US Marines Massscred Iraqi Civilians.

[Streathamite]

but what clincher proof do you have that we have, actually, reached that point?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

The amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline is the same as before. There were great advances in the 1970s and 1980s in fuel-use efficiency but these advances cannot be sustained indefinitely. Eventually you approach hard limits.

You have missed the point entirely.

The average fuel efficiency has decreased since the mid-70s. Also, there have been huge strides in efficiency in the last few years. I had an american car manufactured in the 80s that got 40 mpg. My current ride gets 16 in the city and 28 on the road.

American manufacturers have simply not kept on top of the technology--much to their economic detriment. Companies that have kept up with technology have fared much better in the market. We only need a 10% increase across the board increase in fuel efficiency to totally eliminate any oil useage from the middle east. This is entirely feasible with current technology. Too bad everyone is too lazy/stupid/crazy to take advantage of what could be economic and social advantage.

There is never anything good that comes from waste and inefficiency.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

but what clincher proof do you have that we have, actually, reached that point?

We haven't. How many mpg do European cars get? The average american car get 15 mpg.

 

[rogue yam]

the thing that makes me laugh about yank cars compared to european and far eastern cars is the sheer outdatedness of them, the wallowy suspension, the lack of power v engine size, the shoddiness of the build, the ridiculous fuel consumption figures yet seppoes refuse to buy anything else, why.

This post is so wrong it's "u75 wrong"! Toyota and others are kicking ass in the American marketplace. GM just announced more buy-outs (lay-offs) today. Some Americans want big, powerful trucks and SUVs. These are still predominantly (though not exclusively) American-made. Smaller vehicles are often imported. As I'm typing I need only glance over my right shoulder out the window and down to the street to see that you have your facts wrong.

 

[spring-peeper]

TOLEDO, Ohio - Dana Corp., which has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for its U.S. operations, expects to report a $376 million loss for last year's fourth quarter, the auto parts maker said Wednesday.

The results include a $231 million loss from its continuing operations and a $123 million loss from its sales of businesses that make fluid and pump products and engine parts.

This compares with a net loss of $136 million in the fourth quarter of 2004, which included a loss from continuing operations of $72 million.

The Toledo-based company had fourth quarter sales last year of $2.04 billion compared with $1.98 billion for the same period in 2004.

Dana, which sells brakes, axles and other parts to most major automakers, filed for bankruptcy protection on March 3 so it could fix financial and operational problems.

The company had been hurt by rising energy costs that drove up the costs of raw materials and hurt demand for gas guzzling sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks. Dana is among a growing number of suppliers forced to make major restructuring moves because of the slumping U.S. auto industry.

Dana expects to post $376 million loss for fourth quarter

 

[rogue yam]

You have missed the point entirely.

The average fuel efficiency has decreased since the mid-70s. Also, there have been huge strides in efficiency in the last few years. I had an american car manufactured in the 80s that got 40 mpg. My current ride gets 16 in the city and 28 on the road.

No, it is you who has missed the point. Your post to which I replied spoke of advances in efficiency by manufacturers. These advances continue, though they have slowed for the reason I gave. Now you switch subjects to the average fuel efficiency of those cars purchased. This is an entirely different matter. What has also happened since the 1970s and 1980s is that Americans on average have become far, far wealthier! Also the percentage of the total cost of owning a motor vehicle in the US that is spent on fuel has gone down. Thus Americans are better able to afford vehicles, and the fuel consumption rate is less significant to the economics of car vehicle ownership. The result is that many American consumers have sought amenities other than fuel efficiency from their vehicles, such as interior space and comfort, power, crash-worthiness, etc. This has nothing to do with the manufacturers and technological efficiency gains. The high mileage vehicles are out there. If you didn't buy one, that's your own choice.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Anyway... remember the 15 Iraqi civilians massacred back in November (rather than the 11 last week)? Here's an update.

U.S. probes shooting of 23 Iraqis by marines

U.S. military criminal investigators are trying to determine whether marines deliberately targeted civilians and covered it up after they shot dead 23 Iraqis shortly after one of their own was killed by a roadside bomb near Haditha in western Iraq.

..The military concluded that, contrary to the initial report, the marines did shoot dead 15 civilians, including three children and seven women, who were designated as non-combatants but considered "collateral damage." The other eight Iraqis were considered armed insurgents, although the marines turned up only two guns.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060321.IRAQ21/TPStory/TPInternational/

 

[spring-peeper]

NEW YORK - March 10, 2006: Automakers General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. will face unprecedented financial and operational challenges in 2006 as they fight to turn around their ailing performance in the critical North American market. The two giant automakers will continue to face the same triple threat that produced poor results in 2005: excess capacity, high legacy costs, and changing customer preferences, as evidenced by the declining sales of higher-profit SUVs. And, while both companies grapple with those problems, they will be preparing for what seems likely to be tough bargaining with the United Auto Workers (UAW), whose labor contract with the automakers ends in 2007.

Both companies currently have substantial liquidity but also prospective calls on that liquidity. Standard & Poor's believes that if they cannot reverse the negative trends that have buffeted them, General Motors could ultimately have to restructure its debt and contractual obligations, while a somewhat healthier Ford could suffer from the price actions of its competitors.

GM and Ford Face Extraordinary Challenges In 2006, Says S&P Report

 

[rogue yam]

but what clincher proof do you have that we have, actually, reached that point?

You're really just not very good at this whole debate thing, kid.

 

[rogue yam]

GM and Ford Face Extraordinary Challenges In 2006, Says S&P Report

Is there some point to all of this cut-and-paste?

 

[angry bob]

I don't know how old you are but leftist dipsticks have been repeating this mantra since the early 1970s if not longer. Wishing doesn't affect the laws of physics or the principles of economics. Oil is far, far cheaper than any other alternative resource. So long as this is true, and it will clearly be true for at least several more decades no matter what the hippies might wish, there will be huge wealth and thus high tension, if not wars, in oil-producing countries.

I'm having trouble believing you're sincere. I keep getting this picture of an english guy who's bored at work and trying to keep himself amused by winding us all up.

Anyway ... if you are for real ...

Surely nuclear energy is by far the best bet from an economic standpoint? The EPA is quite tough these days. Bunch of hippies that they are

Your post seems to be a tacit admission that america fights war for oil?

And what has physics got to do with anything?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Is there some point to all of this cut-and-paste?

You might try something novel and try reading it.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I'm having trouble believing you're sincere. I keep getting this picture of an english guy who's bored at work and trying to keep himself amused by winding us all up.

Hes not sincere. He is just on a wind-up.

Fortunately, I'm a bored techie with nothing better to do today, either.

 

[angry bob]

This post is so wrong it's "u75 wrong"! Toyota and others are kicking ass in the American marketplace. GM just announced more buy-outs (lay-offs) today. Some Americans want big, powerful trucks and SUVs. These are still predominantly (though not exclusively) American-made. Smaller vehicles are often imported. As I'm typing I need only glance over my right shoulder out the window and down to the street to see that you have your facts wrong.

Very true. Partly due to the huge amount of pension/insurance that GM has to pay per car.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

...the marines turned up only two guns.

I wish I lived in such a sharing society.

Meanwhile... at the risk of derailing the thread, ( ) Japan seems to be having it's own problems getting rid of the USMC:

Japan rejects price to move U.S. Marines
Mar 17, 2006, 11:32 GMT

TOKYO, Japan (UPI) -- Japanese Cabinet officials have rejected the U.S. proposal that Japan shoulder the cost of relocating U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam.

At a meeting in Tokyo Thursday night, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, Foreign Minister Taro Aso and Defense Agency Chief Fukushiro Nukaga agreed that Japan cannot accept the U.S. request that Japan pay 75 percent of the estimated $10 billion cost to move the Marines` base, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported Friday.

Japan will convey the decision to the United States during vice ministerial-level talks between diplomats and defense officials next week, the report said.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/....php/Japan_rejects_price_to_move_U.S._Marines

Lucky old Guam, eh?

 

[Streathamite]

If this is common practice then why have a thread full of outrage over an undocumented example of more of the same? Sounds like "caca" to me.

err...to emphasise that it does not become any less unacceptable or barbaric, however many such incidents occur, as otherwise there is the risk that the sheir weight of numers could dull one's moral senses?
obvious enough even to a an uncivilised neocon, i'd have thought.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

No, it is you who has missed the point. Your post to which I replied spoke of advances in efficiency by manufacturers. These advances continue, though they have slowed for the reason I gave. Now you switch subjects to the average fuel efficiency of those cars purchased. This is an entirely different matter. What has also happened since the 1970s and 1980s is that Americans on average have become far, far wealthier! Also the percentage of the total cost of owning a motor vehicle in the US that is spent on fuel has gone down. Thus Americans are better able to afford vehicles, and the fuel consumption rate is less significant to the economics of car vehicle ownership. The result is that many American consumers have sought amenities other than fuel efficiency from their vehicles, such as interior space and comfort, power, crash-worthiness, etc. This has nothing to do with the manufacturers and technological efficiency gains. The high mileage vehicles are out there. If you didn't buy one, that's your own choice.

So what you are saying is that americans are too fat, lazy, and spoiled to pay attention to efficiency. On that I would agree. That lack of attention will come back to bit us in the ass.

So what nationality are you, Rogue Yam??? No dodging this time.

 

[Streathamite]

You're really just not very good at this whole debate thing, kid.

you mean; " i don't know any answer to that question which can be reconciled with my ideological agenda, i don't wanna admit I'm wrong in fwont of all the gwown-ups, so I'll resort to the sort of non-answer my big bwuther taught me, in the hope no-one qwill notice i've just cowarded outy of the question".
You really can't even tell when you've made yourself look like a complete dickhead, can you?
and believe me, I wish I WAS young enough for you to call me 'kid' with any degree of credibility!

 

[Streathamite]

There are other possibilities as well, which you don't list. What is interesting is how quickly the losers on this site embrace the least likely one.

oooh yeah, because the American State shouldn't be associated with barbaric practices at all, should it?

 

[rogue yam]

Surely nuclear energy is by far the best bet from an economic standpoint? The EPA is quite tough these days. Bunch of hippies that they are

Your post seems to be a tacit admission that america fights war for oil?

And what has physics got to do with anything?

Nuclear energy is a very good choice for generating electricity. The US would be much better off if we had more nuke plants. I expect that in the future we will. The EPA does not regulate nuclear power plants. That was deliberately kept in the Dept. of Energy because people wisely expected the EPA to be hippie-infested, as it is. It is others outside of the Federal government that have blocked nuclear power in the US. I hope and expect this will change eventually. Still, oil is primarily used for motor vehicle fuel and nukes are not a good substitute for this application.

If the Arabs and the Persians had absolutely no oil, they would be discussed on this board about as much as the Somalians and the Rwandans are. Which is to say, not at all. Anybody who doesn't understand this is a retard.

When the subject is energy conversion and alternative energy resources, the laws of physics determine everything. Thus your third point is utterly stupid. Try harder.

 

[rogue yam]

So what you are saying is that americans are too fat, lazy, and spoiled to pay attention to efficiency. On that I would agree. That lack of attention will come back to bit us in the ass.

So what nationality are you, Rogue Yam??? No dodging this time.

What I'm saying is that your posts didn't make sense for the reasons I gave. All that anti-American crap is for hippies like you. As for my nationality, I'm American. My posts have been quite clear on this. You lie when you say that I have "dodged".

 

[Crispy]

If the Arabs and the Persians had absolutely no oil, they would be discussed on this board about as much as the Somalians and the Rwandans are. Which is to say, not at all. Anybody who doesn't understand this is a retard.

When the subject is energy conversion and alternative energy resources, the laws of physics determine everything.

True on both counts.

Which just goes to show how easy it is to go from facts to bullshit - in either direction

 

[spring-peeper]

I suppose that everyone is aware that when Henry Ford "invented" the automobile it was thought that all cars would be running on ethanol. He even built ethanol plants all over the United States.

It wasn't until after the second world war and the price of petroleum came down that using gasoline became more popular.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

What I'm saying is that your posts didn't make sense for the reasons I gave. All that anti-American crap is for hippies like you. As for my nationality, I'm American. My posts have been quite clear on this. You lie when you say that I have "dodged".

Always the slander when you don't have an argument. What you freepers don't understand is that letting ourselves get behind technically is what is really not in america's best interests. That is really what is anti-american.

 

[rogue yam]

What you freepers don't understand is that letting ourselves get behind technically is what is really not in america's best interests. That is really what is anti-american.

We are not getting behind technically. Find a list of the fifty best engineering colleges in the world and see how many are American. Look at the number of patents or the number of scientific Nobel Prize recipients. Look at the performance of our cutting-edge technologies in the marketplace or in the battlespace. We are kicking ass, taking names, and then burning the list, hippies be damned!

 

[spring-peeper]

We are not getting behind technically. Find a list of the fifty best engineering colleges in the world and see how many are American. Look at the number of patents or the number of scientific Nobel Prize recipients. Look at the peformance of our cutting-edge technologies in the marketplace or in the battlespace. We are kicking ass, taking names, and then burning the list, hippies be damned!

Do you really believe all that stuff you just posted?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I suppose that everyone is aware that when Henry Ford "invented" the automobile it was thought that all cars would be running on ethanol. He even built ethanol plants all over the United States.

It wasn't until after the second world war and the price of petroleum came down that using gasoline became more popular.

Ethanol derived from hemp, wasn't it?

It's quite illuminating to study the PR / propaganda campaign promoting petroleum products just before and after WWII.

http://www.archive.org/details/DowntheG1935

http://www.archive.org/details/OilforAl1949

http://www.archive.org/details/Destinat1956

etc...

 

[rogue yam]

Do you really believe all that stuff you just posted?

What part of it do you not believe?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

What part of it do you not believe?

The bit you typed.

 

[spring-peeper]

Ethanol derived from hemp, wasn't it?

It's quite illuminating to study the PR / propaganda campaign promoting petroleum products just before and after WWII.

http://www.archive.org/details/DowntheG1935

http://www.archive.org/details/OilforAl1949

http://www.archive.org/details/Destinat1956

etc...

nice links, thanks.

Did you see "The End of Suburbia"?