MoGas users: Ethanol replacing MTBE

Icebound wrote:

Maybe they are looking for independence from oil, so that they can sell it
to the west at 250 a barrel and not hurt their own economy, who knows?

Are you on some medication we should be aware of?

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Icebound" wrote)
http://www.cedarland.org/black.html
I read this today. Found it interesting. Pehaps a parallel situation?

And finally... if Iran really just wants power, why doesn't the west save
a lot of money and trouble and just offer to BUILD the damn nuclear power
plants *for* them, no strings attached. It would cost a lot less than
war, in both money and bodies, and they would no longer have any excuse
for their own program. Think of it like good old fashioned American
litigation...sometimes its cheaper to settle than to go to court, even if
you are right. If they persisted with the program in spite of the offer,
at least you now have a *real* excuse.

Gee...isn't that about what Bubba and the peanut farmer did for North Korea?

Naiveté in kids is cute; in adults it can be deadly.

Oh well, they can always blame Bush. Somehow.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

so why
should the USA grant them a sanctuary?

the USA has nothing to do there. No _actual_ threat, no declaration of war
from Iran, no attack from Iran, nothing - according to international law
that would justify an invasion (by US troops). Ah well .. wait a minute ..
you never gave sh*t on international law.

#m


Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

so why
should the USA grant them a sanctuary?

the USA has nothing to do there. No _actual_ threat, no declaration of
war
from Iran, no attack from Iran, nothing - according to international law
that would justify an invasion (by US troops). Ah well .. wait a minute
..
you never gave sh*t on international law.

#m


Well actually back in '79 Iran did attack US territory. We just failed to
respond. Is there a statute of limitations on an act of war?

50 years....or for Islamofascists, 2,600 years.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...

Had Little Boy and Fat Man burst at ground level, the situation in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been nearly so mild.

If it had been a surface detonation, the damage would have been
substantially LESS.



Damage maybe, but not future liveability.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were liveable after 5 years.

Chernobyl reportedly wasn't even a nuclear explosion, just a steam
explosion... but it carried nuclear material from the surface over a wide
area, and is still basically unliveable 20 years later.

On Mon, 1 May 2006 07:16:27 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

You know him, don't you, Martin? Your countryman.

****ing idiot!
have a horrible life,

#m, score adjusted.
I have no nerves to talk with such braindead people like you are.
$%&$§"!$§&!!!!
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

They were dirty bombs that used a large amount of uranium
and or plutonium, only a small part was actually fisioned,
but it was all part of the high energy fallout. The bombs
were large and as you said, were air burst at about 2,000
AGL.
A ground penetration bomb was not possible at the time and
an air burst maximized the destructive radius. Today we can
make a bomb that will detonate several hundred feet
underground with minimal ejection of debris.

I would expect that only a few such bombs would be used,
most bombs would be conventional. Oil fields and terminals
would not likely be targeted.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Cub Driver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:30:24 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| Japan has two cities that were bombed with very dirty
bombs
| [because they were so inefficient and large].
|
| Not entirely true, Jim. They were air-burst bombs *in
order that*
| there would be a minimum of radioactive debris.
|
| Had Little Boy and Fat Man burst at ground level, the
situation in
| Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been nearly so mild.
|
| - all the best, Dan Ford
|
| Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
| 10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

Actually evidence shows that hydrocarbons (oil) are present
on the outer planets and moons, which indicates that
petroleum is not a by-product of dead dinosaurs, but a
function of planetary creation.



"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 1 May 2006 00:21:10 -0400, Icebound wrote:
|
| Maybe they are looking for independence from oil, so that
they can sell it
| to the west at 250 a barrel and not hurt their own
economy, who knows?
|
| Even Saudi Arabia knows that oil is a finite ressource.
Why do they invest
| so heavily in tourism and other developments there? They
can have a happy
| life right now doing nothing, but they are building for a
different future
| there. A friend of mine is flying for Emirate Airlines nd
he sees first
| hand what is going on there (and there are dozens of
reports in the media
| about that).
|
| (...)
| Will it be greater if the west goes in first,
|
| please don't mix "the west" and "the USA". Thanks.
|
| #m
| --
| "We're out of toilet paper sir!"
|
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

You have a vote because the USA fought Hitler and stuck with
it until the downfall of the USSR.


"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:57:45 -0400, Mary wrote:
|
| So if it is such a burden for your great nation to
have the honor of hosting
| world leaders, why send out the invitations?
|
| well, it seems that - just like in your country - the
citizens are not
| always the same opinion as their leaders.
|
| So it sounds like your strange anger has been misplaced
and should be redirected
| toward your own leader.
|
| on this point? yes. We should not host the visit of the
president of the
| USA under these circumstances.
| I decide with my vote. It's not much. But at least I do
vote.
| ah, and I would not call it anger. It's just not OK to
restrict rights of
| citizens to please a handful politicians. They are hree
for us, not we for
| them.
|
| #m
| --
| "We're out of toilet paper sir!"
|
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

On Mon, 1 May 2006 12:31:20 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

You have a vote because the USA fought Hitler and stuck with
it until the downfall of the USSR.

and in 300 years you still will come up with "hey, we saved Europe ...".
You will by then have ruined the other half of our planet, but the only
thing that will count is what you have done in the 40s of the 20h century.
We are so proud of you, really.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html