Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1781
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>
>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>
>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>
>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>
>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>
>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>republican.....
>>
>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
that
>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
done.
>
>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>
>
Ain't democracy wonderful!
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>
>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>
>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>
>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>
>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>
>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>republican.....
>>
>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
that
>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
done.
>
>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>
>
Ain't democracy wonderful!
#1782
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>
>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>
>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>
>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>
>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>
>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>republican.....
>>
>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
that
>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
done.
>
>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>
>
Ain't democracy wonderful!
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>
>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>
>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>
>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>
>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>
>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>republican.....
>>
>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
that
>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
done.
>
>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>
>
Ain't democracy wonderful!
#1783
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <uwxlb.846895$Ho3.255387@sccrnsc03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>
>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>
>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>
>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>
>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>
>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>republican.....
>>
>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
that
>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
done.
>
>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>
>
Ain't democracy wonderful!
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bn65bl$f7v$1@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53>,
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> In article <hf0lb.7706$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.
>>>
>>>I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
>>>"right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
>>>I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
>>>democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>>>
>>>"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
>>>herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>>>
>>>And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
>>>get your panties in a bunch:
>>>
>>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>>>
>>>Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
>>>amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>>>
>>>Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
>>>speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
>>>tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
>>>republican.....
>>
>> Suyre, because tax rates were something like 90% at the upper end. Now
that
>> they're 37%, you're going to lose revenue by cutting them, as Bush has
done.
>
>Can't address more than one thing per post now?
>Anyway, the only reason the government needs such massive amounts of
>revenue is because peoplee have voted themselves money from the treasury.
>
>
Ain't democracy wonderful!
#1784
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>
>Nice backpeddle.
>>
>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>
>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
>Yup. Do you?
>No emergencies.
>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
fuel, ...
>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>
>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
>Actually, we could.
With ANWR?
>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>today.
>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>"Full"?
>>
>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>the Persian Gulf?
>
>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>They can.
>Like I said.
>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>
>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Where?
>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>
>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>
>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>many mammoths?
>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>
>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
causing GW.
>
>>
>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>
>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>
>Nice backpeddle.
>>
>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>
>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
>Yup. Do you?
>No emergencies.
>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
fuel, ...
>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>
>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
>Actually, we could.
With ANWR?
>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>today.
>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>"Full"?
>>
>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>the Persian Gulf?
>
>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>They can.
>Like I said.
>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>
>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Where?
>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>
>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>
>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>many mammoths?
>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>
>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
causing GW.
>
>>
>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>
>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>
>
#1785
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>
>Nice backpeddle.
>>
>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>
>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
>Yup. Do you?
>No emergencies.
>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
fuel, ...
>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>
>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
>Actually, we could.
With ANWR?
>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>today.
>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>"Full"?
>>
>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>the Persian Gulf?
>
>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>They can.
>Like I said.
>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>
>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Where?
>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>
>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>
>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>many mammoths?
>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>
>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
causing GW.
>
>>
>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>
>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>
>Nice backpeddle.
>>
>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>
>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
>Yup. Do you?
>No emergencies.
>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
fuel, ...
>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>
>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
>Actually, we could.
With ANWR?
>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>today.
>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>"Full"?
>>
>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>the Persian Gulf?
>
>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>They can.
>Like I said.
>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>
>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Where?
>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>
>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>
>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>many mammoths?
>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>
>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
causing GW.
>
>>
>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>
>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>
>
#1786
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gqcdpv8kjiq0tr3gbqd96g9fk50jal4l2t@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>
>Nice backpeddle.
>>
>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>
>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
>Yup. Do you?
>No emergencies.
>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
fuel, ...
>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>
>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
>Actually, we could.
With ANWR?
>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>today.
>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>"Full"?
>>
>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>the Persian Gulf?
>
>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>They can.
>Like I said.
>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>
>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Where?
>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>
>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>
>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>many mammoths?
>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>
>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
causing GW.
>
>>
>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>
>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>
>
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 16:44:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
>>>
>>>Than what? Your MB?
>>
>>Than pretty much any CAR.
>
>Nice backpeddle.
>>
>>>>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
>>>
>>>We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>>
>>Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
>Yup. Do you?
>No emergencies.
>Lots of people who still managed to still get on with life.
>Some people moderately inconvenienced.
I remember what happened to the economy too. When that much money gets sucked
out of the economy and sent overseas, when industries shut down for lack of
fuel, ...
>Many people doing really stupid things like topping off everytime
>their gas gauges moved off "Full".
>>
>>>We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
>>>cheaper to buy than using our own.
>>
>>And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
>Actually, we could.
With ANWR?
>We wouldn't *need* to, though, because we have
>several days of gas in the pipeline, including the gas in our tanks
>today.
>Or are you one of those who tops up whtn the gas gauge moves off
>"Full"?
>>
>>>Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
>>>ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
>>>>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>>
>>Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
>>the Persian Gulf?
>
>The fact that Kuwait *didn't* do so os not proof that it (or indeed, a
>coalition of oil producing countries) *can't* do so.
>They can.
>Like I said.
>That they asked for our help doesn't negate any of that.
>
>Am I to conclude from what you say that you would prefer to let rogue
>countries (like Saddam's Iraq) have their way?
We let China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc., have their way now. It
seems to depend on Bush's mood each day.
>>
>>>Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
>>>their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
>>>their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
>>>>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
>>>
>>>Where?
>>>>hurts our balance of payments,
>>>
>>>Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
>>>those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
>>>our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
>>>Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
>>>countries if it means our children are safe.
>>>>and increases global warming.
>>>
>>>That's truly laughable.
>>>What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
>>>many mammoths?
>>>Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
>>>fault completely ignore the past?
>>
>>I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
>>evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
>Global warming is indeed an established fact.
>
>What's not established is *why* it's happening.
Yes it is. Read the scientific literature. Read the National Academy of
Sciences report. Read the IPCC report.
>There are those who ignore facts, refuse to admit that this has
>happened many times before without the help of man, and want to help
>their agenda by claiming that *this time*, we are at fault.
>They use computer models to impress the masses, while trying to hide
>the fact that such models are extremely easy to program (that's all
>these models are: programs) to show anything the programmer wants.
>Such "facts" are extremely suspect.
No, computer models are only used to try to predict what GW will be like in
the future. We know from data (CO2 is up, temp. is up) and basic scientific
principles (CO2 is produced by human activities, CO2 traps heat) what's
causing GW.
>
>>
>>>>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
>>>>around with American flags on their SUVs.
>>>
>>>It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
>>>own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
>>>who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
>>>For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
>>>they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
>>>
>
#1787
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
No, the why is entirely settled.
>
>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>Is that how you teach?
>
I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
No, the why is entirely settled.
>
>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>Is that how you teach?
>
I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
#1788
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
No, the why is entirely settled.
>
>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>Is that how you teach?
>
I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
No, the why is entirely settled.
>
>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>Is that how you teach?
>
I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
#1789
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <igddpvo55irmoj85sgi1apnvcjjt3ve9q9@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
No, the why is entirely settled.
>
>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>Is that how you teach?
>
I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 03 10:51:14 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net>,
>> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"global warming is as established fact"
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
>>>fact from the other (correct) side...
>>
>>No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
>>NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>>
>>As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.
>
>Yes, but the *why* is pure conjecture.
No, the why is entirely settled.
>
>I suppose that you teach that when something happens, that has
>happened before, the latest instance must be for a different reason?
>Is that how you teach?
>
I teach facts and science, not right-wing political propaganda.
#1790
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
In 2003?
> Or ask the UN who as a body
>said that he had them.
Based on US info that we now know was a bunch of lies.
>Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>them (OK, not a good source).
Again, not in 2003.
> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Then where are they?
>
>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.
>
>
>
So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are those
drones that could deliver it all here?
Lies, all a pack of lies.
"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote:
>"Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
>Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too.
In 2003?
> Or ask the UN who as a body
>said that he had them.
Based on US info that we now know was a bunch of lies.
>Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
>them (OK, not a good source).
Again, not in 2003.
> The whole WMD "argument" is weak at best...
>He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
Then where are they?
>
>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.
>
>
>
So where are those huge quantities? Where is the uranium? Where are those
drones that could deliver it all here?
Lies, all a pack of lies.