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

Re: [RLC-Action] Our Constitution

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
      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 2 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004

        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 3 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
          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 4 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
            >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 5 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
              >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 6 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                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 7 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                  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 8 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                    > 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 9 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                      >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 10 of 27 , Dec 10, 2004
                        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 11 of 27 , Dec 11, 2004
                          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 12 of 27 , Dec 11, 2004
                               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 13 of 27 , Dec 11, 2004
                              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 14 of 27 , Dec 12, 2004
                                   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 15 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                                  "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 16 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                                    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 17 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                                      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 18 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                                        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 19 of 27 , Dec 14, 2004
                                          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.