Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1703
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
passes w/ flying colors."
Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
news:icolb.11108$W16.1538@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> > >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the
performance.
> > >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> > >>its time for emissions inspection.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed
yet
> and
> > > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have never tried that.
> >
>
> Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I
know
> the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even
put
> a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/
flying
> colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured
it
> would go the other way.
>
>
passes w/ flying colors."
Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
news:icolb.11108$W16.1538@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> > >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the
performance.
> > >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> > >>its time for emissions inspection.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed
yet
> and
> > > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have never tried that.
> >
>
> Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I
know
> the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even
put
> a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/
flying
> colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured
it
> would go the other way.
>
>
#1704
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
passes w/ flying colors."
Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
news:icolb.11108$W16.1538@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> > >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the
performance.
> > >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> > >>its time for emissions inspection.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed
yet
> and
> > > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have never tried that.
> >
>
> Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I
know
> the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even
put
> a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/
flying
> colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured
it
> would go the other way.
>
>
passes w/ flying colors."
Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
news:icolb.11108$W16.1538@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> > >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the
performance.
> > >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> > >>its time for emissions inspection.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed
yet
> and
> > > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have never tried that.
> >
>
> Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I
know
> the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even
put
> a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/
flying
> colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured
it
> would go the other way.
>
>
#1705
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"I even put a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still
passes w/ flying colors."
Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
news:icolb.11108$W16.1538@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> > >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the
performance.
> > >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> > >>its time for emissions inspection.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed
yet
> and
> > > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have never tried that.
> >
>
> Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I
know
> the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even
put
> a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/
flying
> colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured
it
> would go the other way.
>
>
passes w/ flying colors."
Not to digress from this shitty thread but why would the lower gear set in
the rear end affect the emissions inspection?
"FDRanger92" <csu13081@nospammail.clayton.edu> wrote in message
news:icolb.11108$W16.1538@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> > >> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the
performance.
> > >>It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> > >>its time for emissions inspection.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > What happens if you test w/ the hot chip? My 92 Ranger hasn't failed
yet
> and
> > > I've had a chip in it since 97 or 98.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have never tried that.
> >
>
> Couldn't hurt to try it once particularly if you get a free retest. I
know
> the one in my Ranger is kind of a pain in the buttocks to get to. I even
put
> a lower gear set in the rear end two years ago and it still passes w/
flying
> colors. It even improved MPG which never made any sense to me. I figured
it
> would go the other way.
>
>
#1706
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
terror:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
..
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
program.
Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
terror:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
..
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
program.
#1707
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
terror:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
..
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
program.
Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
terror:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
..
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
program.
#1708
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
terror:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
..
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
program.
Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a body
said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
terror:
Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left
in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover
evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend
the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times
within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare
declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.
In 1995 Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed
that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to
build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of
weapons in significant quantities--and weapons stocks. Previously it had
vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam's
son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an
offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of
botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25
biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say
UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its
production. . . .
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and
undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of
suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door, and our
people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. . . .
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and
closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has
undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing
debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have
still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in
Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large. . . .
One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. . .
..
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of
this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to
produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the
feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that
Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small
force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its
production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to
act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more
opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and
continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore
the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the
international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can
go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . In
the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very
kind of threat Iraq poses now--a rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug
traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his
footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act
with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations
Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction
program.
#1709
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <pwllb.10278$W16.410@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...
>
> Your opinion is not fact.
>
>
> > Much
> >like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
> >and they won't die off quietly...
>
> You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd,
> >> >Are you a Lliberal?
> >>
> >> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> >fathers.
> >> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
> >presidents.
> >> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
> >>
> >> >LLOL
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
were
> >> >not a
> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
for
> >> >work,
> >> >> >>>not play.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
> >used
> >> >as
> >> >> cars
> >> >> >>are used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >> >>
> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >> >>
> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
talents
> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >> >people should live there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <pwllb.10278$W16.410@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...
>
> Your opinion is not fact.
>
>
> > Much
> >like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
> >and they won't die off quietly...
>
> You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd,
> >> >Are you a Lliberal?
> >>
> >> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> >fathers.
> >> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
> >presidents.
> >> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
> >>
> >> >LLOL
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
were
> >> >not a
> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
for
> >> >work,
> >> >> >>>not play.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
> >used
> >> >as
> >> >> cars
> >> >> >>are used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >> >>
> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >> >>
> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
talents
> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >> >people should live there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
#1710
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess"
Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <pwllb.10278$W16.410@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...
>
> Your opinion is not fact.
>
>
> > Much
> >like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
> >and they won't die off quietly...
>
> You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd,
> >> >Are you a Lliberal?
> >>
> >> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> >fathers.
> >> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
> >presidents.
> >> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
> >>
> >> >LLOL
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
were
> >> >not a
> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
for
> >> >work,
> >> >> >>>not play.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
> >used
> >> >as
> >> >> cars
> >> >> >>are used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >> >>
> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >> >>
> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
talents
> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >> >people should live there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
Well, treason is punishable by death (I think)...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn65e7$f7v$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <pwllb.10278$W16.410@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Interesting. The best president ever was not a liberal (Reagan)...
>
> Your opinion is not fact.
>
>
> > Much
> >like Unions, Liberals were useful at one time. Now their time has passed
> >and they won't die off quietly...
>
> You can join Ann Coulter and advocate killing them, I guess.
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> >> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Lloyd,
> >> >Are you a Lliberal?
> >>
> >> Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
> >fathers.
> >> Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great
> >presidents.
> >> Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.
> >>
> >> >LLOL
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bn1eq2$d15$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> In article <gcc8pv89e67ac5f9qmmmfesoqbih6vd168@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd
Parker)
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks
were
> >> >not a
> >> >> >>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used
for
> >> >work,
> >> >> >>>not play.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being
> >used
> >> >as
> >> >> cars
> >> >> >>are used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And what would the buyers have done then?
> >> >> >Gone to >8000lb trucks?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
> >> >>
> >> >> No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.
> >> >>
> >> >> >instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
> >> >> >Why should you get to do that?
> >> >> >Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your
talents
> >> >> >may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
> >> >> >people should live there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >