- The towers in Malaysia are one, connected building.
- The fall of the World Trade Center is akin to Pearl Harbor, in that is the "last straw" that instigated US aggression on the attacking party.
- Bin Laden (and his cohorts) has accounts in many nations around the world. He has been funded by Saddam. He has been allowed to use Iraqi territory to train an organise his group. He in turn funds Saddam's nuclear & chemical weapons factories. Just that last bit alone is reason enough.
- If you think that the US is just attacking for the sake of oil, you're out of your mind. We don't need that oil. Even Europe doesn't need that oil. There's a lot of reasons beside oil price balancing. So what do you think the US is doing, then? Think it's a wag-the-dog situation? Feel like travelling to Jerusalem soon?
-okay, when i saw a picture of it i saw a small connecting walkway, i thought that would be too little to class it as one tower.
-that "last straw" imo would definately be enough reason to search out bin laden and perhaps go after the tali ban, but i dont see how a last straw perpitrated by bin ladens network would warrant us aggression on iraq. as they were not the attacking party.
-I dont know where your information about hussein and bin laden came from, but i have no proof of that. nevertheless, if bin laden kills 3,500 americans and knocks down 2 towers, it doesnt mean you go take out frusteration on iraq.
"just that last reason is reason enough."
bin laden funding saddams weapons development is reason to try and dethrone saddam from power? taking money from someone doesnt have anything to do with the excuses bush has used for trying to make a leadership change in iraq. this whole idea is ludicrious.
-i dont think the US is attacking for the sake of oil. i said nothing of the sort (atleast i think). my honest opinion is that bush is a hot-headed texan hellbent on getting revenge on someone that tried to have his father killed. thats not his sole reason of course, but i think it will be his reason to go on with the attack even after it is proved that saddam has no weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, yes, this has all been said before. It's just as bad as my client who has an E55, M5, and 911 C4 (but no SUV's). All those wonderful cars, so wasted by never racing them around the track.... You still don't get it, do you? I can't imagine you're more than 19. That's about the age most people get all green-eyed and save-the-whalesies. Yes, we cause damage to the environment. Yes, we waste gas with SUVs (and NASCAR!). No, it's nowhere near as bad as you think.
I targeted the suv drivers that can find a more efficient car to suit their lives well, because the driver of an m5/amg55/911 would have little reason to switch to a honda civic. the civic would obviously not be as quick or fun to drive. on the other hand someone that doesnt have a reason to be driving an suv would not miss much by getting a honda oddessy instead. I will restate that my opinion of SUVs being a bad car choice are for those that dont need one. if you need one, great, have fun with it. but i think ATLEAST 1/3 of SUV drivers would be fine with something else.
how bad do i think it is? i never said anything about how bad i think it is. I am not green eyed. i dont think everyone should buy hybrid hondas. but if someone can buy a more efficient vehicle than an suv i am for it. and my opinion is that there are quite a few people that choose to buy suvs when they could easily buy somethingelse and not miss anything. (you are correct, i am 18 by the way. but i have thought this way my whole life. if someone doesnt really need something, and by getting that something there is a higher consequential cost than what you would miss if you got something else, that person should think about getting the other thing instead.) to me the image of driving an suv versus the mommy image of driving a minivan isnt worth the added pollution of the suv. maybe im crazy.
car companies will still be making them and forcing them on people though, because they make the most profit from SUVs. they are selling a $20k pickup truck with a pretty makover for $50k as a "luxury" suv. some are even made on minivan chassis'. the rx300 is just a jacked up minivan.
Oh, yes: that X5 4.6is was just forced on poor V.P. Smith. Why, the BMW dealer just about had a gun to his head! We know it's a jacked up minivan. We know it's a lot of leftover parts. But you know what? People like large cars that feel good to sit in and feel good to drive. Been like that for 60-some-odd years. I hate SUVs. But I won't tell people that they can't buy them. I'll urge them to something else, but they can buy any damned thing they want.
that paragraph was a little off as im not good at typing my thoughts and it was at the end of my post. dont exhaggerate what i mean by force though. you know something can be forced on someone without a weapon being used. every year at the detroit motorshow more and more SUVs are unveiled. people see other people driving them. they see them as an alternative to the dyke lesbian subarus or mommy imaged minivans out there and like that. if they can afford the vehicle and the gas then they buy it with no concern for the added pollution they create.
maybe your not stupid, but most people are. i thoroughly research all of my purchases, most people dont. they see something they like, and they can afford it, they buy it. they dont have other concerns.
one thing i am for is higher taxes on cars that pollute more or have a higher fuel consumption. i have heard stories about this going on in Australia and think it is great. im sorry i dont know the details, but do know that a friend of mine had to buy a mercedes e320 instead of an e500 because the higher taxes for the other car were outrageous. they were much higher because of the 5 liter v8 in the e500. This would raise more much needed cash for the government and curve those few people that dont really need an suv to buy something else. This would however penalize people that really need an suv. I dont like that.
Something that wouldnt affect people that need SUVs but perhaps would effect those that dont, would be a different ad campaign. i said this before. not one that comes up with some terrorism bs. but one that raises the question of whether you really need one, and points out the possible concequences the environment and people suffer (or will suffer in the future) because you drive one instead of something else.
im horrible at writing. that took me about 2 hours. i hope i didnt make any mistakes that would cause me to get flamed. i do think im in the right however. i think you misunderstood where i was standing. i dont want to ban suvs, that is crazy. i just want a good way for the question of "do you really need that big ****ing suv?" to be asked of people. maybe an ad campaign would work, maybe more drastic actions like higher taxes for less fuel efficient cars would be needed (i wouldnt like this as i like cars that need a bit more gas myself). If you have a real need for an suv, or really like the feel of it versus something else, than enjoy it. im not al gore, i dont want to take it away from you.
Notice that these people wanting to eliminate SUV's drive SUV's themself.
Shaun Hanady (sp?) asked one of those politicians, I think, about that and he said that with 8 kids, he needed the space. Well guess what, SO DO WE!!! But that dosen't matter because they're the "right" people. And do they take them off-road, I bet not.
