Date: 29 Mar 2006 20:02:29 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: Ethanol ?
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. > Keeping to the point, a lot of it is for energy > interests and as you rightly say, the US would do better to use less oil > from nations that don't like you (like Venezuela?). Yeah, that'll happpen real soon. Here, let me hold my breath...on second thought, no. > * "The Falklands" (yes, go Google, or Wikipede) was when the Conservative > Party were having a little crisis of confidence in the UK. Hey, start a war > with someone we've never heard of in a far away land ... Oh, a few square > miles at the other side of the world. Remove all our nationals first and > send a load of ships to go and get back what was it? Ten square miles and a > couple of score of sheep .. And some penguins :) What is it with you people and sheep, anyway? > Furthermore, I don't think we should have raised the guy to power and aided > him for the years that we did; Hussein or Bush :) Well, sometimes you have to pick what appears, at the time and given the available information, to be the less-bad of several really bad options. Hence my theory of "OK, we supported the last guy, he turned on us. He no longer has a job, to say the least. You're in power now, so keep this little sequence of events in mind before you decide to bite the hand that got you that nice chair you're sitting in." > 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. >> 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... > 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. If hitler had been more open to listening to his advisors, things could have been quite nasty over there for a very long time. >>> 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. >> >> 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? Dave
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
