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

Re: Speaking of Drugs

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.