Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SUV drivers support terrorists!
- Thread starter peter2002
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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".
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.
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.
Moxiemike:
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.
I think nothing better of you, but I take pride in being able to control my emtions and try to conduct a rational discussion.
Moxiemike:
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?
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.
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. [SARC]Yep, those are real terroristic concepts.[/SARC]
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.
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. [SARC]Yep, those are real terroristic concepts.[/SARC]
Pot economic commercials:
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.
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.
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.
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.
3rdpath:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
social consciousness is not socialism
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
to start a reply with "leftist" is such a timesaver....
no need to read the rest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
No ideas of your own?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
to start a reply with "leftist" is such a timesaver....
no need to read the rest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
No ideas of your own?
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.
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.