Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:01:17 GMT From: Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ethanol ?
in article 4907elFm6c4eU1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net wrote on 29/03/2006 21:02: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:35:09 GMT, Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> in article 48vf23Fm7ne8U1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net >> wrote on 29/03/2006 14:06: > >>> Yeah, maybe we should have allowed him to keep shredding people and >>> stuff. I mean, why should the US be the world's police force? When's >>> the last time someone thanked us? I mean, seriously, it's been 60 years >>> since we bailed someone out and they were openly grateful for it, >>> correct me if I'm wrong. > >> Absolutely right! So why does the US keep sticking its nose in? No-one has >> asked the US to do so! > > Well, to be fair, he _was_ threatening us and our interests. How? Do you mean the first time with the invasion of Kuwait, or the second time which I genuinely cannot remember why, other than Iraq being stubborn over weapons inspections, leaving a perceived threat to the region (such as the ability to strike Israel), rather than a direct threat to the US (or the UK). >> So, there's no WMD! > > Well, it was damn foolish of Hussein, if he did destroy it, to (a) not > document it as he agreed to (to the UN), and (b) pretend it was there. > Sure, he was bluffing, maybe. But we gave him _years_ to hide or export > it. It'll turn up. > >> If Hussein does manage to get off war crimes charges as >> well, which in all fairness, he might ... Does he get his country back? >> Maybe he could come here and live out his life in the English countryside >> like other great dictators, such as General Pinochet? > > I would like to think that if he does walk, that he would be properly > taken care of. Hell, let's be blunt. If the court doesn't have him > killed, someone else should, and I believe would, do it. Well, everyone has enemies as well as friends. However, when cleared, people have a right to return to their former lives ... Does he get his country back? I don't think he'll have the fall-back of a job on the board of an oil multi-national. >>> My opinion on that was and is, we should've taken the guy out because he >>> _was_ a credible threat based on the best available information, and >>> then turned it over to them..."Here ya go, we fixed your problem. Make >>> sure the next guy behaves or we'll have to come back and do it again if >>> he starts threatening us and our interests again. Have a nice day." >> >> Apart from the current situation with tribal warfare and rioting is much >> worse than before and there does not seem to be any kind of exit strategy >> that does not constitute our soldiers simply walking away. I really can't >> think what the credible threat was at the time. Long range missiles? Well, >> you've got them, we've got them, France have got them, Russia have, India do >> ... So what? > > Well, again, this is just like the gun thing, isn't it? My guns aren't > a threat to anyone who isn't trying to do me harm. A criminal's guns, > however, are a threat to all of society. Depends on who has the weapon. > And his track record with WMDs is clear, just ask the Kurds. Oh wait... So the US holding long range weapons is okay? For Israel, it's okay? But when a country, like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan get hold of them, they're criminals (or at least potential criminals) and that's wrong? That really is twisted logic. Suppose the UK devolves further, even to the point of sovereignty to the provinces ... Suppose Yorkshire becomes a nation state. Our population could approach 10% practicing Muslim (Bradford has nearly 20%, Sheffield 15%, for example) who represent a large proportion of the population who either hate the US or will grow up to hate the US. Without any kind of direct threat, only potential (nay, perceived) threat, would that make us enemies of the US? US (the "goodies") weapons are a threat to the _entire_ world, yet a country like Iran (the "baddies") "only has eyes for you" (and us, of course, if we continue to stand by the US). _My_ point about guns is that, yes, an armed criminal is a danger to everyone, but armed backup for unarmed Police who are very well trained in diffusing situations unarmed is the best way to deal with that. If the Police routinely arm, so will the criminals and that makes ..... Not just the one or two criminals who arm themselves, but all criminals who arm themselves. So, rather than a small(er) percentage of criminals being a danger to all society, we end up with all criminals being a danger to all society and the venting of bullets being the only outcome of negotiation. Merry old England is a land of cut-throats and poisoners, anyway, what do we need with guns? :) >> Do you really think someone who has been a President of a very >> volatile country in a very volatile region since the '70s would be dumb >> enough to shake them at the US? That's so much more for the fanatic than >> seasoned dictator. > > Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant > disregard of logic thing going for them. Like a certain Bush duo? I'm sorry, maybe you don't know this, but your President is largely seen in that way by a large portion of the world. > If hitler had been more open > to listening to his advisors, things could have been quite nasty over > there for a very long time. Well, we can say what we like about that period of history, but it's all speculation. The Russians would have got the Nazis eventually and Europe would have joined the Soviet Union. Was that maybe more the reason for the US joining the allied forces? Failing that, the Soviet Union would have fallen to the Nazis and the UK would have joined the likes of France as a nation of resistance through terrorism. >>>> I haven't seen any cars here that are designed to work with the equivalent >>>> of E85 fuel yet, but I'm sure they're on the way. In the not too distant past, the Governor of New York was quoted as saying that as many as 20,000 cars in New York could run E85 un-modified, now. >>> What about the ecopower engine of a few years ago from Saab? I thought >>> the whole point was it could burn whateverthehell you put in it? >>> Further, do the boost, timing, and other parameters change dramatically >>> with a different fuel, that you couldn't just add that part of the map >>> to the ECU? Does Trionic need to know, or does it care, that it's >>> burning something other than gasoline (or petrol even?) > >> Nope - that's the beauty of Trionic! Personally, I'm amazed it took so long >> for SAAB to publicise this technology and formalise it into a retail car. >> Volvo beat them with their Bi-Fuel cars, but I think the SAAB product is >> better; certainly a very viable technology for the future and a good reason >> for someone to buy SAAB from GM when the going gets tough(er). > > So, once I get my 2.3L T7 9-5 back on the road, am I E85 ready? With a software map, yes :) I've seen evidence of T3 and T5-based cars running it ... Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/