22 Sept. No petrol day

On 2005-09-22, vaudegiant (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
TimC:
Then that house in the middle of nowhere (unless you are self
sufficient, including having enough rainfall for water, given that
water is a very expensive resource in real terms), and that 2 tonne
SUV won't be afforable.

And resumably the 1800 kg non-SUV will be just (or almost) as
expensive.

I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
wheels.

--
TimC
I've told them and told them: Temporal anomalies are different from
spatial anomalies. But the kittens know better. They laugh at my
feeble attempts to fool them. -- barbara in ARK

"vaudegiant" wrote in
message ...

Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country,
we're
quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a
support
system for its armed forces and very little else.


I'd say it's a little late for that. The US Military-Industrial System
has been in full swing for over 50 years.



Pat


--
vaudegiant

Oh yeah, that much I realise. It's a matter of degree though. Towards the
end, the percentage of GDP that the Soviets were throwing into military
spending just to try to keep up with the US was staggering.

On 2005-09-22, TimC wrote:
I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
wheels.

So you have a massive dislike for trains, busses, and trams, then?

At least I can understand a massive dislike for aircraft. 24 hours plus
inside a damn metal tube, flying Toronto-Vancouver-Honolulu-Sydney-
Melbourne did that for me.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

On 2005-09-22, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On 2005-09-22, TimC wrote:
I'm not discriminatory. I hate all powered vehicles with at least 4
wheels.

So you have a massive dislike for trains, busses, and trams, then?

D'oh! I thought I got all the corner cases.

--
TimC
Yay! I have found the last bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug bug
bug bug bu%$@#$@#%$@# Error: Missing Carrier Signal

Resound wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...

dtmeister wrote:

Theo Bekkers wrote:

I wasn't - it was originally a question. I said forward him the link
and see which bits he relates to.

Hmm, I inferred a judgement on your part.


You seem hung up on money. It's not about the $$ cost. I'd have the
same question if he was moving from his current sensible car to a
$3000 1980's Landcruiser.

OK.


A 4WD bought to tool around suburbia generally burns more fuel than
the average car, damages the roads more than an average car, is more
likely to kill the occupants of an average car without offering much
if any more protection to the passengers in an accident.

I agree. However, the legal requirement of having to install two
regulation size child seating/capsule, and having to transport a two child
stroller (it folds up but is still quite bulky), as well as fitting in a
week's shopping, does impact on the size of the vehicle required. You
really can't do this in a Getz, or in a C180 (more chance in the Getz). At
the time of buying the C180 she was preggers with the first and driving a
RAV4, the one my wife now has. The RAV4 with a baby capsule makes it quite
cramped in the front for the passenger. Two is out of the question, it
would make the vehicle unsafe to drive.


But of course, it's his choice, I'm just of the opinion that it's one
of the more selfish choices that some are making these days - and as
a society we are at least beginning to question them.

And so we should. Maybe one day we will begin to question the amount of
money we spend on armament.

Theo


Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country, we're
quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a support
system for its armed forces and very little else.


Its more how the defence money is spent that bothers me. I mean 50
Abrams for the same money as 150 leopard 2s with war stocks of spares
and ammo. Why do we need the best MBT in the world? One that we have
no trucks rail landing craft or aircraft big enough to carry. One that
is thirsty even by MBT standards. One that need aviation mechs to fix
rather than truck mechanics like a leopard.

Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the intrests
of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
the same radios.

Very OT btw. Sorry for rant

Resound wrote:
"vaudegiant" wrote in
message ...

Oh I started questioning that a LONG time ago. Mind you, as a country,
we're
quite restrained in that regard, at least in comparison to some. I'm
wondering how long it'll take for the US to become another USSR...a
support
system for its armed forces and very little else.


I'd say it's a little late for that. The US Military-Industrial System
has been in full swing for over 50 years.



Pat


--
vaudegiant


Oh yeah, that much I realise. It's a matter of degree though. Towards the
end, the percentage of GDP that the Soviets were throwing into military
spending just to try to keep up with the US was staggering.


As I recall at the end it was running at about 120%

On 2005-09-22, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Its more how the defence money is spent that bothers me. I mean 50
Abrams for the same money as 150 leopard 2s with war stocks of spares
and ammo. Why do we need the best MBT in the world? One that we have
no trucks rail landing craft or aircraft big enough to carry. One that
is thirsty even by MBT standards. One that need aviation mechs to fix
rather than truck mechanics like a leopard.

Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the intrests
of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
the same radios.

Very OT btw. Sorry for rant

Are you dave or Kathy? I think you're Kathy

--
TimC
"We must use Tim as a tool, not as a couch." -- J F Kennedy
--screwtape on RHOD

TimC wrote:
On 2005-09-22, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Its more how the defence money is spent that bothers me. I mean 50
Abrams for the same money as 150 leopard 2s with war stocks of spares
and ammo. Why do we need the best MBT in the world? One that we have
no trucks rail landing craft or aircraft big enough to carry. One that
is thirsty even by MBT standards. One that need aviation mechs to fix
rather than truck mechanics like a leopard.

Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the intrests
of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
the same radios.

Very OT btw. Sorry for rant


Are you dave or Kathy? I think you're Kathy




Be carefull she is beating up the cat atm. You could be next

dave Wrote:

Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the
intrests
of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
the same radios.

Very OT btw. Sorry for rant

so we can deploy crews for their on-location tanks?

BoT: horror, about to drive to the nearby shops. Still, I last drove on
Sunday.


--
aeek

aeek wrote:
dave Wrote:

Becouse the yanks want to sell em to us it seems to me. In the
intrests
of interoperability. SHeesh. They both have the same gun. Can have
the same radios.

Very OT btw. Sorry for rant


so we can deploy crews for their on-location tanks?

BoT: horror, about to drive to the nearby shops. Still, I last drove on
Sunday.


The Abrams is AUTO!!!!
Same gun.. near enough same fire control. I think aussie crews might cope.
We can adapt improvise.. overcome

Dave... (At Kathys)