OT: Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet

Do your part to help reduce global warming. Eat less meat. Better for
you and you will help curb overweight and health problems. I think the
government should FORCE compliance.

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html[/url]
--

"dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-D897A3.07140620022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> Do your part to help reduce global warming. Eat less meat. Better
> for
> you and you will help curb overweight and health problems. I think
> the
> government should FORCE compliance.
>
> [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html[/url][/color]

So while we are eliminating "meat" should we also start a program to
hunt down and eliminate wild animals? For that matter, how about
people. Getting rid of congress should eliminate a lot of hot air. And
reporters...

Ed

In article <45daf583$1@kcnews01>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> news:nspam-D897A3.07140620022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > Do your part to help reduce global warming. Eat less meat. Better
> > for
> > you and you will help curb overweight and health problems. I think
> > the
> > government should FORCE compliance.
> >
> > [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html[/url][/color]
>
> So while we are eliminating "meat" should we also start a program to
> hunt down and eliminate wild animals? For that matter, how about
> people. Getting rid of congress should eliminate a lot of hot air. And
> reporters...
>
> Ed[/color]

Nah, leave the wild creatures alone. Getting rid of congress and
reporters good idea, LOL.
--

"dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-D897A3.07140620022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> Do your part to help reduce global warming. Eat less meat. Better for
> you and you will help curb overweight and health problems. I think the
> government should FORCE compliance.
>
> [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html[/url]
> --
>[/color]
Hey, how's Becky Thatcher?
Apparently the problem lies in your neck of the woods. Our farm animals are
toilet trained and their run-off feeds electrical generators. How does it
feel to live in a backwards community, dbu? Spend most of your day scraping
crap off the bottom of your bare feet?

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:18:09 -0500, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>So while we are eliminating "meat" should we also start a program to
>hunt down and eliminate wild animals? For that matter, how about
>people. Getting rid of congress should eliminate a lot of hot air. And
>reporters...
>
>Ed
>[/color]

You are on the right track!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--


Scott in Florida

"dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-D897A3.07140620022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> Do your part to help reduce global warming. Eat less meat. Better
> for
> you and you will help curb overweight and health problems. I think
> the
> government should FORCE compliance.
>
> [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html[/url][/color]

It is time to take a reality check....

According to the article, "meat eaters" cause 1.5 tons more CO2 per
year than "vegetarians" to be emitted. I'd love to see the actual
assumptions that came up with this number, but even assuming this is
true you need to put this in context.

How much CO2 do Humans breathe out per year? I've seen it claimed that
we omit around 1 kg per day (or 2.2 lbs). This means we emit around
800 lbs per year. This seems low to me.

A Prius driven 15,000 miles per year emits 3.4 tons or CO2 per year. A
Grand Cherokee SUV emits as much as 13.6 tons per year of CO2
(assuming it is driven 15,000 miles).

What make more sense, attacking meat eaters, or Grand Cherokee
drivers? Just converting Grand Cherokee drivers into Dodge Caravan
drivers could save 5.3 tons of CO2 per year per vehicle or around
636,000 tons total (assuming GC sales of around 120,000 per year).
That would allow over 400,000 people to eat meat without guilt. If
they drove a Prius instead, over 800,000 people could eat meat without
guilt. I moved from an Expedition to a Fusion as my primary vehicle. I
drive around 30,000 miles per year, so I reduced my personal CO2
emissions by around 7.8 tons per year. Therefore me and 5 of my
friends can now eat meat without guilt. Furthermore, I have been
trying to reduce my total driving from 30k to 25k per year - good for
another 3 or 4 friends to eat meat.

Pick your battles. Meat eaters are not much of a problem the overall
scheme of things.

Ed

"mark_digital©" <976-XXX@comcastnot.com> wrote in message[color=blue]
> Christian Scientists.[/color]

Isnt that an oxymoron?

In article <45db0254$1@kcnews01>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> news:nspam-D897A3.07140620022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > Do your part to help reduce global warming. Eat less meat. Better
> > for
> > you and you will help curb overweight and health problems. I think
> > the
> > government should FORCE compliance.
> >
> > [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html[/url][/color]
>
> It is time to take a reality check....
>
> According to the article, "meat eaters" cause 1.5 tons more CO2 per
> year than "vegetarians" to be emitted. I'd love to see the actual
> assumptions that came up with this number, but even assuming this is
> true you need to put this in context.
>
> How much CO2 do Humans breathe out per year? I've seen it claimed that
> we omit around 1 kg per day (or 2.2 lbs). This means we emit around
> 800 lbs per year. This seems low to me.
>
> A Prius driven 15,000 miles per year emits 3.4 tons or CO2 per year. A
> Grand Cherokee SUV emits as much as 13.6 tons per year of CO2
> (assuming it is driven 15,000 miles).
>
> What make more sense, attacking meat eaters, or Grand Cherokee
> drivers? Just converting Grand Cherokee drivers into Dodge Caravan
> drivers could save 5.3 tons of CO2 per year per vehicle or around
> 636,000 tons total (assuming GC sales of around 120,000 per year).
> That would allow over 400,000 people to eat meat without guilt. If
> they drove a Prius instead, over 800,000 people could eat meat without
> guilt. I moved from an Expedition to a Fusion as my primary vehicle. I
> drive around 30,000 miles per year, so I reduced my personal CO2
> emissions by around 7.8 tons per year. Therefore me and 5 of my
> friends can now eat meat without guilt. Furthermore, I have been
> trying to reduce my total driving from 30k to 25k per year - good for
> another 3 or 4 friends to eat meat.
>
> Pick your battles. Meat eaters are not much of a problem the overall
> scheme of things.
>
> Ed[/color]

Ed,
I don't think anybody is attacking anybody. It's only making the case
against cattle that's all. Take if for what ever you like. Or just
forget about it. No need to get all wrapped around the axle.
--

In article <iDHCh.4406$tD2.3268@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Nothing new here. In college bio 101 we learned how much energy it took to
> raise a chicken. 2 units of energy in for every unit out. Thus the
> excretion of CO2.[/color]

I knew I couldn't teach an old dog like you anything new, but I thought
it might be informative for some others.

What are you going to do when they tax your farts?




[color=blue]
>
>
>
> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> news:nspam-05241D.11134920022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <45db0254$1@kcnews01>,
> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nspam-D897A3.07140620022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> > Do your part to help reduce global warming. Eat less meat. Better
> >> > for
> >> > you and you will help curb overweight and health problems. I think
> >> > the
> >> > government should FORCE compliance.
> >> >
> >> > [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html[/url]
> >>
> >> It is time to take a reality check....
> >>
> >> According to the article, "meat eaters" cause 1.5 tons more CO2 per
> >> year than "vegetarians" to be emitted. I'd love to see the actual
> >> assumptions that came up with this number, but even assuming this is
> >> true you need to put this in context.
> >>
> >> How much CO2 do Humans breathe out per year? I've seen it claimed that
> >> we omit around 1 kg per day (or 2.2 lbs). This means we emit around
> >> 800 lbs per year. This seems low to me.
> >>
> >> A Prius driven 15,000 miles per year emits 3.4 tons or CO2 per year. A
> >> Grand Cherokee SUV emits as much as 13.6 tons per year of CO2
> >> (assuming it is driven 15,000 miles).
> >>
> >> What make more sense, attacking meat eaters, or Grand Cherokee
> >> drivers? Just converting Grand Cherokee drivers into Dodge Caravan
> >> drivers could save 5.3 tons of CO2 per year per vehicle or around
> >> 636,000 tons total (assuming GC sales of around 120,000 per year).
> >> That would allow over 400,000 people to eat meat without guilt. If
> >> they drove a Prius instead, over 800,000 people could eat meat without
> >> guilt. I moved from an Expedition to a Fusion as my primary vehicle. I
> >> drive around 30,000 miles per year, so I reduced my personal CO2
> >> emissions by around 7.8 tons per year. Therefore me and 5 of my
> >> friends can now eat meat without guilt. Furthermore, I have been
> >> trying to reduce my total driving from 30k to 25k per year - good for
> >> another 3 or 4 friends to eat meat.
> >>
> >> Pick your battles. Meat eaters are not much of a problem the overall
> >> scheme of things.
> >>
> >> Ed[/color]
> >
> > Ed,
> > I don't think anybody is attacking anybody. It's only making the case
> > against cattle that's all. Take if for what ever you like. Or just
> > forget about it. No need to get all wrapped around the axle.
> > --
> >[/color][/color]
--

"dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-C2D88D.14043420022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <iDHCh.4406$tD2.3268@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Nothing new here. In college bio 101 we learned how much energy it took
>> to
>> raise a chicken. 2 units of energy in for every unit out. Thus the
>> excretion of CO2.[/color]
>
> I knew I couldn't teach an old dog like you anything new, but I thought
> it might be informative for some others.
>
> What are you going to do when they tax your farts?
>
>[/color]

In NC they charge sales tax on over the counter drugs including Gas-X and
Beano so in a way they are already taxing some farts.

"dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-05241D.11134920022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
[color=blue]
> Ed,
> I don't think anybody is attacking anybody. It's only making the
> case
> against cattle that's all. Take if for what ever you like. Or just
> forget about it. No need to get all wrapped around the axle.[/color]

"Making the case against cattle" isn't attacking anyone? I don't see
it that way at all.

It seems to me that people often pull out the "environment" card when
arguing against some activity or behavior when the real reasons are
completely different.

In the original article, a claim was made that "dietary changes could
make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more
efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly
one ton a year." They researcher were carefully picking their
comparisons to make it look like cutting out meat would make a large
difference in greenhouse gas emissions. The statement borders on a
lie. If you changed from a Yaris to a Prius you would only save about
1.1 tons of CO2, but almost any other comparison would result in much
greater saving (you would save 1.8 tons by going from a standard Civic
to a Civic Hybrid or 3.2 tons by changing from a Camry to a Prius -
assuming 15,000 miles per year). The researchers do have plausible
deniability since they said "roughly" and there are comparisons that
actually only save "roughly" 1 ton per year. However, it was clear to
me that the intent of the article was to place animal production in
the worst possible light. I consider this an attack. Maybe you don't
see it that way. I do. In defense of animal production, I was pointing
out (or trying to), that other changes would be a lot more
significant.

I wonder how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere as a result of
the publishing of the Christian Science Monitor?

Ed

In article <sb-dnT9OyZ93n0DYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com>,
"n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> news:nspam-61BC2D.20041021022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <pZSdnW2VINCzckHYnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nspam-AA075D.07593121022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> > In article <45dc4e92@kcnews01>,
> >> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:nspam-05241D.11134920022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Ed,
> >> >> > I don't think anybody is attacking anybody. It's only making the
> >> >> > case
> >> >> > against cattle that's all. Take if for what ever you like. Or just
> >> >> > forget about it. No need to get all wrapped around the axle.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Making the case against cattle" isn't attacking anyone? I don't see
> >> >> it that way at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> It seems to me that people often pull out the "environment" card when
> >> >> arguing against some activity or behavior when the real reasons are
> >> >> completely different.
> >> >>
> >> >> In the original article, a claim was made that "dietary changes could
> >> >> make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more
> >> >> efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly
> >> >> one ton a year." They researcher were carefully picking their
> >> >> comparisons to make it look like cutting out meat would make a large
> >> >> difference in greenhouse gas emissions. The statement borders on a
> >> >> lie. If you changed from a Yaris to a Prius you would only save about
> >> >> 1.1 tons of CO2, but almost any other comparison would result in much
> >> >> greater saving (you would save 1.8 tons by going from a standard Civic
> >> >> to a Civic Hybrid or 3.2 tons by changing from a Camry to a Prius -
> >> >> assuming 15,000 miles per year). The researchers do have plausible
> >> >> deniability since they said "roughly" and there are comparisons that
> >> >> actually only save "roughly" 1 ton per year. However, it was clear to
> >> >> me that the intent of the article was to place animal production in
> >> >> the worst possible light. I consider this an attack. Maybe you don't
> >> >> see it that way. I do. In defense of animal production, I was pointing
> >> >> out (or trying to), that other changes would be a lot more
> >> >> significant.
> >> >>
> >> >> I wonder how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere as a result of
> >> >> the publishing of the Christian Science Monitor?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ed
> >> >
> >> > Your farts are far worse :)
> >> > --
> >> >
> >>
> >> I eat meat. I have to, I'm not allowed to eat beans or nuts. I bought
> >> my
> >> dad a T-shirt that said "World's Largest Source of Natural Gas." He had
> >> similar problems.
> >>
> >> Charles of Schaumburg[/color]
> >
> > Hey, nothin like a good fart in the morning, :)
> > --
> >[/color]
>
> Smells like victory! (No wait, that was another smell)
>
>
> The Fart that Startles!
>
> Charles of Schaumburg[/color]

Yea, that was gasoline smell that smells like victory.
--

"dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
news:nspam-65A27B.03515722022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <sb-dnT9OyZ93n0DYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
>> news:nspam-61BC2D.20041021022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
>> > In article <pZSdnW2VINCzckHYnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> > "n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:nspam-AA075D.07593121022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> >> > In article <45dc4e92@kcnews01>,
>> >> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:nspam-05241D.11134920022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Ed,
>> >> >> > I don't think anybody is attacking anybody. It's only making the
>> >> >> > case
>> >> >> > against cattle that's all. Take if for what ever you like. Or
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > forget about it. No need to get all wrapped around the axle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Making the case against cattle" isn't attacking anyone? I don't
>> >> >> see
>> >> >> it that way at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It seems to me that people often pull out the "environment" card
>> >> >> when
>> >> >> arguing against some activity or behavior when the real reasons are
>> >> >> completely different.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In the original article, a claim was made that "dietary changes
>> >> >> could
>> >> >> make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more
>> >> >> efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly
>> >> >> one ton a year." They researcher were carefully picking their
>> >> >> comparisons to make it look like cutting out meat would make a
>> >> >> large
>> >> >> difference in greenhouse gas emissions. The statement borders on a
>> >> >> lie. If you changed from a Yaris to a Prius you would only save
>> >> >> about
>> >> >> 1.1 tons of CO2, but almost any other comparison would result in
>> >> >> much
>> >> >> greater saving (you would save 1.8 tons by going from a standard
>> >> >> Civic
>> >> >> to a Civic Hybrid or 3.2 tons by changing from a Camry to a
>> >> >> Prius -
>> >> >> assuming 15,000 miles per year). The researchers do have plausible
>> >> >> deniability since they said "roughly" and there are comparisons
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> actually only save "roughly" 1 ton per year. However, it was clear
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> me that the intent of the article was to place animal production in
>> >> >> the worst possible light. I consider this an attack. Maybe you
>> >> >> don't
>> >> >> see it that way. I do. In defense of animal production, I was
>> >> >> pointing
>> >> >> out (or trying to), that other changes would be a lot more
>> >> >> significant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I wonder how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere as a result of
>> >> >> the publishing of the Christian Science Monitor?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ed
>> >> >
>> >> > Your farts are far worse :)
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I eat meat. I have to, I'm not allowed to eat beans or nuts. I
>> >> bought
>> >> my
>> >> dad a T-shirt that said "World's Largest Source of Natural Gas." He
>> >> had
>> >> similar problems.
>> >>
>> >> Charles of Schaumburg
>> >
>> > Hey, nothin like a good fart in the morning, :)
>> > --
>> >[/color]
>>
>> Smells like victory! (No wait, that was another smell)
>>
>>
>> The Fart that Startles!
>>
>> Charles of Schaumburg[/color]
>
> Yea, that was gasoline smell that smells like victory.
> --
>[/color]

Too bad we can't use napalm on some of the problems in Iraq. They want to
die a martyr's death and see 72 virgins? Toast 'em!

Charles of Schaumburg

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his
country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his
country."

Gen. George S Patton Jr, 31 May 1944

In article <E5mdnYtBxZjTGUDYnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com>,
"n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> news:nspam-65A27B.03515722022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <sb-dnT9OyZ93n0DYnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nspam-61BC2D.20041021022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> > In article <pZSdnW2VINCzckHYnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> > "n5hsr" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:nspam-AA075D.07593121022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> >> > In article <45dc4e92@kcnews01>,
> >> >> > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "dbu," <nspam@nojoke.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:nspam-05241D.11134920022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Ed,
> >> >> >> > I don't think anybody is attacking anybody. It's only making the
> >> >> >> > case
> >> >> >> > against cattle that's all. Take if for what ever you like. Or
> >> >> >> > just
> >> >> >> > forget about it. No need to get all wrapped around the axle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Making the case against cattle" isn't attacking anyone? I don't
> >> >> >> see
> >> >> >> it that way at all.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It seems to me that people often pull out the "environment" card
> >> >> >> when
> >> >> >> arguing against some activity or behavior when the real reasons are
> >> >> >> completely different.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In the original article, a claim was made that "dietary changes
> >> >> >> could
> >> >> >> make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more
> >> >> >> efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly
> >> >> >> one ton a year." They researcher were carefully picking their
> >> >> >> comparisons to make it look like cutting out meat would make a
> >> >> >> large
> >> >> >> difference in greenhouse gas emissions. The statement borders on a
> >> >> >> lie. If you changed from a Yaris to a Prius you would only save
> >> >> >> about
> >> >> >> 1.1 tons of CO2, but almost any other comparison would result in
> >> >> >> much
> >> >> >> greater saving (you would save 1.8 tons by going from a standard
> >> >> >> Civic
> >> >> >> to a Civic Hybrid or 3.2 tons by changing from a Camry to a
> >> >> >> Prius -
> >> >> >> assuming 15,000 miles per year). The researchers do have plausible
> >> >> >> deniability since they said "roughly" and there are comparisons
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> actually only save "roughly" 1 ton per year. However, it was clear
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> me that the intent of the article was to place animal production in
> >> >> >> the worst possible light. I consider this an attack. Maybe you
> >> >> >> don't
> >> >> >> see it that way. I do. In defense of animal production, I was
> >> >> >> pointing
> >> >> >> out (or trying to), that other changes would be a lot more
> >> >> >> significant.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I wonder how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere as a result of
> >> >> >> the publishing of the Christian Science Monitor?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ed
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your farts are far worse :)
> >> >> > --
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I eat meat. I have to, I'm not allowed to eat beans or nuts. I
> >> >> bought
> >> >> my
> >> >> dad a T-shirt that said "World's Largest Source of Natural Gas." He
> >> >> had
> >> >> similar problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> Charles of Schaumburg
> >> >
> >> > Hey, nothin like a good fart in the morning, :)
> >> > --
> >> >
> >>
> >> Smells like victory! (No wait, that was another smell)
> >>
> >>
> >> The Fart that Startles!
> >>
> >> Charles of Schaumburg[/color]
> >
> > Yea, that was gasoline smell that smells like victory.
> > --
> >[/color]
>
> Too bad we can't use napalm on some of the problems in Iraq. They want to
> die a martyr's death and see 72 virgins? Toast 'em!
>
> Charles of Schaumburg
>
> "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his
> country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his
> country."
>
> Gen. George S Patton Jr, 31 May 1944[/color]

Yep. Now days we have to take that one outhouse behind two or three
other houses without so much as cracking a window. Pinpoint bombing.

I say let's just drop a GBU-43 and get it over with.
--

n5hsr wrote:
[color=blue]
>Wonder if a W-83 would fix the streets of Baghdad? Now the next question:
>American or Chinese?[/color]

When are you going to answer some of my questions?

For example, approximately how old is our planet?