Either way, it's all about oil!
-
That is because the air is too thin up there. :laugh:;P Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Well, I work in Boulder, and it get's pretty thick around there! My uncle refers to Boulder as "Colorado's Forty-square Miles of Unreality" ;P "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
-
On the other hand, if the US was only concerned about oil, it could easily allow US corporations to build a pipeline through Iran. (Oil companies have wanted to do this for a long time, but the US government has stopped them.) Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq. Oops! I'm sorry if I'm clumbsily destroying your arguement. Did I mention that oil can be routed through Russia? (Oh gosh, am I making too much sense?) How about the fact that alternative fuel vehicles are starting to arrive (8 major car manufacturers will have alternative-fuel vehicles available by 2005). Hence, there is no need to secure oil reserves over the course of the next few decades. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: How about the fact that alternative fuel vehicles are starting to arrive (8 major car manufacturers will have alternative-fuel vehicles available by 2005). Hence, there is no need to secure oil reserves over the course of the next few decades. See this is the way to do it. Let new technology reduce the strategic importance of the region. We can then stop supporting the tin pot dicatorships (Saudi, Kuwait etc). Then maybe the area will get around to sorting out it's own problems instead of using the oil as a bargining tool. Michael Programming is great. First they pay you to introduce bugs into software. Then they pay you to remove them again.
-
LOL... Come of Chris, you can do it if you tried. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
i tried. but then i thought: hmm... Saddam probably doesn't want to attack the US outright; he knows his little kingdom would be a slag heap within hours. so, Iraq probably isn't a direct threat to the US and GWB must know this, regardless of what he says. maybe Saddam wants to attack his neighbors, but he must remember how quickly he was driven back last time. so, he's probably not a real threat to his neighbors. GWB must know this, too. maybe Saddam wants to help or harbor terrorists, but he's not the only one on that list. GWB must know this, too, but as far as I know, we're not lined up to invade Syria, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. so, that brings us back to the question we've been asking for months: why is GWB so intent on attacking Iraq? the oil angle makes sense - and while maybe it's not the whole story, it's safe to assume that GWB would love to have Iraq's huge oil reserves under US control (via a hand-picked puppet government). of course, he'd probably love to have another US-friendly government in that region of the world, too -which brings up many more nefarious scenarios! :) -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
-
On the other hand, if the US was only concerned about oil, it could easily allow US corporations to build a pipeline through Iran. (Oil companies have wanted to do this for a long time, but the US government has stopped them.) Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq. Oops! I'm sorry if I'm clumbsily destroying your arguement. Did I mention that oil can be routed through Russia? (Oh gosh, am I making too much sense?) How about the fact that alternative fuel vehicles are starting to arrive (8 major car manufacturers will have alternative-fuel vehicles available by 2005). Hence, there is no need to secure oil reserves over the course of the next few decades. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Yeah, but Iran and Russia didn't try to kill Bush & his papa... Saddam orchestrated a (failed) assassination attempt on them when they were in Kuwait in 1992/1993. Personally, I think that this move against Iraq has 3 (or more) purposes: 1. Permentantly remove Saddam from power (a good thing for everyone, except Saddam) 2. Remove some of the power from OPEC by removing Iraq's oil supply from them, and thereby cutting off some of the money that goes into those terrorist supporting countries (a good thing for everyone, except the terrorists) 3. Break in half the largest terrorist-supporting region in the world (Iraq is between Syria and Iran), and be able to "potentially" provide long-term stability to the region (a good thing for everyone except the radical islamists who want to kill everyone that doesn't think like they do) The whole world has been having to deal with this region constantly for years, and even if Israel wasn't over there, the world would still have to deal with OPEC and the jihadis. IMO, Israel's just their current excuse for their behavior -- before Israel was there, Britain had to deal with the Arabs, and before they were against Britain, they were against each other! Sooner or later, people will realize that peace in the Middle East just isn't going to happen until a BIG country (or a bunch of them) says "We've had enough!" And who knows what will happen then? :confused: "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
-
On the other hand, if the US was only concerned about oil, it could easily allow US corporations to build a pipeline through Iran. (Oil companies have wanted to do this for a long time, but the US government has stopped them.) Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq. Oops! I'm sorry if I'm clumbsily destroying your arguement. Did I mention that oil can be routed through Russia? (Oh gosh, am I making too much sense?) How about the fact that alternative fuel vehicles are starting to arrive (8 major car manufacturers will have alternative-fuel vehicles available by 2005). Hence, there is no need to secure oil reserves over the course of the next few decades. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: Oil companies have wanted to do this for a long time, but the US government has stopped them on "aiding terrorist" grounds. which is very interesting, seeing as they're more than happy to let us burn Saudi Arabiain oil. -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
-
Breaking Eggs "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
I have no love for Iraq or any other American hating culture. However, the biggest problem I have with attacking Iraq is timing. 10 years ago, we defeated their army and set some rules for the cessation of hostilities. Iraq has consistently ignored these for the past 10 years. It's awfully damned late to suddenly get a case of righteous indignation and attack them. We should have immediately resumed air strikes and leveled their infrastructure each and every time they broke the rules, without hesitation and without exception. Not doing so in the past makes it very difficult to do so now. Of course, there are no simple and easy answers. Glad I didn't choose politics as a career. Well, non-corporate politics, anyway. :-) Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
Breaking Eggs "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
"You might not be too far off if you wondered if..." "Now expand your concerns to include..." "You wouldn't be paranoid if..." "By this time you would not be too far off if..." "Having reached this point, you couldn't be blamed if..." "Given that conclusion, the next step would be..." "Given all of the above, can you be blamed if..." "Wouldn't it be nice, you'd think, if..." "Then you might remember..." "From that point on it's only a simple step from going ahead and..." There are quite a few "blind leaps" of faith here, call me crazy, but I like my editorials with a little more substance.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Doesn't every Texan yearn for national, if not global conquest? (we Coloradoans don't like Texans much... ;P ) "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
Chris Hambleton wrote: (we Coloradoans don't like Texans much... The big problem is that Texans go to Colorado for vacation, steal all the good looking women ( and there aren't that many there to start with ) , drive up prices ( we got jobs in Texas ) and then leave - headed back to the promised land. The poor unemployeed over taxed Coloradians just move to Texas on a permanant basis and never leave. One taste of Austin or Dallas and you can't get them back on the farm. Thats the problem. :) Jealousy raises its ugly head once again. Hell if it weren't for the music festivals and semi decent trout fishing I would never go. Denver is polluted and dreary - Boulder is a little hick town - Telluride is OK but there is not much there ( thats why I go there however ). But I usually get out of the car and kiss the "Welcome To Texas" sign on the way back. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
I have no love for Iraq or any other American hating culture. However, the biggest problem I have with attacking Iraq is timing. 10 years ago, we defeated their army and set some rules for the cessation of hostilities. Iraq has consistently ignored these for the past 10 years. It's awfully damned late to suddenly get a case of righteous indignation and attack them. We should have immediately resumed air strikes and leveled their infrastructure each and every time they broke the rules, without hesitation and without exception. Not doing so in the past makes it very difficult to do so now. Of course, there are no simple and easy answers. Glad I didn't choose politics as a career. Well, non-corporate politics, anyway. :-) Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: awfully damned late to suddenly get a case of righteous indignation and attack them Of course there was some numb nuts in office, who was spending too much time in court, and evading responsiblity, to think much about Middle East policy. BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
-
I have no love for Iraq or any other American hating culture. However, the biggest problem I have with attacking Iraq is timing. 10 years ago, we defeated their army and set some rules for the cessation of hostilities. Iraq has consistently ignored these for the past 10 years. It's awfully damned late to suddenly get a case of righteous indignation and attack them. We should have immediately resumed air strikes and leveled their infrastructure each and every time they broke the rules, without hesitation and without exception. Not doing so in the past makes it very difficult to do so now. Of course, there are no simple and easy answers. Glad I didn't choose politics as a career. Well, non-corporate politics, anyway. :-) Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: Not doing so in the past makes it very difficult to do so now. The price we pay for having a horny dishrag for a president 8 out of the last 10 years I guess. ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Brit wrote: Oil companies have wanted to do this for a long time, but the US government has stopped them on "aiding terrorist" grounds. which is very interesting, seeing as they're more than happy to let us burn Saudi Arabiain oil. -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
You know what's hilarious about all this is that in the US, most conservatives & liberals / Repubs & Dems agree that the US (and the rest of the world) needs to reduce if not eliminate their need for oil. If we all agree, then why's there a problem? Politics! No politician or party wants to get blamed for squashing the economy: the Republicans want to keep the oil-dependant companies happy, and the Democrats want to keep the union workers employed in the oil-dependant companies! WE ALL LOSE! So, how will the world reduce it's need for oil? Only if we HAVE to.... "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
-
Chris Hambleton wrote: (we Coloradoans don't like Texans much... The big problem is that Texans go to Colorado for vacation, steal all the good looking women ( and there aren't that many there to start with ) , drive up prices ( we got jobs in Texas ) and then leave - headed back to the promised land. The poor unemployeed over taxed Coloradians just move to Texas on a permanant basis and never leave. One taste of Austin or Dallas and you can't get them back on the farm. Thats the problem. :) Jealousy raises its ugly head once again. Hell if it weren't for the music festivals and semi decent trout fishing I would never go. Denver is polluted and dreary - Boulder is a little hick town - Telluride is OK but there is not much there ( thats why I go there however ). But I usually get out of the car and kiss the "Welcome To Texas" sign on the way back. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
That's what I thought! ;P "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
-
On the other hand, if the US was only concerned about oil, it could easily allow US corporations to build a pipeline through Iran. (Oil companies have wanted to do this for a long time, but the US government has stopped them.) Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq. Oops! I'm sorry if I'm clumbsily destroying your arguement. Did I mention that oil can be routed through Russia? (Oh gosh, am I making too much sense?) How about the fact that alternative fuel vehicles are starting to arrive (8 major car manufacturers will have alternative-fuel vehicles available by 2005). Hence, there is no need to secure oil reserves over the course of the next few decades. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
The bulk of all plastics are made from oil :) So fuel for cars doesn't really matter that much anyway. As far as I'm concerned it's the fact the Iraq may (or may not) have bought North Korean technology for missiles that reach over 3400 miles. That puts England within range of Iraq :( B.
-
i tried. but then i thought: hmm... Saddam probably doesn't want to attack the US outright; he knows his little kingdom would be a slag heap within hours. so, Iraq probably isn't a direct threat to the US and GWB must know this, regardless of what he says. maybe Saddam wants to attack his neighbors, but he must remember how quickly he was driven back last time. so, he's probably not a real threat to his neighbors. GWB must know this, too. maybe Saddam wants to help or harbor terrorists, but he's not the only one on that list. GWB must know this, too, but as far as I know, we're not lined up to invade Syria, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. so, that brings us back to the question we've been asking for months: why is GWB so intent on attacking Iraq? the oil angle makes sense - and while maybe it's not the whole story, it's safe to assume that GWB would love to have Iraq's huge oil reserves under US control (via a hand-picked puppet government). of course, he'd probably love to have another US-friendly government in that region of the world, too -which brings up many more nefarious scenarios! :) -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
Chris Losinger wrote: it's safe to assume that GWB would love to have Iraq's huge oil reserves under US control (via a hand-picked puppet government). Kinda like we have Kuwaits oil reserves locked up. Always looking for a way to jab the pres are we ? Chris Losinger wrote: of course, he'd probably love to have another US-friendly government in that region of the world, too -which brings up many more nefarious scenarios! Would you prefer that ALL the Govts over there hate the US ? makes sense to me to have all the friends you can get in that part of the world. Of course I'm not privy to all thats going on sice GW does not respond to my E-Mails any more. Wonder whats wrong with the boy. All this planning world conquest must be tiring on him. Somebody get him a chicken fried steak and a beer before he accidently wipes out part of Europe by mistake - no wait - we already have troops in Europe. Damn - what about Brazil - they got oil - lets do them - bada bing bada boom Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's safe to assume that GWB would love to have Iraq's huge oil reserves under US control (via a hand-picked puppet government). Kinda like we have Kuwaits oil reserves locked up. Always looking for a way to jab the pres are we ? Chris Losinger wrote: of course, he'd probably love to have another US-friendly government in that region of the world, too -which brings up many more nefarious scenarios! Would you prefer that ALL the Govts over there hate the US ? makes sense to me to have all the friends you can get in that part of the world. Of course I'm not privy to all thats going on sice GW does not respond to my E-Mails any more. Wonder whats wrong with the boy. All this planning world conquest must be tiring on him. Somebody get him a chicken fried steak and a beer before he accidently wipes out part of Europe by mistake - no wait - we already have troops in Europe. Damn - what about Brazil - they got oil - lets do them - bada bing bada boom Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: Would you prefer that ALL the Govts over there hate the US ? woah! hold on there, Tex! i didn't say it was a bad thing to have a US-friendly govt! but, wouldln't it be better for everyone if that US-friendly govt was actually made up of people who were elected by the people they govern ? we're all about democracy, right? because if we set up another puppet govt with no real support from the population, we could end up with a situation like the one in Saudi Arabia, where the general population sees the US as the root of their problems. -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: GWB's dreams of conquest GWB is a politician, and therefore by definition not smart enough to conquer his dog. Generals conquer. Politicians administrate. Dogs urinate in inconvenient places, which probably qualifies them for either job. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: GWB is a politician, and therefore by definition not smart enough to conquer his dog. Generals conquer. Politicians administrate. Dogs urinate in inconvenient places, which probably qualifies them for either job. But you can train a dog - and a General - but not a politican ( you can however buy one as well as a dog ). Was Alex the Great a general or a politician. What about Ghengis Khan - what was he ? When did GW become a politician - before or after he sold the Rangers. Cause he sure ain't did nothing for them lately - First in War - First in peace - last in the American League .Damn I'm confused today. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Christopher Duncan wrote: Not doing so in the past makes it very difficult to do so now. The price we pay for having a horny dishrag for a president 8 out of the last 10 years I guess. ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
or.. it's the price we pay for wasting 2 years on an impeachment trial when there were certainly more important things going on in the world. or, it's the price we pay for not finishing the job the first tie around. -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
-
or.. it's the price we pay for wasting 2 years on an impeachment trial when there were certainly more important things going on in the world. or, it's the price we pay for not finishing the job the first tie around. -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
-
You know what's hilarious about all this is that in the US, most conservatives & liberals / Repubs & Dems agree that the US (and the rest of the world) needs to reduce if not eliminate their need for oil. If we all agree, then why's there a problem? Politics! No politician or party wants to get blamed for squashing the economy: the Republicans want to keep the oil-dependant companies happy, and the Democrats want to keep the union workers employed in the oil-dependant companies! WE ALL LOSE! So, how will the world reduce it's need for oil? Only if we HAVE to.... "Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." --Samuel Adams
Chris Hambleton wrote: So, how will the world reduce it's need for oil? the change has to come from outside the "system". just like IBM wasn't the company to spearhead the PC revolution. even though they made the hardware, IBM needed the vision of a company like MS to really get things going. and before them, Apple pioneered the idea of computing for the masses (with some help, true). so, i'm waiting for the day when some clever inventor backs out of his garage with something that avoids oil altogether. (no, not a scooter with a motor) -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
-
That's why they call him "Slick Willy", because nothing is ever his fault.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
not saying it wasn't his fault or that he wasn't guilty - only that it wasn't worth the time and effort the govt wasted on it. -c
Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."