myself a faithful Bush follower.  Yes, I voted for him, but truthfully, I only voted for him because I support him and his team on National Defense issues, and not that much more.  Iook forward however, to see how successful he is on Social Security and tax reform.
               
              Back to the topic.
               
              Regarding other nations with WMD, I don't think Isreal is or will ever be a threat to us.  Pakistan and India are working with us, Russia is our friend of late and fighting China, might lead to the end of Human Civilization.  (Patrick Henry aside, People ain't free if they are dead)
               
              I guess if I were to sum up my beliefs as far as foreign policy goes, it would be something like this:
               
              1- Defense of the Nation
              2- Defense of Freedom
              3- Defense of our friends
              4- Pragmatism
               
              That's the way I am approaching this.
               
              And yes, I do think that we ignore alot of genocide, especially in Africa and southeast Asia.  I won't speculate as to why that is.
               
              Frank


              bill Jambura <jambura@...> wrote:

              Well, okay Frank.  You've brought up some good points, but I must rebut. 

               

              Before I do, let me say that I have no qualms about killing terrorists or going to war when the cause is clear, just and unwavering.  You don't get to make it up as you go.  You come up with the reason before you march your armies and the killing and dying starts. 

               

              Some may put your blind faith and trust in Pres. Bush, a mere mortal man with all the failings and trappings thereof; but I�ll put my faith and trust in God, only.  While it�s hard to reason with Bush's faithful, I�m guessing that every blind believer in Bush is already wearing a uniform and fighting for democracy in Iraq, unless they�re one of the faithful who wants someone else to go fight and die on their behalf.

               

              As I said before, when every reason for invading Iraq fell short of the truth, they offered up democracy like a shot over the moon.  But it�s funny that we are only interested in democratizing oil rich countries and ignore genocide and despotism elsewhere.  A fine parsing of moral imperatives don�t you think? 

               



              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

            • bill Jambura
              Well said Barry! Also, we went into Afghanistan to get the Taliban and Bin Ladin who sponsored attacks on America--no doubts there. We have every right to be
              Message 6 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Well said Barry! 
                 
                Also, we went into Afghanistan to get the Taliban and Bin Ladin who sponsored attacks on America--no doubts there.  We have every right to be there.  Some people still like to blur Afghanistan with what we're doing in Iraq. 
                 
                As a foot note, we didn't and won't  touch the poppy fields in Afghanistan--never mind our War on Drugs.  Yet, we're told that illegal drug traffic is a major funding source for terrorists.  So who really controls Afghanistan, the new president or the drug lords who sponsor the terrorists?  A question that extends to many of  the "democracies" in South and Central America.  Maybe it's time to invent a new term:  DINO--Democracy In Name Only. 
                 
                Bill
                 
                On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:26:00 -0800 (PST) Barry Moore <b_moore@...> writes:
                Frank,
                 
                "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
                 
                Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
                 
                --- Barry
                 
                "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
                 
                "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
                - George Washington, 1797

                F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                Bill,
                 
                I won't bother to debate the cold war politics and bad foreign policy.  Nothing to debate.  I think when you take things in the context of the times, it made sense, but yes, it was a very short sighted policy, that created alot of problems for us.
                 
                We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there.  So I take issue that we only support democracy in oil rich nations.  We helped create (to one degree or another) all of the democracies in south america as well.  I think that behind the scenes (at least from what I gather), the democratazation of the middle east was part of the original plan, the Bush administration did not try to sell that upfront.  We could debate whether or not that was the right idea.
                 
                I would not call myself a faithful Bush follower.  Yes, I voted for him, but truthfully, I only voted for him because I support him and his team on National Defense issues, and not that much more.  Iook forward however, to see how successful he is on Social Security and tax reform.
                 
                Back to the topic.
                 
                Regarding other nations with WMD, I don't think Isreal is or will ever be a threat to us.  Pakistan and India are working with us, Russia is our friend of late and fighting China, might lead to the end of Human Civilization.  (Patrick Henry aside, People ain't free if they are dead)
                 
                I guess if I were to sum up my beliefs as far as foreign policy goes, it would be something like this:
                 
                1- Defense of the Nation
                2- Defense of Freedom
                3- Defense of our friends
                4- Pragmatism
                 
                That's the way I am approaching this.
                 
                And yes, I do think that we ignore alot of genocide, especially in Africa and southeast Asia.  I won't speculate as to why that is.
                 
                Frank


                bill Jambura <jambura@...> wrote:

                Well, okay Frank.  You've brought up some good points, but I must rebut. 

                 

                Before I do, let me say that I have no qualms about killing terrorists or going to war when the cause is clear, just and unwavering.  You don't get to make it up as you go.  You come up with the reason before you march your armies and the killing and dying starts. 

                 

                Some may put your blind faith and trust in Pres. Bush, a mere mortal man with all the failings and trappings thereof; but Ill put my faith and trust in God, only.  While its hard to reason with Bush's faithful, Im guessing that every blind believer in Bush is already wearing a uniform and fighting for democracy in Iraq, unless theyre one of the faithful who wants someone else to go fight and die on their behalf.

                 

                As I said before, when every reason for invading Iraq fell short of the truth, they offered up democracy like a shot over the moon.  But its funny that we are only interested in democratizing oil rich countries and ignore genocide and despotism elsewhere.  A fine parsing of moral imperatives dont you think? 

                 



                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
                 
              • F Worley
                The original point was that we were only liberating oil rich nations, a point I took issue with. I think the discussion is now a bit off topic, so you can
                Message 7 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  The original point was that we were only liberating oil rich nations, a point I took issue with.  I think the discussion is now a bit off topic, so you can respond to me personally at worley_f2003@... if you wish. 
                   
                  Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?
                   
                  Frank

                  Barry Moore <b_moore@...> wrote:
                  Frank,
                   
                  "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
                   
                  Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
                   
                  --- Barry
                   
                  "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
                   
                  "�It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.�
                  - George Washington, 1797

                  F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                   
                • F Worley
                  Speaking of Drugs, what is the current RLC position on drug legalization? I m for it, with some regulation under the interstate commerce clause and states
                  Message 8 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Speaking of Drugs,

                     

                    what is the current RLC position on drug legalization?  I'm for it, with some regulation under the interstate commerce clause and states being allowed to determine their own course of action.

                     

                    Frank

                  • Jeff Palmer
                    From the RLC website: We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the ‘drug war’ has been ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of
                    Message 9 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      From the RLC website:
                       
                      "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the ‘drug war’ has been ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of personal liberty. We favor flexible alternatives at the state and community level to combat the harmful aspects of drug use."

                      Jeff Palmer - jap@...
                      * * *
                      Quote of the Week: "You support the drug-war because you're addicted to power."
                      "I'm not addicted to power."
                      "Denial is the first sign of addiction!"

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: F Worley [mailto:worley_f2003@...]
                      Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:23 PM
                      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [RLC-Action] Speaking of Drugs

                      Speaking of Drugs,

                      what is the current RLC position on drug legalization?  I'm for it, with some regulation under the interstate commerce clause and states being allowed to determine their own course of action.

                      Frank

                    • Dave Nalle
                      ... Isn t Khurzikstan next to Ruritania? I think you are thinking of either Khazakstan, Kurdistan or possibly Kuzikstan (which I don t think has existed since
                      Message 10 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >Frank,
                        >
                        >"We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
                        >
                        >Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan
                        >where there IS oil.

                        Isn't Khurzikstan next to Ruritania? I think you are thinking of
                        either Khazakstan, Kurdistan or possibly
                        Kuzikstan (which I don't think has existed since the 13th century),
                        though none of those is actually
                        correct.

                        In anycase, the pipeline in question (which actually goes to
                        Turkmenistan) was under
                        development under the Taliban with US cooperation, and would have
                        been completed by now
                        had we NOT invaded Afghanistan. Current plans for building it pick
                        up where that plan
                        left off. There was never any question of it getting built prior to
                        the war, and the war actually
                        delayed it by several years, so suggesting that the pipeline was a
                        reason for the war is just
                        ridiculous.

                        This kind of ill-informed assumption is what I spend most of my time
                        battling. Your pipeline
                        story is sister to the popular liberal claim that we invaded Iraq for
                        oil - which makes no sense
                        at all as we could get all the oil we wanted from Saddam without a
                        war which has shut production
                        down almost completely. It's like the '14 Permanent Military Bases
                        in Iraq' claim which I debunked
                        earlier this week (see http://www.diablog.us) or the famous red
                        state/blue state IQ fantasy. People want to believe the worst, so
                        they latch on to some little tidbit of information, totally
                        misunderstand or
                        misinterpret or misrepresent it for their own purposes, spew it out
                        on the web and then people
                        start taking it as gospel.

                        Dave
                        --

                        -----

                        Common Sense for Austin Politics
                        www.commonsenseaustin.com
                        Launching in the Spring of 2004
                      • Dave Nalle
                        ... I think that means support for decriminalization but not full-out legalization, am I right? Dave -- ... Common Sense for Austin Politics
                        Message 11 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >From the RLC website:
                          >
                          >"We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes,
                          >but also that the ‘drug war’ has been
                          >ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of
                          >personal liberty. We favor flexible alternatives
                          >at the state and community level to combat the
                          >harmful aspects of drug use."

                          I think that means support for decriminalization
                          but not full-out legalization, am I right?

                          Dave
                          --

                          -----

                          Common Sense for Austin Politics
                          www.commonsenseaustin.com
                          Launching in the Spring of 2004
                        • DGHarrison
                          I m okay with medicinal uses for effective drugs, but I m against throwing the gates open to recreational drug use. That s just the full disclosure so you know
                          Message 12 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I'm okay with medicinal uses for effective drugs, but I'm against throwing the gates open to recreational drug use. That's just the full disclosure so you know where I stand before I question that item from the RLC website. The first sentence is an acceptable statement of truth, but the second sentence leaves me wondering what is meant by "flexible alternatives ... to combat the harmful aspects of drug use." I can't see any other outcome than costly taxpayer funded rehabilitation programs. So, it seems that drugs cost society whether they are being warred against (law enforcement) or made love to (drug rehab programs).

                            Doug Harrison
                            From the RLC website:
                             
                            "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the ‘drug war’ has been ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of personal liberty. We favor flexible alternatives at the state and community level to combat the harmful aspects of drug use."

                          • pusherprop
                            Let s don t forget our over-riding goal in the Middle East is to keep the oil flowing. A major disruption of the oil supply would send the world into an
                            Message 13 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Let's don't forget our over-riding goal in the Middle East is to keep
                              the oil flowing. A major disruption of the oil supply would send the
                              world into an immediate financial crisis, and possibly something much
                              worse. For example the world credit system could begin to unfold.
                              This is something that no American President wants to happen on his
                              watch. They'll all bend over backward to avoid something like this.

                              So stop looking at the trees (WMDs, pipelines, Iraqi oil) and take a
                              look at the forest. On balance have we done anything to damage the
                              flow of Middle East oil, or conversely have we put strategies in place
                              which strengthen the flow? Focus on Saudi Arabia as the key player in
                              the region. The big picture isn't that hard to see.

                              Chuck Seberg


                              > In anycase, the pipeline in question (which actually goes to
                              > Turkmenistan) was under
                              > development under the Taliban with US cooperation, and would have
                              > been completed by now
                              > had we NOT invaded Afghanistan. Current plans for building it pick
                              > up where that plan
                              > left off. There was never any question of it getting built prior to
                              > the war, and the war actually
                              > delayed it by several years, so suggesting that the pipeline was a
                              > reason for the war is just
                              > ridiculous.
                              >
                              > This kind of ill-informed assumption is what I spend most of my time
                              > battling. Your pipeline
                              > story is sister to the popular liberal claim that we invaded Iraq for
                              > oil - which makes no sense
                              > at all as we could get all the oil we wanted from Saddam without a
                              > war which has shut production
                              > down almost completely. It's like the '14 Permanent Military Bases
                              > in Iraq' claim which I debunked
                              > earlier this week (see http://www.diablog.us) or the famous red
                              > state/blue state IQ fantasy. People want to believe the worst, so
                              > they latch on to some little tidbit of information, totally
                              > misunderstand or
                              > misinterpret or misrepresent it for their own purposes, spew it out
                              > on the web and then people
                              > start taking it as gospel.
                              >
                              > Dave
                              > --
                              >
                              > -----
                              >
                              > Common Sense for Austin Politics
                              > www.commonsenseaustin.com
                              > Launching in the Spring of 2004
                            • John David Galt
                              ... Seems like a reasonable weasel-position, but I hope what it really means is that any move toward the eventual goal of full legalization is encouraged. At
                              Message 14 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > From the RLC website:
                                >
                                > "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the ‘drug
                                > war’ has been ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of personal
                                > liberty. We favor flexible alternatives at the state and community level
                                > to combat the harmful aspects of drug use."

                                Seems like a reasonable weasel-position, but I hope what it really means is
                                that any move toward the eventual goal of full legalization is encouraged.
                                At the very least, those recreational drugs that _can_ be safely consumed
                                (and that's most of them) should be legal for adults, with regulations along
                                the lines of the present laws concerning alcohol (or less strict).

                                But personally, I won't be satisfied until all drugs are fully legal for
                                adults -- and until the lying thugs who have been locking up users and
                                sellers for the last century are hauled in front of "Nuremberg courts", then
                                into prison in place of their victims. Every single one of them.
                              • Dave Nalle
                                ... Well, rehab is cheaper and more effective than locking people up in jail. Plus it doesn t carry with it all of the negative civil rights baggage that the
                                Message 15 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >I'm okay with medicinal uses for effective drugs, but I'm against
                                  >throwing the gates open to recreational drug use. That's just the
                                  >full disclosure so you know where I stand before I question that
                                  >item from the RLC website. The first sentence is an acceptable
                                  >statement of truth, but the second sentence leaves me wondering what
                                  >is meant by "flexible alternatives ... to combat the harmful aspects
                                  >of drug use." I can't see any other outcome than costly taxpayer
                                  >funded rehabilitation programs. So, it seems that drugs cost society
                                  >whether they are being warred against (law enforcement) or made love
                                  >to (drug rehab programs).

                                  Well, rehab is cheaper and more effective than locking people up in
                                  jail. Plus it doesn't carry with it all of the negative civil rights
                                  baggage that the war on drugs has produced. IMO as long as the drug
                                  is no worse than alcohol it might as well be legal for adults in the
                                  privacy of their own homes. We should judge people by what harm they
                                  do to others, not by what they do to themselves.

                                  Dave
                                  --

                                  -----

                                  Common Sense for Austin Politics
                                  www.commonsenseaustin.com
                                  Launching in the Spring of 2004
                                • bill Jambura
                                  Chuck, I agree and invite you back to my original rebuttal to Frank. Implicit in that rebuttal is that it doesn t matter to the consumer who pumps the crude
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Chuck,

                                    I agree and invite you back to my original rebuttal to Frank. Implicit
                                    in that rebuttal is that it doesn't matter to the consumer who pumps the
                                    crude out of the ground, since OPEC fixes the price anyway. But it does
                                    matter to the transnational oil companies whether or not they are the one
                                    that gets to profit from pumping that crude. Thus the rift between the
                                    major players in the European Union and Britain over Iraq. It's not
                                    about religion, freedom or democracy, it's about who gets the profits.

                                    Again, if BP wants to control that oil, then let the Brits die for it.
                                    Or better yet, let all the oil companies hire their own mercenaries to
                                    capture and control those resources. But, I don't blame them for their
                                    ways. As a matter of good business, it's less expensive (more cost
                                    effective) for oil companies to buy puppet governments and career
                                    politicians who'll use their nations armies to secure the resources for
                                    them. Even Adam Smith realized corporations have a bottom line instead
                                    of a conscious.

                                    As for the pipeline in Afghanistan, you're adding a more realistic reason
                                    for America to be there--profits. I suppose if we disturbed the drug
                                    lords who sponsor global terrorists the pipeline project would suffer
                                    greatly. It's funny how money can rapidly eclipses the moral high
                                    ground.

                                    Bill

                                    On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:07:32 -0000 "pusherprop" <pusherprop3@...>
                                    writes:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Let's don't forget our over-riding goal in the Middle East is to
                                    > keep
                                    > the oil flowing. A major disruption of the oil supply would send
                                    > the
                                    > world into an immediate financial crisis, and possibly something
                                    > much
                                    > worse. For example the world credit system could begin to unfold.
                                    > This is something that no American President wants to happen on his
                                    > watch. They'll all bend over backward to avoid something like
                                    > this.
                                    >
                                    > So stop looking at the trees (WMDs, pipelines, Iraqi oil) and take
                                    > a
                                    > look at the forest. On balance have we done anything to damage the
                                    > flow of Middle East oil, or conversely have we put strategies in
                                    > place
                                    > which strengthen the flow? Focus on Saudi Arabia as the key player
                                    > in
                                    > the region. The big picture isn't that hard to see.
                                    >
                                    > Chuck Seberg
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > In anycase, the pipeline in question (which actually goes to
                                    > > Turkmenistan) was under
                                    > > development under the Taliban with US cooperation, and would have
                                    >
                                    > > been completed by now
                                    > > had we NOT invaded Afghanistan. Current plans for building it
                                    > pick
                                    > > up where that plan
                                    > > left off. There was never any question of it getting built prior
                                    > to
                                    > > the war, and the war actually
                                    > > delayed it by several years, so suggesting that the pipeline was a
                                    >
                                    > > reason for the war is just
                                    > > ridiculous.
                                    > >
                                    > > This kind of ill-informed assumption is what I spend most of my
                                    > time
                                    > > battling. Your pipeline
                                    > > story is sister to the popular liberal claim that we invaded Iraq
                                    > for
                                    > > oil - which makes no sense
                                    > > at all as we could get all the oil we wanted from Saddam without a
                                    >
                                    > > war which has shut production
                                    > > down almost completely. It's like the '14 Permanent Military
                                    > Bases
                                    > > in Iraq' claim which I debunked
                                    > > earlier this week (see http://www.diablog.us) or the famous red
                                    > > state/blue state IQ fantasy. People want to believe the worst, so
                                    >
                                    > > they latch on to some little tidbit of information, totally
                                    > > misunderstand or
                                    > > misinterpret or misrepresent it for their own purposes, spew it
                                    > out
                                    > > on the web and then people
                                    > > start taking it as gospel.
                                    > >
                                    > > Dave
                                    > > --
                                    > >
                                    > > -----
                                    > >
                                    > > Common Sense for Austin Politics
                                    > > www.commonsenseaustin.com
                                    > > Launching in the Spring of 2004
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                    > --------------------~-->
                                    > Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                                    > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                                    > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/PdSolB/TM
                                    > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • F Worley
                                    Your comments below are exactly why, recreational drugs use should be legalized, regulated and yes, TAXED. Right now we have 2 dramatic problems, crime and
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Dec 11, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Your comments below are exactly why, recreational drugs use should be legalized, regulated and yes, TAXED.  Right now we have 2 dramatic problems, crime and health.  By legalizing the crime (organized and most violent) would be eliminated as in the end of prohibition.  We would also save upwards of 100 billion dollars per year, by releasing everyone in prison currently held or on probation for drug related crimes.  (rough estimate).
                                       
                                      Then we are left with the health problem.  Which can be financed by the taxes raised by drug uesers. 
                                       
                                      Consider this:  While recreational drug use has remained mostly constant, both Alcohol and Tabacco use have been reduced dramatically in the last 20 years.
                                       
                                      I think we should take a stronger stance on the drug war.
                                       
                                      Frank

                                      DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...> wrote:
                                      ...what is meant by "flexible alternatives ... to combat the harmful aspects of drug use." I can't see any other outcome than costly taxpayer funded rehabilitation programs. So, it seems that drugs cost society whether they are being warred against (law enforcement) or made love to (drug rehab programs).

                                      Doug Harrison
                                      From the RLC website:
                                       
                                      "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes, but also that the �drug war� has been ineffective and has led to terrible abuses of personal liberty. We favor flexible alternatives at the state and community level to combat the harmful aspects of drug use."


                                    • westmiller@aol.com
                                      Good analysis from Jeff Palmer of the RLC position on drugs. From: Jeff Palmer I think it s safe to say that most RLCers favor at least
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Dec 11, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                           Good analysis from Jeff Palmer of the RLC position on drugs.
                                        From: "Jeff Palmer" <jap@...>
                                        I think it's safe to say that most RLCers favor at least substantive
                                        legalization but would prefer that we not allow ourselves to lead with our
                                        chin on the issue to the detriment of our broader objectives...
                                            The Statement attempts to apply the Principles of the prefix to
                                        current topics, without itemizing "platform positions", where
                                        there can be an honest dispute of the facts and proper law. Note
                                        that it applies to *all drugs*, not just hallucinogens or narcotics.
                                        The position is just as applicable to alcohol, cigarettes, and
                                        prescription medicines as it is to marijuana or cocaine.
                                        "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes..." is a "Ransberger Pivot".
                                            I haven't heard the term "Ransberger Pivot", but all of the
                                        Positions start by granting legitimate social or political concerns,
                                        then articulating a principled response.
                                        ... Flexible alternatives could include legalization, decriminalization, availability by
                                        prescription, elimination of unconstitutional means of enforcement, etc.
                                            ... as well as the "radical" position that would only support
                                        laws protecting minors (who can't give informed consent), fraud
                                        (adulteration or fake chemical products), and copyright.
                                        Such inspecificity has the advantage of being inclusive of all of our
                                        members' thinking and, thus, non-divisive to us an organization.  It also
                                        has the advantage of clearly placing us on the side of the issue calling for
                                        a change in our current drug policy while not placing us so "in your face"
                                        of the prevailing social conservative opinion that we compromise our ability
                                        to act as a force within the GOP.
                                            Exactly correct. It allows us to support "interim steps" that
                                        conform with our principles, such as legalized medical marijuana,
                                        the abolition of rigid minimum drug sentences, and FDA dictates
                                        on "safe and effective" licensing.
                                            Since the purpose of this eGroup is to discuss RLC *Action*,
                                        not debate issues, our chapters use the "World's Smallest Political
                                        Quiz" from the Advocates (self-gov.org), which includes the issue
                                        statement: "Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of
                                        drugs?"
                                            Now, as to doing some serious work, we have an agreement
                                        with the Marijuana Policy Project [MPP] to exchange mailing
                                        lists - from over a year ago - but haven't had anyone who had the
                                        time and interest to compose a solicitation to their members.
                                            If anyone is willing to take on this outreach project, please let
                                        me know ASAP.
                                         
                                        Bill Westmiller
                                        RLC Chairman
                                      • Kevin Boyd
                                        Bill, I m off from university until late-January. I can at least get started on soliciting the MPP mailing list. So count me in. Kevin Boyd Interim Coordinator
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Dec 11, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Bill,

                                          I'm off from university until late-January. I can at least get started
                                          on soliciting the MPP mailing list. So count me in.

                                          Kevin Boyd
                                          Interim Coordinator
                                          RLC-Louisiana

                                          --- In RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com, westmiller@a... wrote:
                                          > Good analysis from Jeff Palmer of the RLC position on drugs.
                                          > From: "Jeff Palmer" <jap@h...>
                                          > I think it's safe to say that most RLCers favor at least substantive
                                          > legalization but would prefer that we not allow ourselves to lead
                                          with our
                                          > chin on the issue to the detriment of our broader objectives...
                                          > The Statement attempts to apply the Principles of the prefix to
                                          > current topics, without itemizing "platform positions", where
                                          > there can be an honest dispute of the facts and proper law. Note
                                          > that it applies to *all drugs*, not just hallucinogens or narcotics.
                                          > The position is just as applicable to alcohol, cigarettes, and
                                          > prescription medicines as it is to marijuana or cocaine.
                                          > "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes..." is a "Ransberger
                                          Pivot".
                                          > I haven't heard the term "Ransberger Pivot", but all of the
                                          > Positions start by granting legitimate social or political concerns,
                                          > then articulating a principled response.
                                          > ... Flexible alternatives could include legalization,
                                          decriminalization,
                                          > availability by
                                          > prescription, elimination of unconstitutional means of enforcement,
                                          etc.
                                          > ... as well as the "radical" position that would only support
                                          > laws protecting minors (who can't give informed consent), fraud
                                          > (adulteration or fake chemical products), and copyright.
                                          > Such inspecificity has the advantage of being inclusive of all of
                                          our
                                          > members' thinking and, thus, non-divisive to us an organization. It
                                          also
                                          > has the advantage of clearly placing us on the side of the issue
                                          calling for
                                          > a change in our current drug policy while not placing us so "in your
                                          face"
                                          > of the prevailing social conservative opinion that we compromise our
                                          ability
                                          > to act as a force within the GOP.
                                          > Exactly correct. It allows us to support "interim steps" that
                                          > conform with our principles, such as legalized medical marijuana,
                                          > the abolition of rigid minimum drug sentences, and FDA dictates
                                          > on "safe and effective" licensing.
                                          > Since the purpose of this eGroup is to discuss RLC *Action*,
                                          > not debate issues, our chapters use the "World's Smallest Political
                                          > Quiz" from the Advocates (self-gov.org), which includes the issue
                                          > statement: "Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of
                                          > drugs?"
                                          > Now, as to doing some serious work, we have an agreement
                                          > with the Marijuana Policy Project [MPP] to exchange mailing
                                          > lists - from over a year ago - but haven't had anyone who had the
                                          > time and interest to compose a solicitation to their members.
                                          > If anyone is willing to take on this outreach project, please
                                          let
                                          > me know ASAP.
                                          >
                                          > Bill Westmiller
                                          > RLC Chairman
                                        • westmiller@aol.com
                                          Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:01:20 -0000 From: Kevin Boyd _kevinboyd1984@yahoo.com_ (mailto:kevinboyd1984@yahoo.com) ... Excellent. The primary task is
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Dec 12, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                               Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:01:20 -0000
                                               From: "Kevin Boyd" kevinboyd1984@...

                                            >
                                            I'm off from university until late-January. I can at least get started
                                            >
                                            on soliciting the MPP mailing list. So count me in.
                                             
                                                Excellent. The primary task is composing the solicitation letter
                                            and other materials that would go into the mailing. We have to get
                                            approval of those materials from MPP before we get the list for
                                            mailing. The package also needs to be reviewed by the RLC Board
                                            before submission to MPP. To start, draft a letter that you think
                                            would be appealing and motivate their members to join the RLC.
                                            Suggest an enclosure that would directly address the issue,
                                            perhaps from some prominent RLC advocate (I'm not sure that
                                            we can reach Gary Johnson, but Lyn Nofzinger is on the RLC
                                            Advisory Board and certainly well known).
                                             
                                            Bill
                                          • Barry Moore
                                            Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline? Answer: I think it was a high point of
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
                                               
                                              Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.

                                              F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                                              The original point was that we were only liberating oil rich nations, a point I took issue with.  I think the discussion is now a bit off topic, so you can respond to me personally at worley_f2003@... if you wish. 
                                               
                                              Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?
                                               
                                              Frank

                                              Barry Moore <b_moore@...> wrote:
                                              Frank,
                                               
                                              "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
                                               
                                              Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
                                               
                                              --- Barry
                                               
                                              "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
                                               
                                              "�It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.�
                                              - George Washington, 1797

                                              F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              __________________________________________________
                                              Do You Yahoo!?
                                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                              http://mail.yahoo.com

                                            • bill Jambura
                                              Binary arguments work well in spin machines. But I don t see it as an either or , but an and too . Please go back a few e-mails in this series to read my
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Binary arguments work well in spin machines.  But I don't see it as an "either or", but an "and too".  Please go back a few e-mails in this series to read my e-mail of 10 Dec 04 reprinted below: 
                                                 
                                                "Well said Barry! 
                                                 
                                                Also, we went into Afghanistan to get the Taliban and Bin Ladin who sponsored attacks on America--no doubts there.  We have every right to be there.  Some people still like to blur Afghanistan with what we're doing in Iraq. 
                                                 
                                                As a foot note, we didn't and won't  touch the poppy fields in Afghanistan--never mind our War on Drugs.  Yet, we're told that illegal drug traffic is a major funding source for terrorists.  So who really controls Afghanistan, the new president or the drug lords who sponsor the terrorists?  A question that extends to many of  the "democracies" in South and Central America.  Maybe it's time to invent a new term:  DINO--Democracy In Name Only."
                                                 
                                                (In real time, I'm pleased to hear that we are now going to go after the opium lords in Afghanistan.  The sooner we send them to Allah, the better for all!  I just wish we were more aggressive in South and Central America, instead of pursuing the end users in our own country at the peril of everyone's civil rights.)
                                                 
                                                Bill Jambura
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                                On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:21:46 -0800 (PST) Barry Moore <b_moore@...> writes:
                                                "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
                                                 
                                                Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.

                                                F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                                                The original point was that we were only liberating oil rich nations, a point I took issue with.  I think the discussion is now a bit off topic, so you can respond to me personally at worley_f2003@... if you wish. 
                                                 
                                                Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?
                                                 
                                                Frank

                                                Barry Moore <b_moore@...> wrote:
                                                Frank,
                                                 
                                                "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
                                                 
                                                Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
                                                 
                                                --- Barry
                                                 
                                                "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
                                                 
                                                "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
                                                - George Washington, 1797

                                                F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                                                 

                                                __________________________________________________
                                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                http://mail.yahoo.com

                                                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                                                Get unlimited calls to

                                                U.S./Canada

                                                 
                                              • Chuck Seberg
                                                I see lots of binary logic on this list. But you must know the government figures everything six ways from Sunday before they make a move. If the invasion of
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  I see lots of binary logic on this list.  But you must know the government figures everything six ways from Sunday before they make a move.  If the invasion of Afganistan accomplished a major goal (neutralizing the terrorists), and had half a dozen beneficial side-effects, so much the better.  Nothing surprising in that.
                                                   
                                                  I have a book recommendation for you guys.  It's "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid.  He's a Pakistani journalist who got inside the Taliban, and does a good job of laying out Afghanistan before the US invasion.  It was far from a simple situation then, so I doubt our involvement is anything but simple now.  Not really something which lends itself to simple analysis.
                                                   
                                                  BTW, what does any of this have to do with RLC-Action?
                                                   
                                                  Chuck Seberg
                                                   
                                                   

                                                  Binary arguments work well in spin machines.  But I don't see it as an "either or", but an "and too".  Please go back a few e-mails in this series to read my e-mail of 10 Dec 04 reprinted below: 
                                                   
                                                  "Well said Barry! 
                                                   
                                                  Also, we went into Afghanistan to get the Taliban and Bin Ladin who sponsored attacks on America--no doubts there.  We have every right to be there.  Some people still like to blur Afghanistan with what we're doing in Iraq. 
                                                   
                                                  As a foot note, we didn't and won't  touch the poppy fields in Afghanistan--never mind our War on Drugs.  Yet, we're told that illegal drug traffic is a major funding source for terrorists.  So who really controls Afghanistan, the new president or the drug lords who sponsor the terrorists?  A question that extends to many of  the "democracies" in South and Central America.  Maybe it's time to invent a new term:  DINO--Democracy In Name Only."
                                                   
                                                  (In real time, I'm pleased to hear that we are now going to go after the opium lords in Afghanistan.  The sooner we send them to Allah, the better for all!  I just wish we were more aggressive in South and Central America, instead of pursuing the end users in our own country at the peril of everyone's civil rights.)
                                                   
                                                  Bill Jambura
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                  On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:21:46 -0800 (PST) Barry Moore <b_moore@...> writes:
                                                  "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
                                                   
                                                  Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.

                                                  F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                                                  The original point was that we were only liberating oil rich nations, a point I took issue with.  I think the discussion is now a bit off topic, so you can respond to me personally at worley_f2003@... if you wish. 
                                                   
                                                  Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?
                                                   
                                                  Frank

                                                  Barry Moore <b_moore@...> wrote:
                                                  Frank,
                                                   
                                                  "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
                                                   
                                                  Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
                                                   
                                                  --- Barry
                                                   
                                                  "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
                                                   
                                                  "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
                                                  - George Washington, 1797

                                                  F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                                                   

                                                  __________________________________________________
                                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                                                • Guy McLendon
                                                  Why only send in Agent 007 with a letter of marque when you can instead send in the Marines, and have the pipeline as a bonus? ... From: Barry Moore To:
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Why only send in Agent 007 with a letter of marque when you can instead send in the Marines, and have the pipeline as a bonus?
                                                     
                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:21 AM
                                                    Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Our Constitution

                                                    "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
                                                     
                                                    Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.

                                                  • F Worley
                                                    I think being cynical (forgive my early morning spelling) is probably a good thing. But there is a limit. We harm our own credibility, when we allege
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Dec 14, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I think being  cynical  (forgive my early morning spelling) is probably a good thing.  But there is a limit.  We harm our own credibility, when we allege things as silly as this.  It really is irresponsible to say or even allege that the US invaded afghanistan for the sole purpose of getting a pipeline or with that in mind or as a primary benifit. 
                                                       
                                                      The Taliban were given an opportunity to hand over Bin Laden and could have done so and kept their control over the country, they refused. 
                                                       
                                                      Our ability to be effective in actions we support or take, is directly affected by how people perceive us.  If we make wild accusations, with lilttle or not basis in fact or relevence to the issues of the day, we cannot hope to have an impact.
                                                       
                                                      You may believe these accusations are based in fact, but are they really relevent to what is going on in our nation? 
                                                       
                                                      More importantly, it implies that, were we in charge, we would not have invaded Afghanistan in order to avoid the perception that we might be trading blood for oil.
                                                       
                                                      And who would vote for someone afraid to defend the nation because it my be misinterpreted as a drive for oil?
                                                       
                                                      Frank

                                                      Guy McLendon <guy@...> wrote:
                                                      Why only send in Agent 007 with a letter of marque when you can instead send in the Marines, and have the pipeline as a bonus?
                                                       
                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:21 AM
                                                      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Our Constitution

                                                      "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
                                                       
                                                      Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.


                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.