| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:21 pm Post subject: SUVS AND TERRORISM |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| SUVS AND TERRORISM: Fareed Zakaria makes an excellent point today in a column about rising oil prices, and how they are helping to finance the terror masters in Tehran, Saudi Arabi and elsewhere. Some kind of move toward greater energy efficiency is essential in the war on terror. But what I didn't realize is how the curse of the SUV is so damaging. Fareed writes that 54 percent of today's U.S. fleet of cars are made up by these ugly, behemoth tanks that guzzle gas, and make life miserable for everyone not in them. My anti-SUV ire always goes up in the summer, when I see these vast, bloated symbols of excess bulldozing down the narrow streets of Provincetown, pushing every bicyclist, pedestrian or small child out of their way. My only solace is thinking of how many of these SUV owners are pouring money away to keep their mobile homes on the road. Pity that same money goes to finance Islamist terror. And please don't give me all this guff about how I don't have a car (hey, I'm not indirectly donating to al Qaeda), having to take kids here, there and everywhere, with all their stuff and the dogs and suburbs and soccer practices and on and on. All of this took place before SUVs; kids were just packed into back seats and trunks were stuffed full if necessary. Parents coped. Kids thrived. If all else failed, people could even have less stuff. Imagine that: less stuff. As readers know, I'd gladly put a dollar of extra tax on gas, insist on higher fuel standards for cars, make SUVs comply with the fuel standards of other cars and put a tax on SUVs on top pf all that. We are in a war. As far as I'm concerned, those people driving SUVs are aiding and abetting the enemy, and helping to finance the terrorists that want to kill us all. I'm well aware that the notion that the Bush administration has any interest in energy independence or taxing gas or deterring SUVs is about as likely as their demanding subsidies for sex-changes, but I might as well vent. We can always stigmatize these SUV-terror-enablers. How about bumper-stickers for non-SUVs that simply say: my car doesn't subsidize Saudi terror. Would that help? |
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is hokam. So if we get rid of every SUV, all Islamic terrorism will stop? This is what you said. Or did you say anything? The oil money will still come in and fundamentalism will still go on.
I agree that the internal combustion engine is beyond its prime but this suggestion is just West bashing from a moderate Muslim.
The existance of opulance in the face of their moral supremacy and poverty of wealth fuels the attacks more than the gas money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If groups or nations that are hostile to the US have less money then they won't be able to make nearly as much trouble.
Without oil money Al Qaida would have to either sell drugs or hold a bake sale.
Indeed lower oil prices might mean the end of other creepy governments like the one in Venezuela.
The oil price collapse in the late 80's was one of the factors that led to the fall of the Soviet Empire.
Why fund your enemy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The money will come regardless. If we don't buy it, the Chinese will be there and then everyone else will gets some too. It won't make any difference. I think we should conserve, use less and develop alternatives
but linking these concepts this way is absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Higher usage = higher demand
Lower usage = lower demand
Higher demand = higher oil prices
Lower demand = lower oil prices
Higher oil prices = more money for Saudi Arabia , Iran and Venezuela
Lower oil prices = less money for Saudi Arabia , Iran and Venezula
More money for Saudi Arabia , Iran and Venezuela = more money for Al Qaida , Hezzbollah and FARC
Less money for Saudi Arabia , Iran and Venezuela = less money for Al Qaida , Hezzbollah and FARC.
More money for Al Qaida , Hezzbollah and FARC = More terrorism
Less money for Al Qaida , Hezzbollah and FARC = Less terrorism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Indeed lower oil prices might mean the end of other creepy governments like the one in Venezuela.
The oil price collapse in the late 80's was one of the factors that led to the fall of the Soviet Empire.
Why fund your enemy? |
Why fund them, eh ??? Good question. Uhhhh ... how about so you can profit from it by pressuring them to hand over their natural resources when they can't pay back the huge loans you helped them with.
Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
Listen, watch ( or download )
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/17/1420221
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Without oil money Al Qaida would have to either sell drugs or hold a bake sale |
Remove their oil revenues so they have to rely more solely on "drugs" ??? Take it one step further. Isn't this clearly one more reason why ALL "illegal" drugs should be decriminalized ??? Doing so would immediately ensure one less source of black market income for terrorist groups, soldiers of fortune, mafia, CIA jackals etc.
Irony here of course is when people like Bush make moronic statements regarding the alleged link between the war on "terror" with the war on "drugs".
Well duh, as Bonesman Bush knows all too well, prohibition of ANY KIND has only ever served to promote criminal interests  Decriminalize "X" and suddenly consumers find its market cost more affordable. So Mr. Bush, you say there's a linkage between "terror" and illicit "drugs" ??? Well then reform these sinister & absurd laws ya lame brain. You're the President for cryin' out loud ... where's your will ???
Oh yah, while we're on the topic: Iran / Contra anyone ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
igotthisguitar wrote:
| Quote: |
| Irony here of course is when people like Bush make moronic statements regarding the alleged link between the war on "terror" with the war on "drugs". |
'Hezbollah drugs ring' broken up
Police in Ecuador say they have broken up an international drugs ring which was raising money for the Islamic militant group, Hezbollah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4117960.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
'Hezbollah drugs ring' broken up
Police in Ecuador say they have broken up an international drugs ring which was raising money for the Islamic militant group, Hezbollah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4117960.stm |
That's nice. Everything in bold too ... wow ... adds a certain je ne sais quois.
Anyways, you TOTALLY missed my earlier point. How much $$$ would Hezbollah, the CIA, or whoever be raising if, as in this case, certain "drugs" were no longer forced to exist on the black market ??? I believe a parallel can be made to prostitution as well. The answer's quite clear: if it AIN'T "illegal", it's a whole lot cheaper !!!
Supply & demand, just as you Joo point out re: oil. The illicit profits would be nowhere near as much as when state backed prohibition keeps their costs artificially jacked-up all too high.
Strange isn't it ???
Care to try responding directly OR do you not follow what i said ???
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yoda
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Location: Incheon, South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours" 
Their sign should probably read: Lip that have not touched liquor would never touch ours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, this one's for you:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yoda wrote: |
"Lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours"
Their sign should probably read: Lip that have not touched liquor would never touch ours. |
Did you read that over 3 Alley Pubs pisser too? 
That one had me rolling.
Joo...
Right on man.
It pisses me off how many USAmericans drive spotless SUVs, 8 cylinder sports cars, and big a$$, tricked out pickups without a scratch on 'em.
I understand that some people have legitamate use for these things, (and here I would include parents with many children) I myself would be unable to take, oh say, a Toyota Prius to work. I'd bottom out 4 times just getting there.
Here is another thing to consider.
The rising oil prices are largely coming from increasing numbers of cars owned by an increasingly affluent middle class in China and India. These countries keep getting bigger and they are definately getting richer.
So our oil prices will keep on rising.
Our economies will suffer.
But tell this to US auto manufacturers. The only major US hybrid right now gets worse mileage than a regular Honda Civic.
Travesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
simple one-third increase in the mileage of new vehicles would have a remarkably beneficial impact on the United States-Persian Gulf relationship, and quickly.
Here's the math. About 17 million new cars and "light trucks" (SUVs, pickups, and minivans) are sold in the United States each year and driven, on average, about 12,000 miles annually. If the fuel efficiency of 17 million vehicles driven 12,000 miles annually rose by one-third, from a real-world 17 MPG to a real-world 23 MPG, that would save about 200 gallons of gasoline annually per vehicle, or about 3.4 billion gallons of gasoline. Since a barrel of petroleum yields 20 gallons of gasoline, about 170 million barrels of oil would be saved.
Perhaps you think, Aha! With U.S. petroleum demand at 20 million barrels daily, this MPG initiative has saved just about one week's worth of oil. Yes--in the first year, the MPG increase would have little effect, in much the same way that, in their first year, few investments yield much return. But remember the miracle of compounding! In the second year, with two model-years' worth of vehicles at the higher MPG, 340 million barrels of oil are saved. The next year, the savings is 510 million barrels, the next year 680 million, and so on. In just the fifth year of this initiative, we would need to purchase about 850 million fewer barrels of petroleum--approximately the amount the United States imports each year from the Persian Gulf states. |
"Of course, John McCain backs this strategy. 9/11 was the obvious opportunity to revolutionize American energy policy to rid ourselves of having to deal with Islamo-fascist cartels. Bush blew it."
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
The sky must be falling! I actually agree with Joo on this.
By the way, I couldn't but help noticing how many Koreans drive SUV's as well.
It's even more ridiculous here in K-land with the narrow streets and all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| not to mention the insane gas prices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
