"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Gonzo wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Mormon wrote

Time to check your 72 hour kit, first aid, home storage, etc.

With lots of expensive overtime for the police, and so on. IMO, it's
also time for the US to declare victory and leave Iraq and Afghanistan,
as we did in Vietnam.

More fool you.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that 9/11 wasnt a result of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.

God I just love 20/20 hindsight heros.

Nothing to do with any hindsight what so ever, ****wit.

Reams of its puerile **** flushed where it belongs.

Wow! Great come back. Go ahead and continude to hide behind your hindsight
there little armchair philisopher.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Gonzo" wrote in message
. ..
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mormon wrote:

Time to check your 72 hour kit, first aid, home storage, etc.

With lots of expensive overtime for the police, and so on.
IMO, it's also time for the US to declare victory and
leave Iraq and Afghanistan, as we did in Vietnam.

More fool you.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that 9/11 wasnt a result of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.

God I just love 20/20 hindsight heros.

Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the next attack
so we can get your permission to go after the source next time.

Would that work for you?

What are you, a liberal, a raghead or just a eurotrash pacifist tree
huger?

Sorry to wake you up, but the hijackers were Saudis, and they did their
job on a budget that is almost embarrassing.

Saudis. Those are people from Saudi Arabia. It doesn't matter if Saddam
might've given one or two of them a place to sleep for a couple of nights,
or handed them a slip of paper containing the name of a guy who could give
them guns. They were Saudis.

Wanna blame someone? Blame any of the last 3 presidents who have
entertained these Saudi pigs, and even hugged & kissed them. And, remember
that every time you fill up your gas tank, about a dollar goes to the Saud
family.

Sorry to wake YOU UP but the origin of their birth is irrelivant. It's
their extremist religious teaching that are the problem and the same will
allow them to see Allah early.

Buck Turgidson wrote:
Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion) used for
alternative energy research instead of spending it on the war,
Halliburton, etc. Had we spent the money there, we wouldn't need these
sultans, emirs, ayatollahs, etc.


its not just that, though. we drill in the USA, also. and have a huge
oil-based infrastructure, which bush's cronies all get a little piece of.

Doug Kanter wrote:
It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to change was a
matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was considering a huge
pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and hauled nothing - no need for
such a vehicle. His response was that this was America and he had a
god-given right to own anything he wanted.

Oh boy.....

hes got a point. he also has a point to STFU every time he has to fill
that tank. he chose to buy it, so he cant bitch about it.

Doug Kanter wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for maybe
90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a carpenter,
mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But, it's just plain
stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in SUVs which, by design, get
hideous gas mileage. You know full well that the vast majority of people who
own them will never EVER need the mechanical advantages of those power
trains. NEVER. No towing, no off-road, nothing.

yeah? well, its their choice. i myself have a 98 civic hatch, and if i
ever replace it itll be with another small hatch. also have a small
dual-sport motorcycle, and a big scooter. i dont even bother looking at
the pump price when i fill up. less money spent on gas means more money
to spend on cool toys

Buck Turgidson wrote:
Bottom line: it not the government, it's the American citizenry who is
to blame, by its economic behavior in the showroom and the road, and

by

the government whose actions it continues to support at election time.


Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But they
lack the political cojones to do so.

the only way id support added gas taxes would be if they added liability
insurance into the cost. too many uninsured drivers around. why? because
theyre spending all their cash on gas and SUV payments

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work.

Doug Kanter wrote:

I said nothing about reducing engine size. I'm talking about the 100-200 lbs
of extra parts that a 4WD vehicle needs to turn, even when 4WD is not
engaged. Take a Ford Explorer, for instance. ***BASICALLY*** the same V-8 as
a Crown Victoria. The sedan gets (in real world terms) about 25% better gas
mileage.

fleets like that generally want to stick with one type of vehicle, so
they can keep a smaller supply of parts like tires, filters, etc. plus,
car tires are cheaper than SUV tires.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of Tripoli..." comes
from? We were at war with Muslims withing the first 25 years of our
existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates who raided
Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay tribute. In 1801, the
pasha of Tripoli raised the price of tribute, which led to the Tripolitan
war with the United States. When the peace treaty was signed on June 4,
1805, U.S. ships no longer had to pay tribute to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money, called
"tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with Islamic anything, any
more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do with his insistence
that some profits get kicked upstairs.

"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
The fact is that anything "geared like a truck" is inappropriate for
maybe 90% of the people who buy such vehicles. I'm not saying that a
carpenter, mason or landscaper shouldn't have a pickup truck. But, it's
just plain stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in SUVs which,
by design, get hideous gas mileage. You know full well that the vast
majority of people who own them will never EVER need the mechanical
advantages of those power trains. NEVER. No towing, no off-road, nothing.

yeah? well, its their choice. i myself have a 98 civic hatch, and if i
ever replace it itll be with another small hatch. also have a small
dual-sport motorcycle, and a big scooter. i dont even bother looking at
the pump price when i fill up. less money spent on gas means more money to
spend on cool toys

It's their choice, but only if they're made aware of the mechanical options
they knew nothing about. Without knowledge, there is no choice.

"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

I said nothing about reducing engine size. I'm talking about the 100-200
lbs of extra parts that a 4WD vehicle needs to turn, even when 4WD is not
engaged. Take a Ford Explorer, for instance. ***BASICALLY*** the same V-8
as a Crown Victoria. The sedan gets (in real world terms) about 25%
better gas mileage.

fleets like that generally want to stick with one type of vehicle, so they
can keep a smaller supply of parts like tires, filters, etc. plus, car
tires are cheaper than SUV tires.

True, but with the political clout they have, I don't think the NYS police
would put up with bad vehicles for very long, considering that they have to
drive the things in some of the most disgusting weather you've ever seen.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Buck Turgidson wrote

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape
and high weight. Put a smaller, weaker engine in one, and
it might get *worse* mileage - or it might not move at all.

It'll move alright, just have lousy acceleration.

Allow me to parse your assertion: Are you saying
that the boxy shape (i.e. aerodynamics) is the primary
cause (you listed it first) of bad gas mileage for SUVs?

Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue.

No he's not, thats the reason so many choose to buy SUVs, because
they FEEL safer in them, even when they are actually less safe.

I didn't comment on the truth of the safety myth. (Wait - I think I just
commented). But, in fact, I believe many drivers, females especially, think
they can substitute extra metal for developing better driving skills,

Nope, they just feel safer because they sit higher.

and maybe even (god forbid) PUTTING DOWN THE DAMNED CELL PHONE.

Nothing to do with why they choose SUVs
while the gas cost doesnt make them unviable.

"That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low
gas
mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact, they
should
be saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the oil supply
which
we wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so wrapped up in the
kinds
of cars we drive".


How much oil was there in Bosnia, when Clinton sent troops there to
die? Or how about Somalia? Did they have much oil? Or Vietnam or
Korea? But suddenly oil is the only reason the US is in Iraq. LOL
Fools like Doug don't learn from history. They think that if the US
somehow no longer needed to import oil that we could just ignore a hot
spot like the Middle East and let anything happen. Like we ignored
Afghanistan for over a decade, while the Taliban let Bin Laden run
terrorist training camps.

The simple fact is, the world will need large quantities of oil for as
far as anyone can see. The world can't afford to let that oil and all
the revenue fall into hostile hands, like Bin Laden for example,
because with all that money and unlimited power, everyone knows what
that would lead to. Doug would sit here driving his Yugo, living in
his solar powered house, feeling nice and superior, till one day he
realized half the world was at war, with Bin Laden now a nuclear power.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Buck Turgidson wrote

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape
and high weight. Put a smaller, weaker engine in one, and
it might get *worse* mileage - or it might not move at all.

It'll move alright, just have lousy acceleration.

Allow me to parse your assertion: Are you saying
that the boxy shape (i.e. aerodynamics) is the primary
cause (you listed it first) of bad gas mileage for SUVs?

Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue.

No he's not, thats the reason so many choose to buy SUVs, because
they FEEL safer in them, even when they are actually less safe.

I didn't comment on the truth of the safety myth. (Wait - I think I just
commented). But, in fact, I believe many drivers, females especially,
think they can substitute extra metal for developing better driving
skills,

Nope, they just feel safer because they sit higher.

Survey? You keep repeating this mantra.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Like we ignored
Afghanistan for over a decade, while the Taliban let Bin Laden run
terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor. How old are you? Did
that historical detail happen when you were in 8th grade and busy with video
games?

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

The power train design is the PRIMARY reason these vehicles get such bad
mileage.

Wrong. The real reason is the lousy power to weight ratio.

Give customers the same physical, boxy shape they want, same choice of
motors, but with front wheel drive.

You dont get the effect you are claiming with conventional
cars, with front wheel drive being a lot more fuel efficient
than with the conventional drive train systems.

The car makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since
most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd
vehicle.

Retail prices for cars has very little to do with the cost of manufacture.

And the short story is that many are prepared to pay the significantly
higher price that comes with SUVs because they feel safer in them.

And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for them. I don't
think many will.

Sure, but you wont get any real improvement in fuel efficiency your way.

I don't agree, and neither do the three mechanics at the shop I've been using
for years,

You're all completely irrelevant. Its trivial to compare the gas
milage seen with front wheel drive and conventional drive cars
otherwise the same on weight etc and see there isnt anything in it.

but it's not worth debating.

Corse it is.

It's enough to say that if you add a hundred pounds of rotating parts to a
drive train, and they do nothing most of the time, there MUST be some effect.

Nothing like as much effect as there is with the heavier
body and the lousy aerodynamics at the higher speeds.

Maybe not as large as I suspect, but greater than zero.

Swamped by the other effects tho.

Yes, it makes sense to not have the 4WD in theory, but even
that is arguable in areas that see much snow etc, particularly
for the sort of woman driver that drives so many of the SUVs.

You can make a case that they are quite a bit safer in those
in the worst driving conditions of snow and icy roads etc.

And they are basically prepared to pay for that in the substantially
higher cost of the vehicle and the cost of the fuel it wastes while
ever the cost of fuel is affordible, and it obviously still is.

The only thing that will do anything much about the consumers choosing fuel
efficient cars is to let the price of fuel increase until the cost of the
fuel has a real impact on consumer's car buying decisions.

That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low gas
mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact, they should be
saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the oil supply which we
wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so wrapped up in the kinds of
cars we drive".

Iraq wasnt about the price of oil.

"But, it's just plain stupid that soccer mommies are driving around in
SUVs which, by design, get
hideous gas mileage. You know full well that the vast majority of
people who
own them will never EVER need the mechanical advantages of those power
trains. NEVER. No towing, no off-road, nothing. "

The concept of letting people decide what they want to do with their
lives went right over Doug's pointed little head. You moan on about
how no one needs the features. Who are you to decide what others need
or want? I go snowboarding at Killington, VT frequently. I go with a
buddy and we always take his SUV because it has room for our gear and 4
wheel drive is very desirable in that environment. And it gets about
21MPG. That's right, 21MPG. But apparently that isn't good enough, is
it? Or as I asked before, maybe I just shouldn't go snowboarding at
all, because that isn't important to YOU. Should we close Disneyland,
because it isn't necessary either and just encourages energy waster by
people flying there from all over the country?

And the reality is that half the energy problem is liberal whackos like
Doug. They're the reason a new refinery hasn't been built in the US in
the last 30 years. And refinery capacity has a lot to do with the
price increase of gas. They also won't let anyone drill in ANWR,
though they pretend to be soooo worried about the security of the US.
If they were, then not only would we be drilling for oil and building
refineries, we'd be building nuclear plants too.

But anytime you want to do any of that, the whackos that know what
everyone else should be riding in, run out and bitch. If we listened
to them, we'd all be back in caves by now.

Buck Turgidson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Buck Turgidson wrote

Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion)
used for alternative energy research instead of spending it
on the war, Halliburton, etc. Had we spent the money there,
we wouldn't need these sultans, emirs, ayatollahs, etc.

Bull****. You cant change the basics physics by throwing money at it.

Dunno. Can you change radical Islamist
thinking by throwing this money into Iraq?

It did get rid of Saddam and got some like Ghaffi to come to their senses.

And clearly there wont be many game to thumb their noses at the US now.

Yes, it made no sense to attempt to occupy Iraq. That was
never gunna fly as W's dad realised at the end of the Gulf War.

Where is this money better spent (forget about the lives of U.S.)?
How much do we spend now on energy research?

Enough to prove that those 'alternatives' just arent viable.

It would make quite a bit of sense to spend that money on
nuke power generation in the US, but that wouldnt have any
real effect on the price of oil thats currently mostly due to
the massive increase in the chinese consumption etc.

Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding until 9-11.

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of Tripoli..."
comes from? We were at war with Muslims withing the first 25 years of our
existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates who
raided Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay tribute.
In 1801, the pasha of Tripoli raised the price of tribute, which led
to the Tripolitan war with the United States. When the peace treaty
was signed on June 4, 1805, U.S. ships no longer had to pay tribute
to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money, called "tribute"
in this example. It had nothing to do with Islamic anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

Gonzo wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Gonzo wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Mormon wrote

Time to check your 72 hour kit, first aid, home storage, etc.

With lots of expensive overtime for the police, and so on. IMO,
it's also time for the US to declare victory and leave Iraq and
Afghanistan, as we did in Vietnam.

More fool you.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that 9/11 wasnt a result of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.

God I just love 20/20 hindsight heros.

Nothing to do with any hindsight what so ever, ****wit.

Reams of its puerile **** flushed where it belongs.

Reams of its puerile **** flushed where it belongs.

Whoops, nothing left.

It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to change
was a matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was considering
a huge pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and hauled nothing -
no need for such a vehicle. His response was that this was America and
he had a god-given right to own anything he wanted.

too bad he doesn't exercise his right to use his brain

He did, and his brain decided that you were an asshole who
didn't deserve a serious response. So he gave you an answer
designed to **** you off and/or make you go away and stop
bothering him.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Buck Turgidson wrote

Utter nonsense. The bad mileage is due to the boxy shape
and high weight. Put a smaller, weaker engine in one, and
it might get *worse* mileage - or it might not move at all.

It'll move alright, just have lousy acceleration.

Allow me to parse your assertion: Are you saying
that the boxy shape (i.e. aerodynamics) is the primary
cause (you listed it first) of bad gas mileage for SUVs?

Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue.

No he's not, thats the reason so many choose to buy SUVs, because
they FEEL safer in them, even when they are actually less safe.

I didn't comment on the truth of the safety myth. (Wait - I think I
just commented). But, in fact, I believe many drivers, females
especially, think they can substitute extra metal for developing
better driving skills,

Nope, they just feel safer because they sit higher.

Survey? You keep repeating this mantra.

Ask them why they bought one. Its obvious to
anyone with a clue why they feel safer in them.

Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while the Taliban let Bin
Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

We did arm the Mujahidin, and they got ****ed over by
the Taliban, who were financed and armed by Pakistan.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while the Taliban let Bin
Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Rod, you're in rare form today. Usama bin Laden was on
our CIA payroll for years. According to some, he still is.

Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while
the Taliban let Bin Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Usama bin Laden was on our CIA payroll for years.

Irrelevant to who financed and armed the Taliban.

The US never did that.

And while he certainly was involved in some of that
arming and financing of the taliban, that was LONG
after he was on the CIA payroll and he used his own
money or more strictly his father's for that anyway.

According to some, he still is.

Only the fools into black helicopters.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while
the Taliban let Bin Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Usama bin Laden was on our CIA payroll for years.

Irrelevant to who financed and armed the Taliban.

It's relevant you pathetic twerp. The very roots of the Taliban
was the armed resistance against the Soviet Union's occupation
of Afghanistan.

Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while
the Taliban let Bin Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Usama bin Laden was on our CIA payroll for years.

Irrelevant to who financed and armed the Taliban.

It's relevant you pathetic twerp. The very roots
of the Taliban was the armed resistance against
the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. That was the
Mujahidin, you stupid pig ignorant clown.

Once THEY got the russians to leave with their tails between
their legs, THEN the Taliban was financed and armed by
PAKISTAN and THEN they did over the Mujahidin.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...

Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while
the Taliban let Bin Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Usama bin Laden was on our CIA payroll for years.

Irrelevant to who financed and armed the Taliban.

It's relevant you pathetic twerp. The very roots
of the Taliban was the armed resistance against
the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. That was the
Mujahidin, you stupid pig ignorant clown.

Good grief, what a moron. The Taliban was the major faction of
the Mujahidin. Their principal suppliers and trainers were the
U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

Do some research on the history of bin Laden and Mullah Omar
before making an even bigger idiot out of yourself. Please.

Doug Kanter wrote:
It's their choice, but only if they're made aware of the mechanical options
they knew nothing about. Without knowledge, there is no choice.

people know whats out there. they likely walked past a row of cheap
chevy aveos to get to the aisle where the suburbans are located.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"SoCalMike" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

I said nothing about reducing engine size. I'm talking about the 100-200
lbs of extra parts that a 4WD vehicle needs to turn, even when 4WD is not
engaged. Take a Ford Explorer, for instance. ***BASICALLY*** the same V-8
as a Crown Victoria. The sedan gets (in real world terms) about 25%
better gas mileage.

fleets like that generally want to stick with one type of vehicle, so they
can keep a smaller supply of parts like tires, filters, etc. plus, car
tires are cheaper than SUV tires.


True, but with the political clout they have, I don't think the NYS police
would put up with bad vehicles for very long, considering that they have to
drive the things in some of the most disgusting weather you've ever seen.


what are they using? malibus? crown vics? tahoes?

Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while
the Taliban let Bin Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Usama bin Laden was on our CIA payroll for years.

Irrelevant to who financed and armed the Taliban.

It's relevant you pathetic twerp. The very roots
of the Taliban was the armed resistance against
the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. That was the
Mujahidin, you stupid pig ignorant clown.

Good grief, what a moron. The Taliban
was the major faction of the Mujahidin.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. They came LONG after the Mujahidin
had seen the russians off with their tails between their legs.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm

Their principal suppliers and trainers were the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. Their principal suppliers and
trainers were PAKISTAN, you stupid pig ignorant clown.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm
Phase Three.

Do some research on the history of bin Laden and Mullah Omar

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant drivel about the Taliban.

"Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor. How old are
you? Did
that historical detail happen when you were in 8th grade and busy with
video
games? "

The US never financed and armed the Taliban. We did finance and arm
the mujahidin when they were battling the Soviets. Apparently you
don't understand the difference. The period I was referring too when
The US ignored what was going on in Afghanistan was after the Russians
left and the country descended into chaos. Of course, had the US tried
to intervene and establish a pro-democracy govt, then guys like you
would have been bitching about that as an example of American
imperialism.

"Not a ****ing clue, as always. They came LONG after the Mujahidin
had seen the russians off with their tails between their legs.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm


Their principal suppliers and trainers were the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.


"Not a ****ing clue, as always. Their principal suppliers and
trainers were PAKISTAN, you stupid pig ignorant clown.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm
Phase Three.

Do some research on the history of bin Laden and Mullah Omar

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant drivel about the Taliban. "


Exactly. And had the US tried to install a pro-democracy govt in
Afghanistan after the Russians retreated, the same people bitching
about everything we are doing today, would have been bitching about
that too. They would have said the US has no business medling there,
we should just leave the people of Afghanistan alone. Well, that's
what we did and look what happened. The Taliban and Bin Laden turned
it into a terrorist training clamp, where 50,000 were trained, most of
those during Clinton's adminstration while the US just watched. It's
nice being Monday morning quarterbacks who can bitch about everything,
without ever having to make a decision in the real world, never knowing
what the outcome will be. They particularly like to start with the
premise that the US is always out to do bad things in the world and is
responsible in some way for just about everything that goes wrong.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message ...

Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while
the Taliban let Bin Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Usama bin Laden was on our CIA payroll for years.

Irrelevant to who financed and armed the Taliban.

It's relevant you pathetic twerp. The very roots
of the Taliban was the armed resistance against
the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. That was the
Mujahidin, you stupid pig ignorant clown.

Good grief, what a moron. The Taliban
was the major faction of the Mujahidin.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm

Precisely:

Phase Three
"During this period, the rest of the country was carved up among
the various factions, with many mujahidin commanders establishing
themselves as local warlords. Humanitarian agencies frequently
found their offices stripped, their vehicles hijacked, and their staff
threatened. It was against this background that the Taliban emerged.
Former mujahidin who were disillusioned with the chaos that had
followed their victory became the nucleus of a movement that
coalesced around Mullah Mohammad Omar, a former mujahid
from Qandahar province. The group, many of whom were madrasa
(Islamic school) students, called themselves taliban, meaning students."

Glad to see you finally learned your history.

"The numbers aren't hard to find online, but who cares? If it were
true, that
would eliminate Curious George's only remaining reason for our presence
in
Iraq. We can't have that happening - reality shifting based on actual
physical facts. "

At least President Bush has a plan to deal with terrorism. And it may
very well work. Guys like you don't have a plan, nor anything positive
to contribute. And even if you did, last time I checked, the American
people gave the job to President Bush by returning him to office in a
decisive election. Now, instead of at least giving him the benefit of
the doubt and supporting what he's trying to do, you instead you seek
to divide the country and try to weaken the Commander in Chiefin a time
of war. That only emboldens our terrorist enemies and makes the war
harder, longer and costs more lives.

wrote:
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while
the Taliban let Bin Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Usama bin Laden was on our CIA payroll for years.

Irrelevant to who financed and armed the Taliban.

It's relevant you pathetic twerp. The very roots
of the Taliban was the armed resistance against
the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. That was the
Mujahidin, you stupid pig ignorant clown.

Good grief, what a moron. The Taliban
was the major faction of the Mujahidin.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. They came LONG after the Mujahidin
had seen the russians off with their tails between their legs.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm

Their principal suppliers and trainers were the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

"Not a ****ing clue, as always. Their principal suppliers and
trainers were PAKISTAN, you stupid pig ignorant clown.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm
Phase Three.

Do some research on the history of bin Laden and Mullah Omar

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant drivel about the Taliban.

Exactly. And had the US tried to install a pro-democracy govt in
Afghanistan after the Russians retreated, the same people bitching
about everything we are doing today, would have been bitching about
that too. They would have said the US has no business medling there,
we should just leave the people of Afghanistan alone. Well, that's
what we did and look what happened. The Taliban and Bin Laden
turned it into a terrorist training clamp, where 50,000 were trained,
most of those during Clinton's adminstration while the US just watched.

Yeah, and he took a long time to do anything about Kosovo etc too.

It's nice being Monday morning quarterbacks who can bitch
about everything, without ever having to make a decision in
the real world, never knowing what the outcome will be.
They particularly like to start with the premise that the US
is always out to do bad things in the world and is responsible
in some way for just about everything that goes wrong.

Yeah, in spades with Somalia and Beirut.

Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Rick wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while
the Taliban let Bin Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

Usama bin Laden was on our CIA payroll for years.

Irrelevant to who financed and armed the Taliban.

It's relevant you pathetic twerp. The very roots
of the Taliban was the armed resistance against
the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan.

Not a ****ing clue, as always. That was the
Mujahidin, you stupid pig ignorant clown.

Good grief, what a moron. The Taliban
was the major faction of the Mujahidin.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1023.htm

Precisely:

Fraid not.

Phase Three
"During this period, the rest of the country was carved
up among the various factions, with many mujahidin
commanders establishing themselves as local warlords.

Pity that was LONG after the russians had been given the
bums rush and the US had financed and armed the mujahidin
to get that to happen, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

Humanitarian agencies frequently found their offices stripped,
their vehicles hijacked, and their staff threatened. It was
against this background that the Taliban emerged.

Nothing like your pig ignorant claim that 'The
Taliban was the major faction of the Mujahidin'

AND you didnt quote what that cite had to say about the
makeup of the Mujahidin before the Taliban 'emerged'

Former mujahidin who were disillusioned with the chaos that
had followed their victory became the nucleus of a movement that
coalesced around Mullah Mohammad Omar, a former mujahid
from Qandahar province. The group, many of whom were madrasa
(Islamic school) students, called themselves taliban, meaning students."

Nothing like your pig ignorant claim that 'The
Taliban was the major faction of the Mujahidin'

And you carefully didnt quote the bit that said

By October 1994 the movement had attracted the support
of Pakistan, which saw in the Taliban a way to secure trade
routes to Central Asia and establish a government in Kabul
friendly to its interests. Pakistani traders who had long sought
a secure route to send their goods to Central Asia quickly
became some of the Taliban's strongest financial backers.

Nothing whatever there to support your the stupid pig ignorant
claim that the Taliban were 'financed and armed' by the US.

The US had stopped financing and arming anyone once the russians
had crawled away with their tails between their legs, LONG before that.

In September 1995, the Taliban took control of Herat, thereby cutting
off the land route connecting the Islamic State of Afghanistan with Iran.
The Taliban's innovative use of mobile warfare appeared to indicate
that Pakistan had provided vital assistance for the capture of Herat.

Thanks for the completely superfluous proof of
your terminal pig ignorance and flagrant dishonesty.

wrote:
"Exactly. That's why the government needs to increase CAFE mileage
standards and other measures, such increasing the gasoline tax. But
they
lack the political cojones to do so.

Without intervention, we'll blissfully keep driving our ridiculous
SUV's. Using the marketplace for public policy ain't gonna work. "

Yeah, great idea. Increase taxes and give the govt more of our hard
earned money to waste.

The burden of government on the citizenry isn't determined by taxation,
but by government *spending*. Once spent, that money will come out of
people's walettes one way or another. Taxation is merely the most
honest and direct way to do it. Deficit spending just results in
inflation (paid largely by the next generation) and other backdoor
"taxes" that don't have to pass public scrutiny.

max wrote:

wrote:

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is right
for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should go take
a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to Colorado
necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's closer? How
about driving the family to the beach every weekend in the summer?
Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not only does it
use a lot of unnecessary energy,

And that's how politics in America works.

If someone suggests that SUV's are a bad idea and that we ought to use
less gasoline, the next thing you get is "why do you want to close
disneyland and throw me in jail for going to Steamboat??"

Because that's the end result of one group of people deciding what's moral for
everybody and it's our civic duty to point that out whenever the opportunity
arises.

I drive 3K miles/year and ride my bike 3K miles/year. We don't heat or cool
our house, which we've owned for 38 years. We buy used whenever possible.
I'm as virtuous as all ****, and I say if somebody wants to drive a big-ass
truck that's his business.

This is the USA. We get more choices than most of the rest of the world
because that's the way we want it.

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I never understood why anyone would go to the trouble to write a novel
when you can just go out and buy one for a few bucks." -- lpogoda

The Real Bev wrote:
....
...We don't heat or cool our house, ...

Where would that be?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Gonzo" wrote in message
. ..
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mormon wrote:

Time to check your 72 hour kit, first aid, home storage, etc.

With lots of expensive overtime for the police, and so on.
IMO, it's also time for the US to declare victory and
leave Iraq and Afghanistan, as we did in Vietnam.

More fool you.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed
that 9/11 wasnt a result of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.

God I just love 20/20 hindsight heros.

Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the next
attack so we can get your permission to go after the source next
time.

Would that work for you?

What are you, a liberal, a raghead or just a eurotrash pacifist
tree huger?

Sorry to wake you up, but the hijackers were Saudis, and they did
their job on a budget that is almost embarrassing.

Saudis. Those are people from Saudi Arabia. It doesn't matter if
Saddam might've given one or two of them a place to sleep for a
couple of nights, or handed them a slip of paper containing the name
of a guy who could give them guns. They were Saudis.

Wanna blame someone? Blame any of the last 3 presidents who have
entertained these Saudi pigs, and even hugged & kissed them. And,
remember that every time you fill up your gas tank, about a dollar
goes to the Saud family.



I believe most of the US-imported oil currently comes from Canada and
Venezuela.And Mexico.

The numbers aren't hard to find online, but who cares? If it were
true, that would eliminate Curious George's only remaining reason for
our presence in Iraq. We can't have that happening - reality shifting
based on actual physical facts.




Ah,you don't know what the real facts are.
And you are mistaken about the Iraq war being about oil,along with many of
your other assumptions.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net