MoGas users: Ethanol replacing MTBE

"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.