MoGas users: Ethanol replacing MTBE

Iraq is fly paper for the terrorists, they come and we kill
them.



"Icebound" wrote in
message ...
|
| "Jay Honeck" wrote in message
|
oups.com...
|
| Although I'm not in favor of nuking Iran, I must point
out that you're
| judging the results in Iraq with typical American
impatience.
|
| The outcome of this war won't be known for decades. I
believe history
| will look favorably on the decision to intervene when we
did -- as it
| will when we are forced to do something in Iran.
|
|
|
| Sorry, Jay.
|
| The routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan: yes, history
will look very
| favourably.
|
| But the invasion of Iraq will be viewed as one of the
worst decisions that a
| President of the United States has ever made. Even if
the eventual outcome
| produces the most idyllic non-violent pro-western
participatory democracy
| that the world has ever seen... there is no way to tell
whether that may not
| have come about in time, anyway, from internal pressures
of a disenchanted
| populace, plus diplomatic pressures from a united world.
|
| But the negatives are pretty clear. Not the least of
which is that....
| after being deprived of their Afghanistan training areas,
....(and with the
| Arab countries united with the USA, however grudgingly,
against Bin Laden
| and his cronies)... that Al Qaeda had nowhere to go...they
were being
| dispersed to oblivion.
|
| The invasion of Iraq handed their followers a focus... a
training-ground in
| a country where they were not even previously welcome.
Now after
| 3-plus-years of battle-hardening they are dispersing
again.... not to
| oblivion, but to cause more havoc across the world,
including back in
| Afghanistan.
|
| ---
|
| It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with
Pakistan, who not
| only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which
sold nuclear secrets
| to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.
|
| But we are rattling war-weapons at Iran who claim only to
want electricity.
| Who have agreed to UN IAEA inspections (although the west
rejects that
| because we want something more...???).
|
| The US, of all people, must know that citizens' pride is a
very strong
| emotion. Invasion of Iran for what they *Might* do, will
make Iraq look
| like a Sunday stroll in the park. If we agree to
inspections and it proves
| wrong, and Iran actually DOES build a bomb and actually
DOES harm to
| someone, the retaliatory world coalition would stop them
permanently in six
| days or less.
|
| The total damage will probably be considerable less than a
protracted
| pre-emption... like Iraq, where it will be six *years* or
more.
|
| It amazes me that anybody can still think that we will
drop a few bombs,
| wipe out their nuclear capability, and that the war (and
threat) is
| magically "over"...that 60 million citizenry will
automatically accepts our
| interpretation of their governments' "obvious" misdeeds,
and politely say
| "thank you for bombing our homeland".
|
| Yes, there is the psychotic rhetoric of Ahmadinejad to
fuel our fears. But
| in 1956 Nikita Khrushchev beat his shoe on a United
Nations table while
| shouting "we will bury you" to the USA. I wonder if it
would have been a
| "better world" today if we had invaded or nuked the USSR
back then?.?.
|
| ---
|
| I also find it intriguing that Second Amendment proponents
at home, are
| *not* "Second Amendment proponents" on the world stage.
"It's okay to have
| a gun, but only for me and my friends, and I am not so
sure about the
| friends".
|
| ---
|
| 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.
|
| As a bonus for the west, it might be a small step from
operating their
| nuclear plants, to operating their oil plants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

The dead in Illinois still vote democrat, Mayor Daley Sr and
Jr have a strong hold on the whole state. The governor
answers to the Mayor, so much so that he has moved the
official functions and offices to Chicago, the Official
Capitol in Springfield is partly a ghost town.

Durbin the Turban actually lives in a village on the edge of
Springfield that is all country club and million dollar
homes.



--
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.


"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...
|
| "Marissa Bealey" wrote in
message
| ...
| Cub Driver wrote:
|
| On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:12:16 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| But there is a shortage of alcohol so when they
| run out of E85 they can't sell straight gasoline.
|
| Worse, you can't send the mix through pipelines for
long distances, as
| I understand it, meaning that NE states have to
scramble.
|
| While all this goes on, there is a tarrif of 51 cents a
gallon on
| imported ethanol! You might ask your congressman about
that....
|
| Richard "Dick" Durbin (Democrat-Illinois) was just asked
that by Jim
| Cramer on Meet the Press. He stated that he does not
want the tariff
| removed and he strongly supports it to discourage
ethanol imports. It's
| ok apparently to import oil from unfriendly countries,
but he doesn't want
| a drop of ethanol coming in from say Brazil, unless it's
taxed high enough
| to make it unworkable.
|
| He also says that he does NOT support more nuclear power
but also does NOT
| support more oil, gas, or coal generation either.
Instead he favors more
| hybrid cars and electric cars (to get their power from
those generators he
| doesn't want, you see.)
|
| If any of this makes any sense at all to you and you
live in Illinois,
| keep voting for that guy. If you missed the discussion,
I think CNBC will
| rerun it tonight.
|
| If any state or foreign country would like Durbin they are
welcome to him.
| He has a simple philosophy...he is against everything. I
have no idea why
| people vote for him except that he is a democrat and many
people in IL
| blindly vote for democrats.
|
|
|

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:51:30 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

Iraq is fly paper for the terrorists, they come and we kill
them.

"We're havin' a party and *your're* invited"... And the camel ****in'
Bedoins were stupid enough to fall for it... snicker

--
"I don't wish to be argumentative, but I must disagree with the
Islamic belief that I should be killed."

Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:48:37 -0400, Marissa Bealey wrote:

.. and still you interfere ...

Yeah we apologize for sending hundreds of thousands of marines, sailors, and
soldiers to fight and die to interfere while cleaning up Europe's own
home-grown messes and genocide. Funny how Europe begged USA to "interfere."
Again, apologies. USA could have been non interfering while the rest of
Europeans became lampshades. Can you forgive us?

is this _all_ you can bring up?
Europe needed help and asked for it, your prents or grandparents granted
the help and we were thankful (and paid our share the coming years).

It was a little more than "granting help." But from the tone of your posts I can
tell how thankful Europe was/is. By the way most of the debt was forgiven. And
I'm sorry that such extreme sacrifice and the lives and families that never
happened are just "ALL" I can bring up.



More on topic, enjoy the flying in Europe, I hear it's really popular and
available to the average person.

not general aviation.
But IIRC flying by airline is cheaper than over there.

Yeah if you're going to fly a bottom feeder like Ryanair or their wonderful
friends. I don't recall seeing any great deals on a regular basis on the big
flag carriers.

Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:54:16 -0400, Marissa Bealey 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.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with Pakistan, who
not
only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which sold nuclear
secrets
to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.

That's what happens when you have a nut-job regime that has The Bomb.
You are forced to deal with it as an equal -- no matter how unsavory
the country.


Two equals generally manage to negotiate a compromise and escape with
minimum damage to each. The problems start when one believes himself to be
overwhelming superior. Even if the underdog perishes in the encounter, he
may still cut out the left eye and both testicles of the superior. Now
certain equals, and even underdogs, deserve to perish, no matter what the
cost, but as they say...as long as we choose our fights wisely.


Nut-cases are a fact of life. There are no guarantees *anywhere*, against
charismatic nutcases leading state governments, including all those
countries already with nuclear technology. Removing individual nutcases by
force is similar to throwing a fish to the starving masses. Teach them to
fish themselves...provide incentives for them to remove/avoid their own
nutcases. And no, citizens do not respond well to the incentive "do it or
we bomb you". You only need to think of what your own response would be to
that one.



Which, of course, is why Iran -- the pariah of the world for 25 years
-- wants one so badly. Ditto North Korea.

But we are rattling war-weapons at Iran who claim only to want
electricity.

Right. They're sitting atop a large percentage of the world's oil --
and you *believe* they want nuclear reactors for ELECTRICITY?
Please.


No.

They *claim*... yada yada... I happen to *believe* that they want nuclear
reactors only in order to rattle the west's chain, and it seems to be
working.

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?


But it is pretty much a given that they have or will have nuclear
capability... So the question becomes one of reducing collateral damage...
Will it be greater if the west goes in first, and provides an impetus for
Arab nationalism to solidify a united Islamic front against the west??? Or
will it be greater if diplomatic pressure and those IAEA inspections
continue until they step out of line... and solidify the world, including
the other Arab states, *against them*.

Rhetoric is cause for concern and a signal to be prepared. Many years of
previous rhetoric by heads of States has proved to be pretty much hot air.
Is this different? Maybe. Highly effective intelligence agencies are
trying to find out. I hope they are closer to the real truth than their
previous spectacular endeavour.

9/11 was not engineered by a head of State, but by a disgruntled financier
and a handful of zealots. Have the past 3 years destroyed more zealots than
they have created? I suppose your honest answer to that question determines
which side of the "pre-emption" fence that you will fall on.


The US, of all people, must know that citizens' pride is a very strong
emotion. Invasion of Iran for what they *Might* do, will make Iraq look
like a Sunday stroll in the park. If we agree to inspections and it
proves
wrong, and Iran actually DOES build a bomb and actually DOES harm to
someone, the retaliatory world coalition would stop them permanently in
six
days or less.

But not before untold millions are killed? Not acceptable.


My goodness, are the IAEA inspections and our own intelligence that
bad...???... that it would permit "untold millions" to die before we could
respond? Even I doubt that they are *THAT* incompetent.



The total damage will probably be considerable less than a protracted
pre-emption... like Iraq, where it will be six *years* or more.

Yeah, but it will be somewhere OTHER than Iran. Not acceptable.

No matter *where* the damage is, the cost will still be born here... in
terms of everything from bodies to the cost of gasoline.



It amazes me that anybody can still think that we will drop a few bombs,
wipe out their nuclear capability, and that the war (and threat) is
magically "over"...that 60 million citizenry will automatically accepts
our
interpretation of their governments' "obvious" misdeeds, and politely say
"thank you for bombing our homeland".

Um, remember when the Israelis bombed the reactor in Iraq? It worked
out pretty well, no?


Well, I guess *not*, because 20 years later I watched the US Secretary of
State on International Television, telling the United Nations in great
detail that Iraq did indeed have a nuclear program.

Icebound wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Although I'm not in favor of nuking Iran, I must point out that you're
judging the results in Iraq with typical American impatience.

The outcome of this war won't be known for decades. I believe history
will look favorably on the decision to intervene when we did -- as it
will when we are forced to do something in Iran.


Sorry, Jay.

The routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan: yes, history will look very
favourably.

But the invasion of Iraq will be viewed as one of the worst decisions that a
President of the United States has ever made. Even if the eventual outcome
produces the most idyllic non-violent pro-western participatory democracy
that the world has ever seen... there is no way to tell whether that may not
have come about in time, anyway, from internal pressures of a disenchanted
populace, plus diplomatic pressures from a united world.

Ahh yes, yearning for the good 'ole days of Saddam Hussein's horrible reign, his
rape rooms, his tortured and mangled bodies, his piles of human ears lobbed off
from those who didn't swear or were suspected of not swearing their loyalty.
The chemical gassing of thousands of humans, each a human life, just as you and
I are. Just like the gas ovens in Germany, how horrible that's over!



But the negatives are pretty clear. Not the least of which is that....
after being deprived of their Afghanistan training areas, ...(and with the
Arab countries united with the USA, however grudgingly, against Bin Laden
and his cronies)... that Al Qaeda had nowhere to go...they were being
dispersed to oblivion.

The invasion of Iraq handed their followers a focus... a training-ground in
a country where they were not even previously welcome. Now after
3-plus-years of battle-hardening they are dispersing again.... not to
oblivion, but to cause more havoc across the world, including back in
Afghanistan.

Yeah they were so unwelcome, Saddam had been funding al-queada. Not to mention
Hamas had a major substation right in downtown Baghdad. Oh bring back the good
old days!



---

It is interesting that we, the west, are making nice with Pakistan, who not
only *has* the bomb *already*, but is the source which sold nuclear secrets
to various not-so-savoury characters and countries.

The USA was "making nice" with Pakistan for decades before they created an
atomic bomb. So what?



But we are rattling war-weapons at Iran who claim only to want electricity.
Who have agreed to UN IAEA inspections (although the west rejects that
because we want something more...???).

Yeah, right. And I have a long bridge to sell you. Why would Iran need more
energy? They already sit on top of one of the largest proven oil reserves in
the world. If they need nuclear energy so bad for electricity (doubtful) then
why are they so gung-ho about the need to enrich uranium? Unlike typical US
power reactors, other countries (e.g. Canada, India) have perfectly working
reactors which do NOT need uranium enrichment. Good old U-238 works fine, and
U-238 over 99% of all natural uranium. Answer: U-238 can't be used in a nuclear
bomb. That's why Iran needs to enrich.

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?

Please. Even if they did want atoms for peace, they could take the Canadian
approach and NOT enrich the uranium. Instead they are moving toward enriching
and that is necessary to build a bomb, not necessarily to make electricity.

"Mary" wrote in message ...
Yeah they were so unwelcome, Saddam had been funding al-queada. Not to
mention
Hamas had a major substation right in downtown Baghdad. Oh bring back the
good
old days!

Yeah, things were so much simplier when Russia was Communist... They kept
all the potential terrorists in line by killing 'em if they spoke out... All
we had to worry about whether we could nuke the world 30 times over before
they could... MAD was so much simplier...

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