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.

("Martin Hotze" wrote)

Just give it a try and leave everybody alone with their problems.
Maybe you're right and we have to come back whining and asking for
your help.

The US was brought kicking and screaming into WWI. We avoided WWII
until we got bombed, much to the dismay of France and England. It
doesn't work.

Morgans wrote:

"mike regish" wrote


But here I am on a beautiful Sunday morning typing away instead of flying
away. This is a real double whammy for me. Either the rising prices OR the
ethanol thing I could probably absorb, but both together is a real killer.


Step one. Find an old 6 wheel oil or gas tanker truck, and get your CDL
with the H endorsement.

Step two. Drive to where there is un-doctored gas for sale, and buy a
tanker full of it. You now have your gas needs for the next year taken care
of, and will save enough money to have bought the tanker.

Step Three. Find a place to park a tanker.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Morgans wrote:

"mike regish" wrote


But here I am on a beautiful Sunday morning typing away instead of flying
away. This is a real double whammy for me. Either the rising prices OR
the
ethanol thing I could probably absorb, but both together is a real
killer.


Step one. Find an old 6 wheel oil or gas tanker truck, and get your CDL
with the H endorsement.

Step two. Drive to where there is un-doctored gas for sale, and buy a
tanker full of it. You now have your gas needs for the next year taken
care of, and will save enough money to have bought the tanker.

Step Three. Find a place to park a tanker.

....Such that it will still be there the next morning

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?.?.

The USSR already HAD The Bomb. If they had NOT had "The Bomb" -- yeah,
we might have taken them out when he declared that they would "Bury the
U.S."

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".

No kidding. Did you really expect anything more?

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.

Well, it WOULD be kind of fun to call their bluff. But if you really
believe that's what they're up to, I've got an old reactor in Chernobyl
to sell you -- cheap.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
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).

Well actually you didn't. Most of the debt was forgiven.

("Icebound" wrote)
[snips]
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.

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.
[*]President Johnson (LBJ) tried that with Hanoi in the 1960's. He was going
to build a TVA type power project for them. They said, 'Thank you. No!'
[*]According to Bill Moyers.
Moyers said, 'If it was the AFL-CIO's George Meany LBJ had been dealing
with, instead of the North Vietnamese, he would have had a deal.'

http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/
TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)


Montblack

"Private" wrote in message
news:IE55g.95155$WI1.2193@pd7tw2no...

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...

Anyway, anyone who thinks the 'Iran' problem has anything to do with
them bragging about nukes is a tad naive; they are doing something
far worse than that, and that's what is going to get them bombed: they
are about to start trading oil in euros instead of dollars.

--Sylvain

Bingo

Yeah...let's cause hyperinflation of the Euro. Between that and their
overburdened welfare states, we can put the last nail in the European
coffin.

"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.

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

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.

What, through the UN?

Ke-rist!