I am thinking of using E85 in my wife's Dodge Caravan since it is set up to do so. However, I am getting conflicting information as to whether the fuel mileage will go down or not. One person has told me that they got worse mileage, while another person said that they got the same. At a savings of 50 cents a gallon (here in Ohio) I am wondering if it is worth it. Also, the owners manual calls for a special motor oil to be used for the E85 fuel use. Does anyone know what kind of oil this might be? No one at the auto parts stores knows about it. I normally use synthetic in this vehicle. Thanks.
Fine don't support the American farmers, please feel free to support the towl heads who are using your money to acquire nuclear weapons to kill us with.
Actually, a sizeable portion of America's gasoline comes from Canada. Canada happens to export more oil than any other country. So, no, using more fuel doesn't support 'towl heads,' it supports beer-swilling poutine eaters.
I buy plenty of food products from "american farmers." I don't feel any need to fund this particular misguided attempt at alternate fuels. If a bio-fuel that is actually cost/energy effective comes along (possibly bio-diesel, if/when it's widely available), I will buy it. E85 is the wrong product at the wrong time, just let it die. Some parts of the country (like iowa) will take a big hit when the bottom finally falls out of this fiasco, the longer it takes to die, the worse it will be; and they more money it will cost to bail them out.
I have nothing against family farms, but it is not my "duty" to support them either. They will survive if the a able to compete, if not they will disappear; I feel no obligation to support someone's hobby/business if he can't make it profitable. No-one is subsidizing me; if I don't make money, I go out of business (maybe I need a better lobby in DC). Do you think I should start smoking and drinking to support american tobacco farms and distilleries too?
The one bright spot is the possibility that higher commodity prices in the US and EU will stop them from dumping food on the rest of the world and keeping developing world agriculture out of the world markets. Maybe we (both the US and EU) will finally stop pretending to "help" the developing world by selling/giving them subsidized western food while squeezing out (under-pricing) their local agriculture. That is little more than a very sleazy way to try to prop up the US/EU trade deficit. We are essentially acting as the "OPEC" of the world agriculture market (controlling prices by controlling the supply). This is another case where it would be appropriate to export technology instead of products (if we were really interested in helping).
Out of the 9-10 million barrels of oil the US consumes, 2.4 million or about 25% comes from Canada, securely via pipelines. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Middle East countries are far down the list.
Iraq is so far down on the list of countries supplying us with oil at this point, that it hardly matters. What was supposed to be a gush of oil from Iraq is, in reality, only a trickle.
PRESIDENT Cheney's pipe dream (after convincing his 'assistants') went something like this: Find and excuse to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. Iraqis will receive US liberators with open arms. Immediate peace will result. US oil and oil service companies will get immediate concessions, repair oil field, and Iraq will pay for the cost of the war with oil, which the US will recive essentially free. US oil companies will continue to dominate the production, like in the pre-1973 era.
Other foreign powers, with exception of Britain and Australia will be excluded. An existing oil contract with Russia will be torn up.
The Democrats can't possibly be this out of touch with reality, but we'll see.
Unfortunately, that scenario is probably pretty close to reality. But one does have to wonder what/if is little buddy, george, was thinking; maybe he just wanted to "finish" dad's little war. All I know is it will take the US at least a generation to live down this stupidity.... until the next time they stumble into something like this. Maybe they should actually elect someone who has read at least one history book.
As they say, those who do not study history are bound to repeat it. On their retreat from Moscow during WW II, German generals were actually reading Napoleon's journals. He did not get there either. General McArthur after WW II warned any leader who would listen: "Don't start a land war in Asia!".
A number of surveys indicate that a huge percentage of Americans still believe (mistakenly) that Saddam Hussein was a genuine threat to the US, so it may be difficult to convince those people of the reality of the massive blunders of the current administration--dead US soldiers and economic adversity notwithstanding. And, then it follows that it may also be difficult to convince them to vote against Senator McSame.
A number of surveys indicate that a huge percentage of Americans still believe (mistakenly) that Saddam Hussein was a genuine threat to the US
Even though Cheney has come out publicly years ago that there were no WMD's....people still believe that there were. My father-in-law is one. He's convinced that Saddam had WMD's...we just haven't found them yet. Or they were destroyed when we invaded.
I do believe that Iraq is probably much better of without Saddam. He was a ruthless dictator. He should have been ousted. And if President Bush (I mean Chaney) said up front that is what they were doing...then I might have been OK with it. But it was one lie after another. No question these clowns are going down as the WORSE leaders the US has ever had. Clinton was bad...but these clowns are far far worse.
I don't question the fact that Iraq is better-off without Saddam Hussein, but I do question the deaths and the disabling of so many of our young people in order to remove him.
But, since he was no worse in 2001 than he was 10 or 15 or 20 years earlier, then you have to ask yourself why Ronald Reagan considered him to be such a good buddy and why he armed Saddam Hussein to the teeth. (Yes, I know that it was an Iran vs. Iraq issue, but the fact remains that it was a very poor political decision that reverberates to our disadvantage even to this day.)
If the US is to be the policeman of the world (which I don't think that we should be), then there is a very long list of dictators who should be removed, and several of them should have been higher on any list than Saddam was. Are we going to go into every country where there is an obnoxious dictator, in order to remove him? If so, our country will be at war for eternity.
Clearly, the issue was oil, IMHO. It is just a damn shame that so many of our young people had to die in this ill-fated venture that accomplished none of the goals except removing a dictator. And, the removal of that dictator created a power vacuum that allows the incredible bloodshed between Sunnis and Shias that continues to endanger our troops, as well as innocent civilians.
I agree with you VDC...The Iraq war is run just like Vietnam was. When I came home from Nam we were told NEVER AGAIN....Well here it is AGAIN. Innocent American lives lost. How can Bush/Chaney sleep at night....Well I do know how...It's easy when you're A-Moral.
06/07/2008 6:24:19 AM
