PDA

View Full Version : SUV drivers support terrorists!


peter2002
Jan 9, 2003, 09:09 AM
Here is something new. SUV drivers support terrorists like Hesbollah, Osama and his gang. Every time you fill-up that big tank you are buying gas from the terrorists nations in the middle east. These profits go in part to support terrorists groups like Hesbollah, PLO, Al Qaeda, etc.

A new group called the Detroit Project has been getting a lot of press on the major news networks. They have a new web site where you can go and pledge when you will give up driving your tank to Wal-Mart to pick up chips and beer. At the site, you can check out their controversial TV ads, and find out more details on how you are supporting terrorism by driving an SUV.

I never see anyone ever go off-road in these 5,000+ pound beasts? Do you?

http://www.detroitproject.com/

Pete :D

Juventuz
Jan 9, 2003, 09:37 AM
Why is it just SUV drivers and not all drivers??

I drive a sports car and it goes through gas very quickly, so I need to buy gas a lot. Am I supporting terrorists? Their argument is ridiculous.

drnkmike
Jan 9, 2003, 09:45 AM
Don't we have embargoes and restrictions on oil we would get from countries we know are terrorist supporting countries. Buying oil is not the issue, its where the oil is bought that is the issue. Stop buying from the Terrorist countries and buy from Russian supplies or Mexico.

Taft
Jan 9, 2003, 10:16 AM
The ads are really focused on the negative aspects of the SUV. However the chose a method of delivery that is a bit cutting edge.

The ads are really a parody of the anti-drug ads this administration has been pushing the public as of late. If you've seen these anti-drug ads, you'll recognize the SUV ads immediately; they are almost exactly the same.

The point is that they'll turn the government's propaganda against them and advertise against gas guzzling and SUVs at the same time.

Taft

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 10:39 AM
As taft said, they're parodies of the anti drug "if you use drugs you support terrorists" bullshizzle

I think they're brilliant and pretty on the mark. The SUV is a plague. Its disgusting that they keep getting bigger and great auto companies like VW and BMW think they need an SUV to compete in america.

Saab is about the only company I'd buy a car from these days, simple because they HAVEN'T and DO NOT plan on jumping in on the SUV parade (and yes, i know they're owned by GM... but on principle...)

Plus, they;re nice cars. :)

That said, if hybrid cars get a lil' better, i'll dump the Saab and grab one of those. I know BMW is planning a hybrid car. I wanna see that. I'm sure Saab will also follow suit. :)

Kid Red
Jan 9, 2003, 10:47 AM
Drugs do support terrorism, they jsut busted some folks in asia selling drugs to help finance Osama.

As for the SUVs and gas- SUVs are targets because they are fricking tanks that guzzle gas like no tomorrow. The issue is that Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Shell and a few otehr import 90% of their oil from Irag, Iran, Saudi Arabi and other know 'terrorist supporters. So by buying their oil, you give that county more income to help contribute to the terrorists they support. There are some gas stations that do not get any gas from the middle east Texaco and Citgo are a couple IIRC.

I got an email explaing the whole thing and which gas stations were buying gas from the middle east and who weren't. The point is, if you don't buy gas for those gas stations in protest that maybe they'd change their ways and buy oil from other countires. The SUV commercial is just a shot in the jaw without the details way of saying that.

I loved it.

3rdpath
Jan 9, 2003, 10:55 AM
i think the ads are a wonderful parody and a nice slap at our government's innacurate ploy to tie drugs to terrorism while ignoring the larger issue of why we are so dependent on these oil-rich countries.

its a well known fact that the terrorists of the middle east were funded by the saudis..and where do they get their money? so the underlying sentiment of the ads IS factual and accurate.

the sad fact is the majority of SUV's i see on the road have only one person in them..whats the point. lets be real, SUV's are a luxury/status item for most of the population...who REALLY needs an Escalade or a landcruiser? for some situations SUV's have their place, but there is no reason they can't be hybrid powered for better fuel economy.

who knows if we'll ever see the ads on national TV...abc/disney( the darkest/most evil entity in the entertainment business...ask anyone who works with them.) has refused to run them. i'm sure the other networks will follow suit. no need to risk advertising revenue by generating public awareness. by all means, don't piss off the soccer moms....:rolleyes:

faustfire7
Jan 9, 2003, 10:59 AM
Its about time someone brought to light how incredibly ignorant those drug ads are. Instead of just the suv ads, they should have one that lets people know that when you pay your taxes you are supporting the biggest terrorist organization, and supporter of terrorist regimes, in the world, the US government.

"Just think, when you get your paycheck at the end of the week and you look at the money you've paid in taxes, that money could have gone to buy a new rifle for an israli soldier, which he could use to kill palestinian childen who throw rocks at his tank."

or

"...that money could have got to overthrow the democraticly elected government of a small thirdworld nation, all because that government put the wellfare of its citizens above the profits of corporations."

Now that would be truth in advertising.

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Kid Red
Drugs do support terrorism, they jsut busted some folks in asia selling drugs to help finance Osama.

As for the SUVs and gas- SUVs are targets because they are fricking tanks that guzzle gas like no tomorrow. The issue is that Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Shell and a few otehr import 90% of their oil from Irag, Iran, Saudi Arabi and other know 'terrorist supporters. So by buying their oil, you give that county more income to help contribute to the terrorists they support. There are some gas stations that do not get any gas from the middle east Texaco and Citgo are a couple IIRC.

I got an email explaing the whole thing and which gas stations were buying gas from the middle east and who weren't. The point is, if you don't buy gas for those gas stations in protest that maybe they'd change their ways and buy oil from other countires. The SUV commercial is just a shot in the jaw without the details way of saying that.

I loved it.


Is it possible you could forward that email to me? Would LOVE to see it.

My email should be on my profile.,

m

cubist
Jan 9, 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by faustfire7
Its about time someone brought to light how incredibly ignorant those drug ads are. Instead of just the suv ads, they should have one that lets people know that when you pay your taxes you are supporting the biggest terrorist organization, and supporter of terrorist regimes, in the world, the US government.

"Just think, when you get your paycheck at the end of the week and you look at the money you've paid in taxes, that money could have gone to buy a new rifle for an israli soldier, which he could use to kill palestinian childen who throw rocks at his tank."

or

"...that money could have got to overthrow the democraticly elected government of a small thirdworld nation, all because that government put the wellfare of its citizens above the profits of corporations."

Now that would be truth in advertising.

You like to get flamed, do you? The Palestinians are blowing up little kids with bombs full of nails. They are blowing up buses full of commuters. If/when one blows up some of your friends at your local shopping mall, will you still have sympathy for their cause? And the second quote is even more laughable. None of the third-world countries (especially the islamic ones) care one hoot about the welfare of their citizens. All they care about is lining their own pockets. Hence the term "kleptocracy". Your world view is seriously illusionary.

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by cubist


You like to get flamed, do you? The Palestinians are blowing up little kids with bombs full of nails. They are blowing up buses full of commuters. If/when one blows up some of your friends at your local shopping mall, will you still have sympathy for their cause? And the second quote is even more laughable. None of the third-world countries (especially the islamic ones) care one hoot about the welfare of their citizens. All they care about is lining their own pockets. Hence the term "kleptocracy". Your world view is seriously illusionary.

And what about the carpet bombings in afghanistan? What about the civilian death toll there, due to american bombs, that didn't get reported on FOX News. What about our "crushing" on the Cuban economy? What about America's continued reckless pollution and destruction of the rainforests to support MkkkDonalds... What about our rampant consumerism in buying clothes at the GAP and NIKE, made by sweatshops?

We're just as bad, and maybe not so dramatic with our killings.... but at least people that get blown up don't have to deal with daily pain of living under the oppression of the USA. And they won;t have to deal with a dead earth when we pollute the planet to the point where we won't be able to fix it.

faustfire7
Jan 9, 2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by cubist


You like to get flamed, do you? The Palestinians are blowing up little kids with bombs full of nails. They are blowing up buses full of commuters. If/when one blows up some of your friends at your local shopping mall, will you still have sympathy for their cause? And the second quote is even more laughable. None of the third-world countries (especially the islamic ones) care one hoot about the welfare of their citizens. All they care about is lining their own pockets. Hence the term "kleptocracy". Your world view is seriously illusionary.

I do not support the methods of the PLO, but they do have a very real cause. They are being illegaly occupied by a country whose only claim to the land is an ancient book of myths, which they use as a legitamate deed. Its a strange thing though, when a palestinian blows up a bus full of israli citizens, it is an act of terrorism. When an israli tank destroys and entire palestinian neighborhood, it is an act of war. Why, because the isralis have money for tanks, and the palestinians have none? As to your second comment, the reason third world countrys don't "give a hoot" about their citizens is because any time a viable democratic government comes to power the US government, directly or indirectly, helps overthrow it. Lets not forget who put the taliban in power in the first place.

cubist
Jan 9, 2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike


And what about the carpet bombings in afghanistan? What about the civilian death toll there, due to american bombs, that didn't get reported on FOX News. What about our "crushing" on the Cuban economy? What about America's continued reckless pollution and destruction of the rainforests to support MkkkDonalds... What about our rampant consumerism in buying clothes at the GAP and NIKE, made by sweatshops?

We're just as bad, and maybe not so dramatic with our killings.... but at least people that get blown up don't have to deal with daily pain of living under the oppression of the USA. And they won;t have to deal with a dead earth when we pollute the planet to the point where we won't be able to fix it.

If those countries are so wonderful, how come the people there want to come here, and nobody here wants to go there?

There were no carpet bombings in Afghanistan. We do not "crush" the Cuban economy. Capitalism is abusive to a certain extent... but you cannot compare anything the US has ever done in its entire history to the deliberate murder of athletes at the 1972 Olympics, the destruction of the WTC, the suicide bombers deliberately targeting children, the Soviet Union starving millions of its citizens in the 1930's. (OK maybe Waco and Ruby Ridge.)

"We're just as bad"? You're absolutely wrong. Someone has been lying to you. Think about it.

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by cubist


If those countries are so wonderful, how come the people there want to come here, and nobody here wants to go there?

There were no carpet bombings in Afghanistan. We do not "crush" the Cuban economy. Capitalism is abusive to a certain extent... but you cannot compare anything the US has ever done in its entire history to the deliberate murder of athletes at the 1972 Olympics, the destruction of the WTC, the suicide bombers deliberately targeting children, the Soviet Union starving millions of its citizens in the 1930's. (OK maybe Waco and Ruby Ridge.)

"We're just as bad"? You're absolutely wrong. Someone has been lying to you. Think about it.

Ah. You're such a good american... convieniently forgetting who propelled the Weapon of Mass Destruction into popularity.

Can you say Hirsohima??

Okinawa??

How about the japanese being put in concentration camps during WWII here??

Hm?

Oh. Convieniently you forget. ;)

drnkmike
Jan 9, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by peter2002

I never see anyone ever go off-road in these 5,000+ pound beasts? Do you?
Pete :D

Yes, Yes I do. I personally use my Tahoe to tow a 6000LB trailer, other than that is spends most of the week in the garage since my wifes communte consists of about 20 yards of walking. My commute is in a Corrolla.

As for the the hybrid comment.

SUV's have their place, but there is no reason they can't be hybrid powered for better fuel economy.

That would be nice but the size of the electric motors required to move an SUV during its intended purpose, i.e towing would be HUGE. A better solution would be to get the public past their irrational bias and fear of diesel and push the government to pass the required legislation to approve the new "designer" low sulfur diesel fuels. Diesel is far more efficient than gasoline, providing low emissions, good fuel economy and huge power output. Of course so many keep going back to the poorly design diesels in GM cars of the past without even knowing anything about diesel.

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 12:27 PM
Moxiemike:

Ah. You're such a good american... convieniently forgetting who propelled the Weapon of Mass Destruction into popularity.

Can you say Hirsohima??

Okinawa??
I realize that you didn't talk about death, but really the use of nukes was completely insignificant in the face of the other death in WW2. I don't intend to look up the numbers, but it may be that even the firebombing of Dresden killed more people, and obviously that is nothing compared to the millions upon millions who died in Russia, or in Germany's death camps.

Nukes where a good way to end a terrible war. You need to stop America-bashing and try to look at things objectively.

D0ct0rteeth
Jan 9, 2003, 12:30 PM
This post is not meant to offend anyone and I have nothing against your choices in how you spend your money but personally I have always bought american.. and I can't stand SUV's. My first car was Dodge, then a Chevrolet.. now the only american car I would buy is the Cadillac CTS. I love Audi's but I have a hard time buying a car from a company that was literally established by Hitler.

It is true that the German and to a lesser extent the japanese cars are superior in details and design to american cars... I was drooling over the A6 for months until I finally broke down and bought the CTS... but I would rather support american business and interests. Mercedes built the the Panzer Corps.. I would rather my money supports Americans.

As I said to my brother "In fifty years if Iraq was building cars would you buy one?" Its my philosophy. I would be interrested to know how many Jews own VW/Audis...

It is also a similar choice that I support small family owned business' and tend to avoid chain restaraunts.... I will eat and Fire&Ice in cambridge before i eat at Chilis or TGI Fridays... personal choice.

Good times.

-Doc

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 12:35 PM
cubist:

anything the US has ever done in its entire history
Actually I was think about that, and recalled that the Native Americians did get the shaft. Not that I feel bad about the taking of their land (a form of progress), but it's quite unfortunate that there had to be so much death.

faustfire7
Jan 9, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Moxiemike:


I realize that you didn't talk about death, but really the use of nukes was completely insignificant in the face of the other death in WW2. I don't intend to look up the numbers, but it may be that even the firebombing of Dresden killed more people, and obviously that is nothing compared to the millions upon millions who died in Russia, or in Germany's death camps.

Nukes where a good way to end a terrible war. You need to stop America-bashing and try to look at things objectively.

the use of the atom bomb was very significant. The fact is that the bomb was not even needed, the war was already over. The Japanese had already offered to surrender, with a few minor conditions. The US rejected their surrender so it could show off its new "toy" to russia. A little reading of history beyond what you learned in high school would help.

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 12:40 PM
D0ct0rteeth:

I love Audi's but I have a hard time buying a car from a company that was literally established by Hitler.
Mercedes built the the Panzer Corps..
Sheesh, try forgiving them! It's not like anyone currently working at either of those companies had anything to do with Hitler or any of that.

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Moxiemike:


I realize that you didn't talk about death, but really the use of nukes was completely insignificant in the face of the other death in WW2. I don't intend to look up the numbers, but it may be that even the firebombing of Dresden killed more people, and obviously that is nothing compared to the millions upon millions who died in Russia, or in Germany's death camps.

Nukes where a good way to end a terrible war. You need to stop America-bashing and try to look at things objectively.

I'll stop America-bashing when you stop the blind and pathetic "patriotism" to a country that probably would send you off to die in a money war in Iraw quicker than you could say U S of A!

Sure, there were millions of casulties in WWII. But I'm not talking about the 70,000 lives lost when we decided it would be best to use brute force to end the war quickly.

We're talking about the slow effects of the nukes we dropped. And the innocent lives. We attempted to commit a genocide to win a war. We're not better than the Nazis. The effects of the radiation poisoning continued to
show up until about a month after the bombing. The bomb also killed or permanently damaged fetuses in the womb.

And of course, there's the famous quote that I tend to think of when arguing with people who cannot seem to think globally, aside from thinking that America is the only country around: "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"

We're terrorists. Or more appropriately, our government are the terrorists. However, much like the Taliban, Saddam, et. al, they hide behind a level of security that leaves the only option to attack are innocent people.

America, for our complete lack of general dignity in foreign relations, our belief that we're the world's police force, from 1945 up to 2003, we pretty much deserve what we get.

Unfortunately, just like in japan, a lot of smart thinking people will suffer. But if it makes the world a better place, and alleviates the corporate/politcal greed that powers America....i'm ok with it. But it won't. We'll keep flaunting our money instead of being humble. We'll build bigger buildings. Larger SUVs, we'll keep polluting the environment to keep McD's happy so they can put ugly McDs in vatican city and we'll continually force our politcal beliefs on other countries. We'll overthrow governments that we don't agree with and continue creating talibans to fight them. We'll do the initial research and funding for the next bin laden. And We'll act surprised and shocked when it all comes back to bite us in the arse.

We're just as bad as any other country....

faustfire7
Jan 9, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
cubist:


Actually I was think about that, and recalled that the Native Americians did get the shaft. Not that I feel bad about the taking of their land (a form of progress), but it's quite unfortunate that there had to be so much death.

Yea, your right. Maybe we should just go over to afganistan and iraq and take it away from those savages. As long as its in the name of progress.

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 12:49 PM
Moxiemike:

We attempted to commit a genocide to win a war. We're not better than the Nazis.
I am totally dismayed by this world view.

We're terrorists. Or more appropriately, our government are the terrorists.
So when have we deliberatly killed the innocent in order to spread fear? Certainly not recently.

Unfortunately, just like in japan, a lot of smart thinking people will suffer.
Japan should thank us for those nukes. They woke up and became a very productive member of the world society, and have not been in a war since.

We're just as bad as any other country....
I've never claimed we are devine, or anything. I think we do pretty well, though.

faustfire7:

Yea, your right. Maybe we should just go over to afganistan and iraq and take it away from those savages. As long as its in the name of progress.
A nation of millions is far different than tribes. Had tribes been allowed to maintain the whole of America (north+south), then obviously a lot of progress would have been stopped. Note also that I'm not calling them savages or anything else, just saying that it is OK for the land to be put to more productive use. Edit: I overlooked the South American nations actually, but since the USoA had nothing to do with their fall, I guess it's not part of the topic.

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by D0ct0rteeth
This post is not meant to offend anyone and I have nothing against your choices in how you spend your money but personally I have always bought american.. and I can't stand SUV's. My first car was Dodge, then a Chevrolet.. now the only american car I would buy is the Cadillac CTS. I love Audi's but I have a hard time buying a car from a company that was literally established by Hitler.

It is true that the German and to a lesser extent the japanese cars are superior in details and design to american cars... I was drooling over the A6 for months until I finally broke down and bought the CTS... but I would rather support american business and interests. Mercedes built the the Panzer Corps.. I would rather my money supports Americans.

As I said to my brother "In fifty years if Iraq was building cars would you buy one?" Its my philosophy. I would be interrested to know how many Jews own VW/Audis...

It is also a similar choice that I support small family owned business' and tend to avoid chain restaraunts.... I will eat and Fire&Ice in cambridge before i eat at Chilis or TGI Fridays... personal choice.

Good times.

-Doc

The main difference being that a european or to a lesser extent japanese car is going to be more reliable, have better resale value and going to last longer than an American car.

That said, a Saab, VW, Honda or Toyota is akin to eating at the local restaurant. You're supporting the better product, the business owner who takes more pride in their product.

And, I know a BUNCH of "jews" (jewish people, please dude:rolleyes: ) who LOVE VWs, porsches and Audis.

Oh. and btw, the transmission for that CTS was manufactured and engineered in Germany. :)

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Moxiemike:


I am totally dismayed by this world view.


So when have we deliberatly killed the innocent in order to spread fear? Certainly not recently.


Japan should thank us for those nukes. They woke up and became a very productive member of the world society, and have not been in a war since.


I've never claimed we are devine, or anything. I think we do pretty well, though.

faustfire7:


A nation of millions is far different than tribes. Had tribes been allowed to maintain the whole of America (north+south), then obviously a lot of progress would have been stopped. Note also that I'm not calling them savages or anything else, just saying that it is OK for the land to be put to more productive use. Edit: I overlooked the South American nations actually, but since the USoA had nothing to do with their fall, I guess it's not part of the topic.

Japan should thank us for the nukes????? WTF are you? You should be shot. You wanna talk about sad world views. Goddamn. Maybe someone should nuke us so we can become more productive. Maybe we'd start restructuring our schools and be able to spend money on that instead of military (after all, we'd just be bombing everyone else.... no need for soliders!)

Then people like you wouldn't CONVIENIENTLY forget about our terrorizing japan with nuke. ;)

You're a pathetic fool if you think ANYONE should thank us for the nukes we terrorized Japan with.

God. America REALLY does deserve everything we get with viewpoints like that

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 12:58 PM
faustfire7:

the use of the atom bomb was very significant. The fact is that the bomb was not even needed, the war was already over. The Japanese had already offered to surrender, with a few minor conditions. The US rejected their surrender so it could show off its new "toy" to russia. A little reading of history beyond what you learned in high school would help.
I'm familiar with those arguements, and I have always rejected them when I compared them to the more traditional view presented. I maintain that the use of the nukes was justified, and we jot precisely the result we wanted: a new Japan.

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 01:02 PM
Moxiemike:

Japan should thank us for the nukes????? WTF are you? You should be shot.
Ah, but I don't advocate murder when people express their opinions. And yes they should thank us, compared to the land-invasion option and how many would have died on both sides. Have people forgotten how terrible land combat was, and still is? You think that Japanese would have thanked us for a still larger bodycount?

You're a pathetic fool if you think ANYONE should thank us for the nukes we terrorized Japan with.
Terrorized? Stop using buzzwords on me. We didn't terrorize, it was a war, a very bloody terrible war, and the message was "you will surrender without condition".

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
faustfire7:


I'm familiar with those arguements, and I have always rejected them when I compared them to the more traditional view presented. I maintain that the use of the nukes was justified, and we jot precisely the result we wanted: a new Japan.

and when iraq or n.korea uses nukes on us, we have to then sit back and say, "just like we did with japan, they got exactly the result they wanted: a new america"

god. you really are a moron, and precisely the type of "american" whom people who take into accont the WORLD consistently have to apologize for. I bet you LOVE McDs quadruple grease burgers and a nice Miller Lite, only to eschew any type of foreign culture.

You're a moron.

a MORON. Complete and utter moron. I hope that when someone nukes us, they hit your city first.

Moxiemike
Jan 9, 2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Moxiemike:


Ah, but I don't advocate murder when people express their opinions. And yes they should thank us, compared to the land-invasion option and how many would have died on both sides. Have people forgotten how terrible land combat was, and still is? You think that Japanese would have thanked us for a still larger bodycount?


Terrorized? Stop using buzzwords on me. We didn't terrorize, it was a war, a very bloody terrible war, and the message was "you will surrender without condition".

i generally don't advocate murder either unless its the kind of short sighted, pre-primate style of opinion you are expressing here. By saying ANYONE should thank us for nuking the **** out of them.

You're shortsighted. and a moron.

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 01:09 PM
Moxiemike:

and when iraq or n.korea uses nukes on us, we have to then sit back and say, "just like we did with japan, they got exactly the result they wanted: a new america"
Comon, use your head. I have not called for "nuke-first", or "nuke-for-convienece". You are trying to twist my argument into things it is not. Nukes ended Japan's imerial age, at the end of a long and bloody war, during which they did terrible things to and invaded most all of their neighbors. Nukes, in the way they were used, solved that problem, and now Japan is a shining example of a "good" nation.

You're a moron.
I think nothing better of you, but I take pride in being able to control my emtions and try to conduct a rational discussion.

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 01:12 PM
Moxiemike:

i generally don't advocate murder either unless its the kind of short sighted, pre-primate style of opinion you are expressing here. By saying ANYONE should thank us for nuking the **** out of them.
Good to know that you don't usually advocate murder. And yep, they should thank us (well not litterally say the words, but they should appreciate) for not trying a land invasion. Care to speculate how many times more Jananese would have died in that alternative?

ddtlm
Jan 9, 2003, 01:16 PM
Moxiemike:

Anyway, it's been a bit since you've replied and I do need to do work today, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave this arguement were it stands.

macfan
Jan 9, 2003, 01:19 PM
moxiemike,
A couple of things...

Your contention that use of an atomic weapon to end WWII was a bad decision is far to simplistic. There are several things to consider:

1. Ending the war by invasion would have cost many more lives, and taken much more time. In war, time = more lives lost. Truman's decision to use the bomb was a decision with terrible side effects, but it was the right decision in that it brought the war to a swift conslusion. Truman was responsible for the lives of American forces, including POWs, whose lives depended on a swift end to the war. I once asked a group of peace activists meeting to discuss the Hiroshima decision this question, and they did agree that Truman pretty much made the best decision he could in the circumstances--they simply hadn't considered the negatives of his alternative choices until I asked them specifically.

2. Knowledge of the effects of radiation was somewhat limited at that time compared with today (so much so that a significant number of US military personnel died early deaths as a result of exposure to that radiation).

3. Truman had little way of knowing what weapons the Japanese might be developing that could either repel an invasion or strike the United States directly. There were Japanese bombs which did indeed reach the US mainland. Germany had also dispatched a submarine carrying radioactive material to Japan near the end of the war, while this may not have been known at the time, it points to the fact that the uncertainty made a rapid conclusion to the conflict essential.

4. The United States is by no means perfect, but to say that we are as bad as any other coutry displays a level of ignorance that is simply mind boggling.

5. Finally, consider this: If the US had the bomb in 1939 at the beginning of the war, the war would either have never happened or it would have been over in a matter of weeks, and millions of lives would have been spared.

BTW, there was little if any carpet bombing in Afghanistan. Carpet bombing is a particular technique whereby large formations of planes lay down devastating explosives in a relatively small geographic location. The Afghanistan campaign consisted mostly of precision-guided weapons at particlar targets, often as close air support for ground operations. Carpet bombing just doesn't work in that kind of environment. Had the US choosen to carpet bomb Afghanistan, the casualties would have been staggering.


we'll continually force our politcal beliefs on other countries.

Like free elections, representative government, the rule of law, freedom of expression, a market economy, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, and all those other horrible political beliefs. Yep, those are real terroristic concepts.

mischief
Jan 9, 2003, 07:47 PM
Hi, My Name is Tommy Chong and my habit supports an entire small town in British Columbia, a village in central Mexico and four Dealers here in town.

Hi, my name is Tommy Lee Jones and my Hash intake keeps Afghani's from growing more Opium.

Hi, My name is Bill Clinton and I built fine print into NAFTA that makes me the sole North American wholesaler after pending Canadian Legalization.

Hi, My name is George Washington Bush and my Cocaine habit kills thousands of innocent villagers and less than innocent middlemen across the world.

3rdpath
Jan 10, 2003, 12:52 AM
at the risk of bringing this thread back on topic....

today i enjoyed a fair bit of satisfaction taking the subway downtown to visit the L.A auto show. normally i would have driven but i decided to try our new subway...not a natural instinct in the land of auto-worship. in only 35 minutes i'd travelled the whole way plus walked the 5 blocks to the convention center...

what i would have given to have a " drive an SUV...fund a terrorist" t-shirt. the ungodly number of huge gas gusslers being fawned over by the masses was just sickening. the sheer plethora of low mpg cars and trucks was shocking...you really don't notice it until you spend a day walking from one car to another.

i was happy to see good crowds checking out the hybrid Prius and Civic...gotta love cars that get 46+ mpg in city driving. GM's exhibits were sorely lacking in new technologies...unless you count those golf carts they've "produced" as a way of complying with california's auto emission standards...how friggin lame.

i would've loved to see some of huffington's material displayed there.

ddtlm
Jan 10, 2003, 02:42 AM
3rdpath:

what i would have given to have a " drive an SUV...fund a terrorist" t-shirt
That saying has little value other than humor. Our entire lives are surronded by things that come from oil, and everything that doesn't was made using tools and/or transported to you by things using oil.

I don't like SUV's especially much (although I don't hate them either), however I think the problem with oil usage goes far beyond one thing. The problem is the utter wastefullness of our lives. Drive to get this, to get that, drive to work alone in your car... use too much hot water, use the A/C too much, leave the computers running too much... leave the lights on... the problem is not SUV's. SUV's are a symptom. The problem is that people do not value the energy they spend.

3rdpath
Jan 10, 2003, 12:49 PM
ddtlm,

i agree with much of your last post. SUV's ARE a symptom of a gluttonous and wasteful society...but to say that an attempt( be it homorous) to spread some awareness "is of little value" is to entirely miss the point.

change comes in small steps and these small steps are the result of heightened awareness. everyone is well aware that simply decreasing the number of SUV's will not solve the energy problem...but it does help. and if people are able to change their consumption philosophy enough to change their automobile, maybe they'll spread that mindset to other portions of their lives. it does happen...i'm proof of that.

there was a time when i shared the philosophy that my affluency entitled me to anything i could afford. i have no idea how my small steps began...a t-shirt, bumpersticker, pbs documentary or a long walk in the woods...who knows. and after a decade its amazing how far i've veered from my original peer group.

its not a change of velocity-just a change of trajectory.

Ovi
Jan 10, 2003, 04:52 PM
11

jelloshotsrule
Jan 10, 2003, 06:20 PM
funny thing... my uncle suggested such an ad campaign right when the anti drug ads came out... he was quick to point out the new ads when they came out... "i told you it was a good idea"

indeed it was

has anyone seen the woman who had the idea on the news? she hardly seems like a hippy/environmentalist in her business suit.

which is pretty cool.

ddtlm
Jan 10, 2003, 07:37 PM
Heh, well I guess I'm the only one who thought those adds were silly then. :rolleyes:

3rdpath
Jan 10, 2003, 09:16 PM
ovi,

you're correct that some people will only change when their financial situation leaves them no other option. BUT... to say that is the ONLY way people will change is to deny that the human mind can evolve. what this ad campaign attempts to do is make people think with their minds and not with their wallets. proactive thought instead of reactive action.

secondly, the argument isn't that ONLY SUV's support terrorism...but that any wasteful use of oil-based products needlessly enriches another country that has serious ties to terrorist activities. and this waste makes us further reliant on these countries...its a vicious losing cycle.

posturing the ban on all trucks, trains and air travel is a flawed arguement; these are necessary elements of our infrastructure. the critical point is to stop the needless waste of resources. i can assure you every airline, rail service and trucking company should be calculating every possible way not to be wasteful of oil...if they don't, they'll quite possibly be out of business and they'll waste no more fuel. using NO oil is not a realistic agenda...using less oil is an easily attainable goal.

furthermore, where does it say that cheap gas, inexpensive airfare and large homes with hot-tubs are an inalienable right? i can already hear the cries of the masses when fuel prices skyrocket to unimagined levels..."how can our government let this happen to us?"..."i can't afford gas for my truck, or heating for my 3000s/f home or airfare for weekend getaways...". as if it was the implied " 11th commandment".

our government's policies reflect the will of the majority...thats the ugly truth.

and that majority is motivated by one thought: IMAGINED ENTITLEMENT.

Ovi
Jan 10, 2003, 10:47 PM
11

jelloshotsrule
Jan 11, 2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Ovi
it is up to each person to decide how big a car or house they need, not the terrorists or some hyprocritical rich woman and her one sided campaign.

i agree with you in theory, but clearly people aren't doing that...

also, how is she hypocritical exactly?

also, it's odd how republicans using 9/11 as a stepping stone for taking away peoples' rights, whether constitutional or not, is ok, though a reference used, in satire i might add, by a more liberal/environmental standpoint is taking advantage of it... ok

3rdpath
Jan 11, 2003, 01:09 AM
ovi,

your Pavlovian compulsion to take a thought...enlarge it to it's utmost extreme...and then condemn it... is simplistic and trite.

so let me make this very simple for you....

this campaign is designed to make people think about how they use non-renewable natural resources. think about where their money goes and how it could be used. think about the world-wide implications of their choices.

thats it...just think.

allah akbar
Jan 13, 2003, 02:45 AM
first of all, it's great to debate leftists on issues like these. Your desires to impose your beliefs on how other people should live their lives, is eclipsed only by your desires to be deceptive of your true motives.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also, it's odd how republicans using 9/11 as a stepping stone for taking away peoples' rights, whether constitutional or not, is ok, though a reference used, in satire i might add, by a more liberal/environmental standpoint is taking advantage of it... ok
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that congress passes laws, and not the administration, I'm curious why you would suggest the republicans took away people's rights? Wasn't it a bypartisan Tom Daschle who led the Senate to pass the bills which you presumably find so offensive.

Also, I'm curious what rights you believe were taken away from American citizens. Your vague reference is inflamatory, but typical of the leftist liberal approach which is constantly attempting to harm America's ability to defend iteslf.


and of course the evidence of deceit comes from this winner....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this campaign is designed to make people think about how they use non-renewable natural resources. think about where their money goes and how it could be used. think about the world-wide implications of their choices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of course that's NOT what its about.

Unless you're the great Karnak or Kreskin, there is absolutely nothing about the commercial which would suggest a dialogue about non-renewable natural resources.

The SUV attack, has been mounted and maintained by the leftist-establishment for over a year now. It has arisen through its concerted and coordinated efforts in various forums, of which this commercial is just one.

Nobody is talking about the 12 cars which Barbara Streisand owns and which therefore make her a consumer of far more terrorist-oil than any SUV owner, because this is a leftist campaign.

Nobody is talking about reducing foreign-oil dependance by increasing domestic oil production, because this is a leftist campaign.

Nobody is mentioning how the previous democratic controlled Senate killed the ANWR drilling deal, and therefore forced us to commit to a greater co-dependance on terrorist oil producers, because this is a leftist campaign.


I am personally disgusted by the money link of our oil consumption to terrorist supporting states. I would be a staunch supporter and advocate of a concerted collaborative bi-partisan approach towards reducing the dependancy.

Unfortunately, Arianna and her leftist detroit-project don't actually want to solve the issue. If they did, they would have a far broader outreach to all American's who are offended by the situation.

Instead, they are merely building a football to be used in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Too bad. Lost Opportunity. No surpise given that it comes from the left, which doesn't care about America anyways.

cyks
Jan 13, 2003, 03:34 AM
Quote:----------------------
The main difference being that a european or to a lesser extent japanese car is going to be more reliable, have better resale value and going to last longer than an American car.
-------------------------------

So by that standard we should buy more Mazdas, Volvos, Saabs, Jaguars, LandRovers, and Aston Martens... oh, wait... those are all American owned companies.

And the opposite can be said to an extent about Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge now that they've merged with Daimler and are now part German (along with a good chunk of Mitsubishi and Hyundai).


To the topic-
This arguement against SUV's is stupid. It's saying that it's ok to support them only a little if you drive a car- but really bad for supporting them a lot if you drive an SUV? Under that train of though, shouldn't it be bad either way?


For some reason Joe Consumer believes that the only way to get around with his 2 kids is to own a Lincoln Navigator....meanwhile, for some reason, a station wagon was good enough for all of us years ago. (I remember fighting with the other kids for the "gunner-seat")

Thankfully- for as big as SUV's have gotten, the masses are now realizing how useless they really are and are slowly going smaller (Ford Escape) or funky vehicles that are inbetween cars and SUV's (Poniac's Aztek).

As was said earlier- there are certain reason to own them, and I'm not agianst them- towing for instance...an SUV or a truck is needed and not much can be done about that.

ddtlm
Jan 13, 2003, 09:58 AM
cyks:

I don't think that the smaller SUV's are so much a statement about usefullness as much as a responce to the overpricing of larger SUV's. I have an older stripped down Explorer which simply cannot be equaled in this day and age... manual everything, a crappy sound system, and a good price. Now to wander further off topic...

These days I could get manual everything on something without low range, in a package so dainty that I would be afraid to hop a curb, let alone drive through deep snow for any distance... with the exception of Jeep's Libery, which still seems to be tough (although it lacks manual hubs!). If I had to replace my car (others call it a truck) today it would be with a Subaru I think, but even that change only represents a ~33% boost in highway milage (from 20 to 27) so I don't see what the fuss is. A diesel engine could totally elliminate the fuel-economy advantage that all wheel drive cars have (well an Audi A4 would still be better, but much smaller).

3rdpath
Jan 13, 2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by allah akbar
first of all, it's great to debate leftists on issues like these. Your desires to impose your beliefs on how other people should live their lives, is eclipsed only by your desires to be deceptive of your true motives.


to start a reply with "leftist" is such a timesaver....

no need to read the rest.:rolleyes:

allah akbar
Jan 13, 2003, 08:46 PM
quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
to start a reply with "leftist" is such a timesaver....

no need to read the rest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

No ideas of your own?

ddtlm
Jan 13, 2003, 08:59 PM
allah akbar:

You have accomplished exactly nothing with your post, most people tuned you out after your opening paragraph. When 3rdpath tells you this, all you can do is insult him... again, you've accomplished nothing. You've utterly wasted whatever time you spent posting.

allah akbar
Jan 13, 2003, 10:24 PM
Leftist is as descriptive a term as Republican, and or liberal/environmentalist, and I believe accurately describes those on this board who believe they know better than the masses, and who would impose their wills on the majority because they believe themselves to be enlightened.

I applied that term liberally to those who engage in sanctimonious holier than thou sermons about how society and our lives should be managed. If you think that applies to your approach...so be it...I think you're a leftist

The lack of response to the content of the posting further proves my point. Leftists don't care about others points of view.

As for insulting....really!!! Do you really consider telling people how they should live their lives to be any less insulting than me calling it by its rightful name?

ddtlm
Jan 14, 2003, 09:38 AM
allah akbar:

OK, I'll admint "leftist" isn't much of an insult as far as I see, however your otherwise insulting style assures that noone takes yours points seriously.

allah akbar
Jan 14, 2003, 11:23 AM
So let me try and understand.

saying that republicans are taking away people's rights is OK in your books,

but

lamenting the purely partisan, obviously political, and disingenous rant of those who aspire to take away MORE OF MY RIGHTS is somehow insulting??

ddtlm
Jan 14, 2003, 05:34 PM
allah akbar:

I am not going to spell out for you why your posts are dissagreeable. In fact, like everyone else (so far), I do not plan on returning to this thread.

allah akbar
Jan 14, 2003, 10:21 PM
no surprise.

it's not like there's any substance to the argument from the left anyways.

The left yells and screams a lot. They scream RACISM! INTOLLERANCE! ANGER! PEACE! BIG-OIL! ASHCROFT!

But when you disect what they are saying, when you scratch just a little bit below the surface, just below the rehashed propoganda, and offer some basic and common sense responses (like I offered), they typically have no answer and run-away to hide.

Like you.

sturm375
Jan 16, 2003, 09:38 AM
If buying big SUVs supports Terrorists, then you can blame the US Government. A little known tax deduction for small business up to $24K on Trucks (SUVs are classified as trucks) over 6000 lbs. Here (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1220-09.htm) is the like to one of the many articles I found with a simple googole search: SUV Tax Deduction.

That's up to $24K deduction, while hybred vehicles net $2K deduction. That sounds about right for the US government. Say one thing, do another. This is an old law origionally intended for helping farmers to buy light trucks.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 16, 2003, 11:31 PM
I was riding in an SUV last May 10 when that vehicle was rear-ended by a Toyota pickup. If I were in a VW Golf or any other smaller vehicle, I would have been killed.

And FYI, you do need a four wheel drive vehicle in some parts of the country in the winter.

And now:

Nick and Norm drive the point home

A Ramblin' Gamblin' Willie story by Greg Swann


Nick: So now driving an SUV funds terrorism...?

Norm: Yup.

Nick: An SUV?

Norm: Yup.

Nick: Just driving it. Not driving the getaway car for a
bank robbery?

Norm: Just driving.

Nick: Not smuggling an SUV-load of the drugs you say fund
terrorism?

Norm: Just driving. It's the gas.

Nick: The gas I put into my SUV?

Norm: That gas.

Nick: Not the gas I put into my sedan?

Norm: Nope.

Nick: Not the gas I put into my lawn mower?

Norm: Nope. Driving SUVs funds terrorism.

Nick: What about Honda SUVs? They're not even really SUVs,
just fat, ugly cars.

Norm: Driving SUVs funds terrorism.

Nick: What about those little Suburu SUVs? I mean they're
practically like station wagons.

Norm: Driving SUVs funds terrorism.

Nick: What about pick-up trucks? That's what a real SUV is,
after all.

Norm: Driving _SUVs_ funds terrorism. Two white guys in
suits talking about terrorism. Who does that influence?

Nick: ...White guys in suits, I guess. Really dumb white
guys in suits.

Norm: Exactly. Not pick-up drivers. SUV drivers.

Nick: So that's why driving SUVs funds terrorism...

Norm: And buying jewelry at the mall.

Nick: No way!

Norm: Buying jewelry at the mall funds terrorism.

Nick: Jewelry... At the mall...

Norm: And buying smuggled cigarettes.

Nick: I'm on the patch.

Norm: And sending your children to college.

Nick: Grace got the kids, you know that.

Norm: I'm not talking about kids. I'm talking about all the
ways really dumb white guys in suits fund terrorism.

Nick: Really dumb guys?

Norm: The dumbest.

Nick: Dumber that those guys in the FedEx commercials.

Norm: Stealing ideas from FedEx commercials funds terrorism.

Nick: But I mean, guys so dumb they'll believe the stupidest
arguments?

Norm: That dumb.

Nick: Guys who'll believe that drug buyers fund terrorism,
but the laws that make selling drugs so profitable _don't?_

Norm: Guys that dumb.

Nick: Guys who'll believe that it's the cigarettes but not
the cigarette taxes that make them worth smuggling?

Norm: Guys that dumb. Think about this one.

Nick: Okay.

Norm: See a penny?

Nick: Got it.

Norm: Pick it up?

Nick: Yeah. So?

Norm: Funds terrorism.

Nick: What if I just leave the penny where it is?

Norm: Even worse.

Thanatoast
Jan 17, 2003, 05:15 AM
Three cheers to Phil for injecting a sorely needed bit of humor!:D

Now back to the topic. What was the topic again? Oh yes, SUV drivers support terrorism. Kay, we can probably all agree that the issue is more complex than this, but I think that what the "leftists" were trying to point out was (in the simplest possible terms, that using huge amounts of gas is a bad thing.

They felt that when dealing with the average consumer American, they had to dumb down the message as far as possible to get their point acrosss. Aparently (what I'm seeing from this thread) is that this strategy works about as well as the anti drug ads the gov't puts out that these commercials are based on.

Anyone have any constructive criticism for how to make the ads more effective?

My idea isn't for the ads, it's for the oil problem as a whole. Why not devote the $100 billion going to fund the war in Iraq towards devoloping an alternative fuel source? In the long run I think that will save us money. GM's already got a prototype fuel cell car. I'm sure the Japanese have some decent electrics up their sleeve. Just going hybrid isn't gonna do it, it will just prolong the problem. We should get out of the mid-east altogether. Or as much as possible. Their conflicts are have a detrimental effect on our way of life/economy.

And I like 3rdpath's point that it will come to an attitude change, nothing else.

And to the SUV supporters, sure some of you use your trucks for towing/hauling/off-roading. But how many people who own SUV's do?

sturm375
Jan 17, 2003, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
Three cheers to Phil for injecting a sorely needed bit of humor!:D

And to the SUV supporters, sure some of you use your trucks for towing/hauling/off-roading. But how many people who own SUV's do?

Why do they have to "use" our SUV's by towing/hauling/off-roading. What if I wanted a truck, because mechanicaly they last longer, and are sturdier? What if I don't want a foreign vehicle because either they are built cheap, or they are too expensive for my buget?

sturm375
Jan 17, 2003, 09:11 AM
Here's something from the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-0301170109jan17,1,2998535.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsopinionvoice%2Dhed) this morning, I thought it was funny.


Driving large


E-mail this story
Printer-friendly format
Search archives

Doug Zook
Published January 17, 2003

Bensenville -- Just remember, when SUVs are outlawed, only outlaws will have SUVs.

Copyright 2003, Chicago Tribune

3rdpath
Jan 17, 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast

They felt that when dealing with the average consumer American, they had to dumb down the message as far as possible to get their point acrosss.

judging by some of the responses in this thread, the ads weren't dumbed down quite enough......

as i responded before, the ads were simply a way to raise awareness of the far-reaching implications of our decisions. no one ever said "ban SUV's".

but i guess its far easier to refute an imaginary arguement than to deal with the issue at hand.

Thanatoast
Jan 17, 2003, 03:12 PM
sturm, you make some valid points, cheers. i hadn't thought of that. but i still question the motives of most SUV buyers. how many soccer moms buy expeditions b/c they are mechanically sound? how many executive commuters buy escalades b/c foriegn cars are too expensive? shoot, i go to a yuppie college where some kids are driving H2's. where's the sense in that? most of these people are buying the status symbol, not the car. what the ad is asking is, is the status symbol worth the trouble it causes? apparently most people still don't get it. maybe they shoulda drawn a diagram...

Phil Of Mac
Jan 17, 2003, 05:29 PM
SUV's have legitimate uses for those of us who want comfort but want to keep a high level of passenger room, safety and all-terrain capability. If you don't need one, don't get one. Personally, surviving accidents is important to me. I'm not going to be a moron who's gonna take a right turn at 40 miles per hour and flip over, so I would have use for an SUV. Even an H2 has advantages when it comes to safety. When a Hummer is in a crash, the Hummer wins no matter what. And when I end up in a crash, I want to be in the vehicle that I can survive in.

As for oil, the war in Iraq has little to do with getting MORE oil, because we already get plenty of oil from Iraq. It's either a security concern or it's Bush and Cheney helping out the oil companies that supported them. Fuel cells will happen, all we need is a cheap source of liquid hydrogen. But for the next 20 to 30 years, people will still drive gasoline-powered cars.

Here's to hydrogen, the cause of, and solution to, all of life problems!