http://www.detroitproject.com/

While it would be great if Americans came round to the idea that having more fuel efficient cars is a good thing, I don't see this direct link between buying more fuel and funding terrorism. Isn't it kind of a big leap to assume all "arabs" give money to terrorsists ?

It's indeed a big leap to say that Arabic *people* fund terrorism. But that's not what's being said.

What's being said is that the U.S. drives fuel-inefficient cars, which means we depend more on OPEC countries. Take a look at OPEC's roll call and you see *at least* 7 of the 11 countries have very strong ties to terrorism. We're not talking about the people of these countries, we're talking about their governments.

So the message is that OPEC countries, not Arabic people, directly fund terrorism. Pretty self-evident to me.

If this campaign were to suceed in reducing the US usage of oil I don't think it would have any effect on the ammount of cash supposedly going to the terrorists. OPEC works very hard to maintain it's income at a fixed level. If the US used less oil then OPEC would surely just put the price up.

There are much better reasons for reducing oil comsuption than doing it to reduce the funds going to terrorists. However valid the links to terrorism may or may not be, this campaign just sounds crazy. It is just this sort of craziness that gets the US a bad name in the first place.

What's being said is that the U.S. drives fuel-inefficient cars, which means we depend more on OPEC countries. Take a look at OPEC's roll call and you see *at least* 7 of the 11 countries have very strong ties to terrorism. We're not talking about the people of these countries, we're talking about their governments.

Not according to the US government, according them only 3 on the list would qualify:

"Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism."

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm

It's a parody of US Federally funded anti-drug commercials;

"This is the joint that Joe smoked"
"This is the friend that sold the joint that Joe smoked"
"This is the dealer that supplied the pot in the joint that joe smoked"
,etc, etc....until;
"This is the terrorist that...."

, basically telling teenagers that if they smoke a joint, then they are responsible for terrorist acts carried out in the US.

Some people don't like taxpayers money being used for such messages, even if they are anti-drug, and even if there may be some basis for it. Especially when the US government is doing Jacks hit to lower the foreign oil consumption, which involves $ figures of a huge magnitude larger than the pot $ figure, and could be shown to have just as much likelihood of supporting terrorism.

The ad was designed to grab attention, and that it did.

"Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism."

Sure. That report was made in April of 2001, and was based on the year 2000. There were a few events that happened in New York City, Washington DC, and Western Pennsylvania later that year that might have changed things a bit...

The other 4 I have on my list are Algeria, Qatar, Indonesia, and Nigeria. This is based on the number of Al Qaeda members who have been found hiding in these countries, training in these countries, etc. Your list might vary, but I would think you'd at least look for something more recent than April 2001 on which to base that list.

Didn't GM just announce that they planned to try to mass produce fuel efficient cars? I mean the thing holding back cars like the Hybrid is the fact that you're paying 22 grand for a Civic with high gas mileage. But I heard GM was hoping to build plants to produce a large number of these cars (something like 10% of their fleet), hopefully bringing the price down.

I'll try to find where I heard this from.

What I think this is aimed to do is cause people to take action, similar to the way PETA took action against fur coats. I had my Ford Explorer vandalized about 6 months ago. Somebody took a brick and beat in the windshield and the hood. I had no bumper stickers or anything else unusual.

I figured that they:
1) hated people from Cobb County
2) hated green cars
3) just randomly picked my car
or
4) hated SUVs for some reason

I'll never know for certain, but I imagine we will start seeing more things like this.

-Biscuits

it's unfortunate that people choose to express their opinions with vandalism ... I would add:

5) they are just a regular jackass

to your list

ms

The other 4 I have on my list are Algeria, Qatar, Indonesia, and Nigeria. This is based on the number of Al Qaeda members who have been found hiding in these countries, training in these countries, etc.

But surely by that criteria you should add the UK, US and Germany to name but three. All three have had Al Qaeda members living and training in them for extended periods.

On Algeria and Indonesia; I was under the impression that both these countries were busy fighting terrorism internally, not sponsoring it ?

Your list might vary, but I would think you'd at least look for something more recent than April 2001 on which to base that list.

I take your point about the age of the list and I did look for something more recent, but couldn't find anything. The only thing that I have heard the US government say about countries that have state sponsored terrorism since was the silly "axis of evil" thing trying to bundling Iraq, Iran and North Korea together.

Axis:

"An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies."

Which I really don't think comes close to the reality of the situation.

Did they bother to check what percentage of US oil is imported from the middle east? According to the Dept of Energy, about 13% in 2000. If you cut out the countries that don't support terrorism, we're down to maybe 5-10% of our oil comes from terrorist governments. Then you figure the percentage of that that goes into SUV's. I'm sure you get the picture. The whole thing is a load of turd. What next? Are they going to say that if we do business with Europe or Japan, we're supporting terrorism, because a much higher percentage of their petroleum products come from the MidEast? That's just stupid.

Did they bother to check what percentage of US oil is imported from the middle east? According to the Dept of Energy, about 13% in 2000. If you cut out the countries that don't support terrorism, we're down to 5-10% of our oil?

They do address that in their FAQ http://www.detroitproject.com/readmore/faq.htm :

"7) The United States only imports 12 percent of its oil from the Middle East.

That's a big 12 percent. The US imports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day from the Middle East. And Saudi Arabia is our second largest foreign supplier of oil. And at least partly to protect the oil, the US spends $60 billion a year to maintain our military presence in the Middle East."

Apart from linking SUVs to promoting terrorism I agree with much of the stuff on their site, SUVs are silly things.

http://www.detroitproject.com/readmore/myths.htm

Did anyone ever consider that SUVs sometimes make sense?I suppose I could haul a trailer everywhere or buy a pickup instead.

-Biscuits

Yeah, the axis of evil thing is ridiculous. Whatever White House handlers approved that one need to be fired toute de suite.

Earlier today, I used Google News (specifically the "US Government" search) to dig up a bunch of articles and US gov't reports which mentioned the problems those countries I mentioned are having fighting national and international terrorism. Yes, England, Germany, and the US have had Al Qaeda members in their borders, but the countries I mentioned are the ones that the US has criticized publicly due to their ineffective fighting of these things.

I guess maybe I'm equating "ineffective fighting of terrorism" to "sponsorship of terrorism", but post 9/11, that's a rather popular notion -- if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. I'm by no means absolving the assorted alphabet soup of U.S. Governmental agencies (FBI, CIA, NIS, etc.) of the same guilt for their failure to prevent the attacks, but now that the mistake has been made, any country which CAN do something about terrorism and ISN'T doing it is, in my opinion, responsible for its continued existence.

And yes, Arianna Huffington is taking it a little too far with the SUV-->terror link, but as with most of her political statements, it's about 50% real problems and 50% tongue-in-cheek. The actual facts are that continued reliance on foreign oil, in addition to the environmental and econmic problems, DOES indirectly support countries who are at the very least indifferent towards terrorism, and many who are quite active in perpetuating it.

Yes, SUV's make sense. For like the 3% of the population that needs them.

My solution to the SUV problem is to separate all major highways into separate car and truck lanes, complete with concrete barriers in between them. Let the SUV-driving crowd get stuck behind 18-whelers and milk trucks, while I cruise in the car lanes with my Mustang. That way, I can actually see a mile or two ahead of me instead of perpetually having an Escalade in front of me blocking my view.

Well, if nothing else, I need my SUV to tow my gas-guzzling 2-stroke 130 hp jetski to the lake.

What do you use your Mustang for? Racing? Either you are not using it to its full potential or you are breaking the law. Besides, I doubt if those things have great gas mileage either. It is pretty easy to turn the tables here.

-Biscuits

You've got a point about Mustang's gas mileage...

But something like 1 in 5 (or was it 1 in 3 ??) of this years US auto sales are expected to be SUVs. If the number of SUVs on the road and being sold was similar to sports cars then I wouldn't see so much of an issue with SUVs.

I think one of the main problems with small cars is they are.... um.... small. I can't sit up straight in most vehicles. On my mother's vehicle, I have to open the blasted sunroof to be able to sit up.

-Biscuits

Great..... Another example of our gov. going crazy because of what they think is "right" for the country. The airport situation is crazy, drug & alcohol regulation is a mess, this suv thing is absurd, and there are a million other things I could list. I think a better system needs to be setup for peoples' opions to actually be taken into consideration before "representives" make choices. What good is it for the airport to make a person be just under stripped search to enter an airplane when there are plenty of other ways to commit terrorism? What good is it to have, in many cases, stronger sentences for possesion of drugs such as marijuana, which *should* be in the same category as alcohol and cigarettes, then murder? [Example: Not too long ago on the front page of a local newspaper a man recieved 30 years for possesing a pound of both marijuana and cocaine... Right next to it was an article of a woman who killed her husband and received an 8 year sentence and possible parole.]

Although I can see were some money (maybe even a lot of money) could reach terrorist, there are so many ways that they raise money this shouldn't even be an issue. Why should more restrictions be placed on people, such as limiting suv's, making them drive on seperate roads, etc... ? If any limitations should be placed they should be on other countries that house these terrorist and should be forced upon with a no BS policy.

but thats just what i think ; )

-Greg


Well sh*t, the link I put at the top about the gov and suv's from nbc somehow got erased.

I use my Mustang to get from Point A to Point B. I don't speed, and I don't race. I got it because I prefer rear-wheel drive, and like the way it handles. It also looks good and was affordable.

I'm not even going after the gas mileage issue, so there are no tables to be turned here. If you read my post, my main problem is the things are so damn tall and people who drive them think they can drive like idiots. Before SUV's were all over the road, the people who drove large vehicles (trucks, vans, etc) were generally capable of driving them, because they needed to drive them. Now that SUV's have come along, everyone drives them, even people who can't. They're higher up, and they think that because they're bigger and higher, they know if they get in an accident, they're less likely to be killed.

Look, you and your SUV and your jet ski are fine, as long as you're not one of the aforementioned people who can't drive. Like I said, my solution is not to abolish SUV's, it's to put them in their own lanes. You'll just have to swim with the "big boys" including the oil tankers and beer trucks, though.

I agree that the link between SUVs and terrorism is tenuous at best. So, we get 12% of our oil from the middle east. There are 16 million SUVs (I'll guess out of 200 million vehicles). Each of those vehicles gets 21 mpg instead of 28.

So 12.5% of our vehicles are SUVs. SUVs are 25% less efficient than small cars. Therefore, less than 4% of our consumer gas usage is excess used by SUVs and only 12% of that, or less than half of one percent of our total consumer gas usage, is relevant here.

This is of course disregarding the oil used by trucks, generators, power plants, plastics, and the myriad other uses of oil. The US only purchases a fraction of the oil sold by those in the Middle East. Only some of the countries in the middle east support terrorism. Most of that money goes into oil production. Of the remainder, very little makes it into the hands of those who support terrorism, and of that, very little makes it into the hands of actual terrorist groups. And, of course, terrorists are going to get most of their money from other sources anyway.

So what does all that mean? If we had no SUVs, Al Qaeda might have had one cent less (out of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars) to plan and execute their attacks on September 11.

Tell me why I should be upset again? If I spend an extra $1000 a year on my SUV and 1/1000 of one cent makes it to a terrorist? How much of the extra money I spend goes to gas taxes, and of that, how much extra money is the government getting to fight terrorism? I suspect there is a lot more money there.

You could make an argument that by owning an SUV, I am helping to fight terrorism.

-Biscuits

hmmmm i know a few people with suvs, especially the new hummers and it seeems to me the sole reason they buy them is to "be above the crowd". They like to be the big dog. if we forced them into their own lane with semi's arent we begging them to build bigger suvs, semi-size?

My G/F loves her SUV, why? Cause it can fit 7 comfortably, can haul a metric ton of crap, it's easier to get into, safer if there is an accident, all this, and it handles better than any minivan. I like my Mustang. Why? Because I like sports cars, and at this point in my life, it's about as much as I can justify spending on one. There are many many times we HAVE to take her car because mine is simply out of the question. If we have to take say, 6 people downtown, I can only fit 2 people in my car. It'll hold four, but the back seat is REALLY there more for decoration, as only people under 5' could possibly be comfortable for more than 3 minutes at a stretch. Given that fact, in those circumstances, we would normally have had to take 2 cars, possibly 3. Gas mileage differences pretty much go out the window there. Yesterday, I needed a full sheet of MDF board. I can just see me trying to drive down the interstate with my hand sticking out the window trying to hold a 4x8 piece of wood to the roof. In other words, not everyone lives in the city, where there is no reason to own an SUV. Down near me, It's a matter of personal preference and needs. And don't say truck. If there's any type of vehicle I'll never own again, it's a truck.

In reply to:

---

There are 16 million SUVs (I'll guess out of 200 million vehicles). Each of those vehicles gets 21 mpg instead of 28.

So 12.5% of our vehicles are SUVs. SUVs are 25% less efficient than small cars. Therefore, less than 4% of our consumer gas usage is excess used by SUVs and only 12% of that, or less than half of one percent of our total consumer gas usage, is relevant here.

---

But 1 in 4 New vehicles sold last year were SUVs [figures released by Detroit car makers], so while the percentage of SUV's on the road is now (maybe) 12%, that percentage is increasing every year, and will do for years to come as more and more SUV's as a percentage of all vehicles sold, are sold each year, and older vehicles age and are scrapped.

So the percentage of SUV's on the road will only go up therefore the national average "gas milage" (total distance of all vehicles driven in a year, divided by the amount of fuel they consume) will go down - right now, the overall "average" gas mileage of US vehicles is not much better than it was before the oil shocks of 1973.

And thats despite nearly 30 years of improvements to vehicle technology and major changes to engine design and just about everything else.

The popularity of SUVs are widely acknowledged (by everyone except Detroit it seems) as one of the core reasons why the US national average MPG figures have not improved much in recent years, and in fact have gone backwards from the late 80's.

Also note that half of all oil imported by the US, is bought from Saudia Arabia, which is a country which is effectively a dictatorship, and its current dictator (the House of Saud) is one of the main reasons (amoungst a few others) why bin Laden made the events of 9/11 happen.

Because he [bin Laden] wants the House of Saud to fall, and the main thing keeping the House of Saud propped up is sales of oil to the US - and US miltary stationed in the Middle East - and its those military bases in [and the attendant "westernisation" they bring to] Saudi Arabia that make bin Laden so annoyed with the US.

Also note - its no co-incidence that so many - over half of the Hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian citizens - bin Laden is himself one - or was one until they [Saudi Arabia] stripped him of his Saudi citizenship and passport.

The other fact is that the current oil reserves in the US are estimated to have only 10 years left. With new oil discoveries in the next 10 years in the continental US very unlikely.

When those domestic wells start running dry, then the amount of foreign oil the US imports will only increase, and todays SUVs will be drinkin' at the well for some years to come.

We don't need new oil discoveries. We know where oil is right now. If we could just get the damned moose and elf to kindly shift a little we could drill it. It's rather interesting to note, however, that elk populations actually grew in areas where drilling in Alaska is currently allowed. The greater heat allows more to grow, more grass = more food. More food = more elk.

I would LOVE an "SUV Only" lane. I hate being stuck behind a God damn Navigator while i'm in my Mr2. It can be pretty dangerous too. Sometimes at stop lights I find myself having no idea what color the signal is because the vehicle in front of me blocks everything out.

I think SUV-lanes and extra taxes and fees for people who buy SUV's are the first place to start curbing SUV-sales.

would LOVE an "SUV Only" lane....

yeah, let's start adding more asphalt to our environment, so we can destroy more earth, while encouraging more cars and suv's to be on the road. Sounds like a well thought out plan. I would really like the entire country to look like the New Jersey Turnpike, that's my idea of Heaven.

"while encouraging more cars and suv's to be on the road. "

- really? You think a mandatory SUV lane would encourage people to buy SUV's? I certainly don't. But i agree about the mother earth bit -- that does suck.

It really is frustrating driving a small vehicle and being stuck behind a Ford Excursion while driving down some street, then thinking, "hey, i'll switch lanes", only to switch lanes and have an Expedition drop in front. This is repeated over and over again. I swear to God, sometimes it seems like 3/4 of the cars on the streets here in southern california are SUV's or trucks (not including commercial).

I drive a little 92 eclipse and have no problem with suv's. How is it dangerous if you can't see the light? Just pay attention to the bigass car in front of you. When it moves, you move. And as far as getting stuck behind it... remember that you can most likely accellerate faster and get in front of it. If we start talking about inconvieniences here why not include those rice burning honda's that sound like a rat died in the exaust pipe? These cars are designed to be economic, should they be forced to this seperate highway (restrictions) as well, since they consume the same ammount of gas and oil as an Excursion? :-)

-Greg