[OT] US Presidential Election

ruby-talk
1

This is bitter take. As an American I don't wish for an ineffective 4 years
where over half of the Presidential and Congressional leadership implodes on
itself. That doesn't matter which party would be in control either. I am not
a Bush fanatic by any means but here are the two things that make me cringe
when I hear all of the Bush bashing:

1) It's all about the oil. - If you add up the cost of the Iraqi War it
would've been far cheaper to just pay more for any possible OPEC price
gouging that might have taken place in the future. It's not like we're
getting oil for free after defeating Saddam are we? And the price of crude
oil on the American market has other factors involved that are often
overlooked.

2) Bush lied about things to lead America to war. - He didn't gather the
intelligence himself. The intelligence was a result of a combination of CIA,
British, and UN data gathering. What was presented to him was the same
information that was presented to Congress. The majority of Congress was in
favor of what action was initiated based on the intelligence that was
presented. Looking back at it the intelligence wasn't 100% correct. Or even
50% correct for God's sake. But it's not like Bush knew there were no WMD's,
just went off the handle, and then tried to cover up all of the things that
wound up being true.

Like I said, I am no huge Bush fan but at least I can try to be objective
about things.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Mills Thomas (app1tam) [mailto:app1tam@ups.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:54 PM
To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Subject: Re: [OT] US Presidential Election

Sorry, but I have no respect for the man. The office, yes. The man, no. And
I refuse to support him and his policy of sending his own countrymen (and
countrywomen) to their deaths. And then there are the thousands of injured
who will carry it for the rest of their lives. And let's not forget the
thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who inconveniently are in the way of our
President's might and fury.

For what? To ensure the flow of oil for his cronies. What a SSOS.

I have a son who will turn 18 during the administration of this
sorry-excuse-for-a-human-being. And it scares me.

I thought we started this country to get away from empire building. And
yet, here we have own little King George (remember the one we tried to get
away from?)

My only hope at this point is that the entire Republican government screws
up so badly that it implodes on itself. Or at least I can wait (and maybe
the world can wait) for his four years to be over. And pray that he can't
use those four years very effectively.

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: David Morton [mailto:mortonda@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 6:01 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: [OT] US Presidential Election

Hopefully, no matter which side of the vote you are on, we (americans) will
all support the winner (looks like it's Bush) with proper respect. It can't
be an easy job.

--
David Morton
mortonda@gmail.com - bulk address
mortonda@dgrmm.net - direct to my server

2

Kujawa, Greg wrote:

2) Bush lied about things to lead America to war. - He didn't gather the
intelligence himself. The intelligence was a result of a combination of CIA,
British, and UN data gathering. What was presented to him was the same
information that was presented to Congress. The majority of Congress was in
favor of what action was initiated based on the intelligence that was
presented. Looking back at it the intelligence wasn't 100% correct. Or even
50% correct for God's sake. But it's not like Bush knew there were no WMD's,
just went off the handle, and then tried to cover up all of the things that
wound up being true.

I'm sorry to add another off-topic post to this list, but I can't let this slide.

Bush didn't decide to attack Iraq because there was an intelligence flaw. The plans to attack Iraq were in place well before the 2000 election, but they needed an excuse for the invasion. Immediately after Sept 11th, Bush tried to get his terrorism chief to pin it on Saddam Hussein, and didn't want to listen to the fact it was actually al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The fact that the intelligence was wrong wasn't just bad luck, it was politically motivated. It wasn't an honest mistake, it was deception. Congress fell for it, either blindly, or stupidly.

But, you're right, in the end it wasn't Bush's fault, it's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and all the other PNAC members in the Bush Administration. He's just a figurehead that they can lead to do what they want.

The whole group was lying from day 1, implying that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the Sept. 11th attacks, presenting biased evidence about WMD, and refusing to let the inspectors actually substantiate their claims, etc.

If you honestly believe that the attack on Iraq was never considered before Sept 11th, and that the lack of WMD was an honest mistake, you *really* need to become more informed.

Ben

3

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004, Kujawa, Greg defenestrated me:

1) It's all about the oil. - If you add up the cost of the Iraqi War it
would've been far cheaper to just pay more for any possible OPEC price
gouging that might have taken place in the future. It's not like we're
getting oil for free after defeating Saddam are we? And the price of crude
oil on the American market has other factors involved that are often
overlooked.

  Well, I do not know if I believe the 'about the oil theory' or not, but
your above point seems to be missing the point of the theory to me. I
think the theory is not about how much consumers pay, but about how much
an oil company has to gain from it. Last I read, oil companies are
making out like bandits. Invading Iraq has helped their bottom line,
but not joe hay seed.

  Some other things I have heard which are related to (or are extensions
to):

1. Iraq (under Saddam) was changing oil prices to be based off of the
Euro starting sometime in 2004. I guess the US has some tactical
advantage to having oil be based off the dollar (I am no economist
so I do not understand the ramifications of this).

2. US controls oil fields of Iraq (less sure how much control the US
has now). If OPEC does something crazy and cuts back production too
much, then we open the sluice gates in Iraq and drive prices back down.
It gets even better in that just the implicit threat that we can have
Iraq flood the market is enough to keep OPEC in line. That is assuming
the US (or oil companies) wants low oil prices (see original oil theory
above).

3. Haliburton has gotten lots of work rebuilding oil fields or Iraq.
I am disinclined to believe this as much since a wholly owned foreign
Haliburton subsidiary was the largest supplier to Saddams Iraq oil fields
than all other oil companies combined (in other words it has been good
for them regardless of who is in power).

4. We do not get a majority of oil from the middle east, but the middle
east is driving the price of oil. I believe oil from those places has
been cheaper. So this is the gouge the consumer angle.

  The lynch-pin to all this revolves around whether any gains by oil
companies was intentionally planned by the current administration. If
you think so, then you would likely be pissed about it.

-Tom

···

--
+ http://www.tc.umn.edu/~enebo +---- mailto:enebo@acm.org ----+

Thomas E Enebo, Protagonist | "A word is worth a thousand |
                             > pictures" -Bruce Tognazzini |

4

I can't let this slide either. The oil is just a means to an end. The end is
to transfer wealth from ordinary American citizens to corporations like
Halliburton. The administration wanted this money to go to their friends and
supporters, not to OPEC. And the more money is spent the better; this was
likely why the oil refineries weren't guarded by enough troops to prevent
sabotage and destruction. AfaIk (sorry, no numbers) refinery output is still
well below pre-war levels.

As the administration is hard at work to shift the tax burden from the super
rich to the middle class (repeal of the estate tax, anyone?), this unnecessary
war will have cost the American (middle class) taxpayer $200,000,000,000.00 by
the end of the year.

Now, let's get back to discussing our favorite language.

···

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:28:57AM +0900, Kujawa, Greg wrote:

1) It's all about the oil. - If you add up the cost of the Iraqi War it
would've been far cheaper to just pay more for any possible OPEC price
gouging that might have taken place in the future. It's not like we're
getting oil for free after defeating Saddam are we? And the price of crude
oil on the American market has other factors involved that are often
overlooked.

--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Sunnyvale, CA
                                _/ _/ _/
                               _/ _/_/_/
                          _/ _/ _/ _/
jos at catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer'

5

Hello Greg,

1) It's all about the oil. - If you add up the cost of the Iraqi War it
would've been far cheaper to just pay more for any possible OPEC price
gouging that might have taken place in the future. It's not like we're
getting oil for free after defeating Saddam are we? And the price of crude
oil on the American market has other factors involved that are often
overlooked.

Why do you think that cheap oil prices are important for Bush ?
He is a member of an oil familiy. So he get huge benefits if the oil
prices are high and stay high as long as possible.

2) Bush lied about things to lead America to war. - He didn't gather the
intelligence himself. The intelligence was a result of a combination of CIA,
British, and UN data gathering. What was presented to him was the same

Oh yes good old George is innocent and only fouled by some CIA
stupids. If this is the common wisdom of a FOX newschannel viewer then
i understand why he won. This scares me and any other person in
europe.

information that was presented to Congress. The majority of Congress was in
favor of what action was initiated based on the intelligence that was
presented. Looking back at it the intelligence wasn't 100% correct. Or even
50% correct for God's sake.

Try it again with 0%.

···

--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's

6

Ben Giddings wrote:

Kujawa, Greg wrote:

2) Bush lied about things to lead America to war. - He didn't gather the
intelligence himself. The intelligence was a result of a combination of CIA,
British, and UN data gathering. What was presented to him was the same
information that was presented to Congress. The majority of Congress was in
favor of what action was initiated based on the intelligence that was
presented. Looking back at it the intelligence wasn't 100% correct. Or even
50% correct for God's sake. But it's not like Bush knew there were no WMD's,
just went off the handle, and then tried to cover up all of the things that
wound up being true.

I'm sorry to add another off-topic post to this list, but I can't let this slide.

Bush didn't decide to attack Iraq because there was an intelligence flaw. The plans to attack Iraq were in place well before the 2000 election, but they needed an excuse for the invasion.

I had never seen any factual evidence or proof saying this was the case, only allegations and *some* evidence pointing in a direction, which still required people to make leap of faith in believing it's truth. A theory is only a theory unless it can be proven to be true. So far, factually speaking this theory is still up in the air and cannot be claimed to be true or false, with absolute certainty.

Immediately after Sept 11th, Bush tried to get his terrorism chief to pin it on Saddam Hussein, and didn't want to listen to the fact it was actually al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

You seem to have an inside track on what Bush does, thinks and how he goes about his business. Again I had only heard allegations and I have never seen actual proof supporting the claim beyond reasonable doubt. Only large leaps of faith saying that it must be so based on some circumstantial evidence.

The fact that the intelligence was wrong wasn't just bad luck, it was politically motivated. It wasn't an honest mistake, it was deception. Congress fell for it, either blindly, or stupidly.

Again, evidence and proof? Give us something more then just conspiracy theories and allegations.

But, you're right, in the end it wasn't Bush's fault, it's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and all the other PNAC members in the Bush Administration. He's just a figurehead that they can lead to do what they want.

The whole group was lying from day 1, implying that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the Sept. 11th attacks, presenting biased evidence about WMD, and refusing to let the inspectors actually substantiate their claims, etc.

Last I checked the general public wasn't privvy to the intelligence that the people in the White House look at. How can you make such an claim without being able to see exactly what they saw? I am not saying they were right, wrong, liars or assumers, but you seem to speak as if this is common knowledge. All I've seen are allegations and *some* evidence which point in that direction, but certainly don't prove anything without a leap of faith or assumption on your behalf.

If you honestly believe that the attack on Iraq was never considered before Sept 11th, and that the lack of WMD was an honest mistake, you *really* need to become more informed.

Please inform me in a off-list post. I'm ready, eager and willing,

Zach

7

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004, Kujawa, Greg defenestrated me:
> 1) It's all about the oil. - If you add up the cost of the Iraqi War it
> would've been far cheaper to just pay more for any possible OPEC price
> gouging that might have taken place in the future. It's not like we're
> getting oil for free after defeating Saddam are we? And the price of
> crude oil on the American market has other factors involved that are
> often overlooked.

With all due respect, the above reasoning for the suspension of critical
thinking concerning the u.s. government's efforts toward gaining further
geo-political control, and corporate interests in raising profit margins, is
extremely shallow and insufficient - it fails to involve a broad enough
context regarding the matter to be anything other than a very simple
justification to maintain faith that this country's government is good and
just.

I don't understand why so many people feel the distinct need to be apologists
for the their country's government. As if their country's government is a
general reflection of themselves, and must therefore be rashly and
defensively shielded from rational, truthful or objective examination and
healthy suspicion.

It's a very unfortunate phenomena, which has in no small part helped
lead to the utter and total destruction of the so called American experiment.

Thomas E Enebo wrote:
<snip>

  Some other things I have heard which are related to (or are extensions
to):

1. Iraq (under Saddam) was changing oil prices to be based off of the
Euro starting sometime in 2004. I guess the US has some tactical
advantage to having oil be based off the dollar (I am no economist
so I do not understand the ramifications of this).

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Beers,

Corey

···

On Thursday 04 November 2004 01:06 pm, Thomas E Enebo wrote:

--

"America at the moment, with its faith-based currency, faith-based
economy and faith-based government, might be a heaven for those who
love faith, but it's a hell for those of us that respect evidence."
  - anon

8

"off-list" being the key term there.

Please everyone, this thread is horribly off topic and been a major spike of Ruby Talk traffic for days now. This conversation could continue indefinitely and worse, degenerate from its thus far generally polite tone.

That's not why any of us signed up here and if you are looking for this kind of discussion there are MANY forums all over the Internet for just that.

I'm not trying to upset anyone or start any fights, I'm just asking please, from one Ruby enthusiast to other Ruby enthusiasts, can we drop this jabber and return to the topic at hand?

Thanks for your time.

James Edward Gray II

···

On Nov 4, 2004, at 2:07 PM, Zach Dennis wrote:

Please inform me in a off-list post. I'm ready, eager and willing,

9
···

On Thursday 04 November 2004 01:07 pm, Zach Dennis wrote:

> Bush didn't decide to attack Iraq because there was an intelligence
> flaw. The plans to attack Iraq were in place well before the 2000
> election, but they needed an excuse for the invasion.

I had never seen any factual evidence or proof saying this was the case,
only allegations and *some* evidence pointing in a direction, which
still required people to make leap of faith in believing it's truth. A
theory is only a theory unless it can be proven to be true. So far,
factually speaking this theory is still up in the air and cannot be
claimed to be true or false, with absolute certainty.

--

"Man must not check reason by tradition, but contrawise, must check
tradition by reason."
  - Leo Tolstoy

10

+1, I'm tired of sifting through political posts to read ruby-talk.

Bill

···

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 05:34:56 +0900, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

On Nov 4, 2004, at 2:07 PM, Zach Dennis wrote:

> Please inform me in a off-list post. I'm ready, eager and willing,

"off-list" being the key term there.

Please everyone, this thread is horribly off topic and been a major
spike of Ruby Talk traffic for days now. This conversation could
continue indefinitely and worse, degenerate from its thus far generally
polite tone.

That's not why any of us signed up here and if you are looking for this
kind of discussion there are MANY forums all over the Internet for just
that.

I'm not trying to upset anyone or start any fights, I'm just asking
please, from one Ruby enthusiast to other Ruby enthusiasts, can we drop
this jabber and return to the topic at hand?

Thanks for your time.

James Edward Gray II