Either way, it's all about oil!
-
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."
-
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."
Of course, that just flies in the fact of reality. We already know Saddam has been behind some terrorist activity in the US. He also has already shown that he can push the U.N. around. Then as long as he makes the whole thing out to be "the evil U.S. coming after little ole him", then he need not worry about the U.N. getting behind any attacks. 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
-
Of course, that just flies in the fact of reality. We already know Saddam has been behind some terrorist activity in the US. He also has already shown that he can push the U.N. around. Then as long as he makes the whole thing out to be "the evil U.S. coming after little ole him", then he need not worry about the U.N. getting behind any attacks. 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
Tim Smith wrote: Of course, that just flies in the fact of reality. what does? Tim Smith wrote: We already know Saddam has been behind some terrorist activity in the US references? Tim Smith wrote: He also has already shown that he can push the U.N. around. no argument there. so, are you arguing for invading iraq? cause last i knew, you had issues with the whole idea (too lazy to find the link) -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 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."
Agreed. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is Company A owned by Company B owned by Company C... agrees to take this inventor's project mainstream. And one of the parent companies or banks that owns the little company sees that producing this invention will put them at risk. And then they put down the Big Kabosh! And the invention never sees the light of day... In the end, Necessity is the Mother of all Invention, and if there's no Necessity (as deemed by the banks, corps, etc) there'll be no invention... "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
-
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: 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 In a perfect world - yes. In the real world the middle east could not would not and can not support a democracy. The religious faction would not allow it - the populance is not educated enough to benefit from it - and the level of corruption is so high ( look at Egypt ) that it would denegrate into a dictatorship with much rapidity. Chris Losinger wrote: 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. This is not going to change unless we ( the US ) become like them and thats not going to happen. See the part about education above. 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
-
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.
The bulk of all plastics are made from oil So fuel for cars doesn't really matter that much anyway (I don't know why I remember this kind of trivia, but...) Transportation accounts for 70% of the US oil consumption. If the US completely eliminated it's oil-based transportation (which, would obviously take some time), the US could support the other 30% of oil consumption using it's own oil resources. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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: Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq Problem is, the Saddam regime has contracts with Russia, France, and China. So these three countries will sit first on the oil wells when sanctions are lifted. Now of course a change in regime means these contracts can be re-haggled... The "rebuilding of Afghanistan", US part, will probably consist of a pipeline to tap the oil fields in "one of the T***istans" north of it. Fun is, under the Taliban regime Unocal was just so close in doing just that. What real hurts is that the US is one of the few countries that don't even *need* foreign oil.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
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."
Chris Losinger wrote: only that it wasn't worth the time and effort the govt wasted on it. True, but you also have to look at the flip side - Bill should have been paying attention to world events more and looking for his next "piece of ass" less. Also imagine how much time would have been saved if he would have been honest in the first place.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
"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
Mike, your reply was so obvious fom just reading the original post, why did you even write it? ;P Whatever you say, in all the open "why?"'s one thing regulary pops up to fill the gap: the US demand for oil, and especially it's seek for foreign resources.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
Mike, your reply was so obvious fom just reading the original post, why did you even write it? ;P Whatever you say, in all the open "why?"'s one thing regulary pops up to fill the gap: the US demand for oil, and especially it's seek for foreign resources.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
peterchen wrote: Whatever you say, in all the open "why?"'s one thing regulary pops up to fill the gap: the US demand for oil, and especially it's seek for foreign resources. I don't generally disagree with the idea that oil might have something to do with Bush's desires in Iraq, but I'm not ready to accept it blindly due to preconcieved notions like the author of the article. I just thought the editorial was VERY poorly written. I would have graded it a C-/D+ in a college level rhetoric class. peterchen wrote: Mike, your reply was so obvious fom just reading the original post, why did you even write it? Damn, am I getting that predictable?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
peterchen wrote: Whatever you say, in all the open "why?"'s one thing regulary pops up to fill the gap: the US demand for oil, and especially it's seek for foreign resources. I don't generally disagree with the idea that oil might have something to do with Bush's desires in Iraq, but I'm not ready to accept it blindly due to preconcieved notions like the author of the article. I just thought the editorial was VERY poorly written. I would have graded it a C-/D+ in a college level rhetoric class. peterchen wrote: Mike, your reply was so obvious fom just reading the original post, why did you even write it? Damn, am I getting that predictable?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Brit wrote: Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq Problem is, the Saddam regime has contracts with Russia, France, and China. So these three countries will sit first on the oil wells when sanctions are lifted. Now of course a change in regime means these contracts can be re-haggled... The "rebuilding of Afghanistan", US part, will probably consist of a pipeline to tap the oil fields in "one of the T***istans" north of it. Fun is, under the Taliban regime Unocal was just so close in doing just that. What real hurts is that the US is one of the few countries that don't even *need* foreign oil.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq Problem is, the Saddam regime has contracts with Russia, France, and China. So these three countries will sit first on the oil wells when sanctions are lifted. Now of course a change in regime means these contracts can be re-haggled... Assuming that Russia, France, and China get the lion's share of the oil freed up by dropping sanctions, it would still have the net effect of reducing Russian, French, and Chinese draws on oil in other parts of the world. This would increase the availablity of oil from other countries and reduce oil prices. Hence, the US doesn't have to buy a single drop of Iraqi oil to gain the benefits of increasing Iraqi oil production. The "rebuilding of Afghanistan", US part, will probably consist of a pipeline to tap the oil fields in "one of the T***istans" north of it. Fun is, under the Taliban regime Unocal was just so close in doing just that. And build a pipeline through Pakistan (because Afghanistan is landlocked). From what I've read, the US has so far given more aid money to the new Afghanistan than any other country. In any case, a pipeline would benefit the new Afghanistan because it can tax it. So, it's not a bad infrastructure investment from the cash-strapped Afghani viewpoint. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
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: Coloradoans don't like Texans much... News flash... Nobody likes Texans much, except maybe Texans...:-D
-
Additionally, it could increase oil production by removing sanctions on Iraq Problem is, the Saddam regime has contracts with Russia, France, and China. So these three countries will sit first on the oil wells when sanctions are lifted. Now of course a change in regime means these contracts can be re-haggled... Assuming that Russia, France, and China get the lion's share of the oil freed up by dropping sanctions, it would still have the net effect of reducing Russian, French, and Chinese draws on oil in other parts of the world. This would increase the availablity of oil from other countries and reduce oil prices. Hence, the US doesn't have to buy a single drop of Iraqi oil to gain the benefits of increasing Iraqi oil production. The "rebuilding of Afghanistan", US part, will probably consist of a pipeline to tap the oil fields in "one of the T***istans" north of it. Fun is, under the Taliban regime Unocal was just so close in doing just that. And build a pipeline through Pakistan (because Afghanistan is landlocked). From what I've read, the US has so far given more aid money to the new Afghanistan than any other country. In any case, a pipeline would benefit the new Afghanistan because it can tax it. So, it's not a bad infrastructure investment from the cash-strapped Afghani viewpoint. ------------------------------------------ "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: So, it's not a bad infrastructure investment Look at east germany. If they planned to build a oil pipeline here, all would agree that "we have no use whatsoever for it, but it creates jobs, and attracts tourists, so it's a good thing". :cool:
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
Brit wrote: So, it's not a bad infrastructure investment Look at east germany. If they planned to build a oil pipeline here, all would agree that "we have no use whatsoever for it, but it creates jobs, and attracts tourists, so it's a good thing". :cool:
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
Look at east germany. If they planned to build a oil pipeline here, all would agree that "we have no use whatsoever for it, but it creates jobs, and attracts tourists, so it's a good thing". I'm not quite sure what the point of your statement is, and how a non-functioning East German pipeline compares to a functioning pipeline which allows Afghanis to tax the oil that goes through it. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
Look at east germany. If they planned to build a oil pipeline here, all would agree that "we have no use whatsoever for it, but it creates jobs, and attracts tourists, so it's a good thing". I'm not quite sure what the point of your statement is, and how a non-functioning East German pipeline compares to a functioning pipeline which allows Afghanis to tax the oil that goes through it. ------------------------------------------ "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
my point: No matter how stupid something is, we will still see the economic virtue. Corollary: no matter how economically sound something looks, it can still be an atrocity to the human mind.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
-
my point: No matter how stupid something is, we will still see the economic virtue. Corollary: no matter how economically sound something looks, it can still be an atrocity to the human mind.
Auch den Schatten will ich lieben weil ich manchmal lieber frier' Rosenstolz [sighist]
my point: No matter how stupid something is, we will still see the economic virtue. Corollary: no matter how economically sound something looks, it can still be an atrocity to the human mind. You do realize that a pipeline through Afghanistan would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars every year to Afghanistan, right? Are you arguing that a pipeline should not be built simply to prove that the US didn't attack Afghanistan to create a pipeline? What are the counterarguments against a pipeline? :confused: ------------------------------------------ "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