 |
|
|
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:35:09 GMT From: Paul Halliday <pjghnospamyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: Ethanol ?
in article 48vf23Fm7ne8U1nospamvidual.net, Dave Hinz at DaveHinznospamcop.net wrote on 29/03/2006 14:06: > On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:47:15 +0000 (UTC), Craig's Saab C900 Site > <c900nospam.apana.org.au> wrote: >> Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> writes: >> >>> Well, it's a hydrocarbon. It burns well, and cleanly. And I'd rather >>> pay someone in this country to grow corn, than pay someone elsewhere; >>> some of the folks we buy oil from are downright unfriendly if you think >>> about it. > >> Well it would help if the US government didn't illegally invade some of >> those countries because it doesn't want to financially and militarily >> support the particular country's leader anymore. 8-) That doesn't generate >> much 'cred'. Then again our stupid country went along for the ride too... > > Yeah, maybe we should have allowed him to keep shredding people and > stuff. I mean, why should the US be the world's police force? When's > the last time someone thanked us? I mean, seriously, it's been 60 years > since we bailed someone out and they were openly grateful for it, > correct me if I'm wrong. Absolutely right! So why does the US keep sticking its nose in? No-one has asked the US to do so! Keeping to the point, a lot of it is for energy interests and as you rightly say, the US would do better to use less oil from nations that don't like you (like Venezuela?). I don't think the US should have got involved in either of the wars with Iraq and I don't think anyone else should have got involved. The first time, well, it was like another Falklands* for our leading party with our mates from across the water out on manoeuvres, but the second time, I just hung my head in shame. It was unwarranted, morally wrong and downright illegal. * "The Falklands" (yes, go Google, or Wikipede) was when the Conservative Party were having a little crisis of confidence in the UK. Hey, start a war with someone we've never heard of in a far away land ... Oh, a few square miles at the other side of the world. Remove all our nationals first and send a load of ships to go and get back what was it? Ten square miles and a couple of score of sheep .. And some penguins :) Furthermore, I don't think we should have raised the guy to power and aided him for the years that we did; Hussein or Bush :) At the time, "the mad Ayatollah" proved to be something that needed dealing with and Hussein's politics seemed to be right. Well, guess what ... We got rid of Hussein and we have another "mad Ayatollah" in Iran. Oh, like Afghanistan when the Russians were our (well, your) enemy. You think we'd learn by now. I mean, we've (the British) have had the Irish problem for the last 150 years, so you'd think we'd be used to playing both sides. Western foreign policy does not work. Perhaps the best foreign policy is to keep the (whatever) away from foreigners :) So, there's no WMD! If Hussein does manage to get off war crimes charges as well, which in all fairness, he might ... Does he get his country back? Maybe he could come here and live out his life in the English countryside like other great dictators, such as General Pinochet? > My opinion on that was and is, we should've taken the guy out because he > _was_ a credible threat based on the best available information, and > then turned it over to them..."Here ya go, we fixed your problem. Make > sure the next guy behaves or we'll have to come back and do it again if > he starts threatening us and our interests again. Have a nice day." Apart from the current situation with tribal warfare and rioting is much worse than before and there does not seem to be any kind of exit strategy that does not constitute our soldiers simply walking away. I really can't think what the credible threat was at the time. Long range missiles? Well, you've got them, we've got them, France have got them, Russia have, India do ... So what? Do you really think someone who has been a President of a very volatile country in a very volatile region since the '70s would be dumb enough to shake them at the US? That's so much more for the fanatic than seasoned dictator. > There's probably a reason I've never been called "diplomatic". :) >> I haven't seen any cars here that are designed to work with the equivalent >> of E85 fuel yet, but I'm sure they're on the way. > > What about the ecopower engine of a few years ago from Saab? I thought > the whole point was it could burn whateverthehell you put in it? > Further, do the boost, timing, and other parameters change dramatically > with a different fuel, that you couldn't just add that part of the map > to the ECU? Does Trionic need to know, or does it care, that it's > burning something other than gasoline (or petrol even?) Nope - that's the beauty of Trionic! Personally, I'm amazed it took so long for SAAB to publicise this technology and formalise it into a retail car. Volvo beat them with their Bi-Fuel cars, but I think the SAAB product is better; certainly a very viable technology for the future and a good reason for someone to buy SAAB from GM when the going gets tough(er). Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/
