"China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million"
Michel
comments at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/10/chinese-firm-closes-hummer-deal/comments/
China buys all-American Hummer for $150 million
William Ehart
Nothing was more American than the Hummer.
It was Schwarzenegger, cigars and swagger, laughing in the face of
scornful environmentalists.
Only now the Chinese are laughing.
General Motors sold the military-inspired off-road brand to China's
Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co. for a reported $150
million on Friday, consummating a deal announced in early June.
Tengzhong, a sprawling conglomerate with no car-building experience,
will own 80 percent of the company. Hong Kong investor Suolang Duoji,
who in turn is a major investor in Tengzhong, will own the rest. They
will assume existing agreements with Hummer's 160 U.S. dealerships,
including two in the Washington area.
In its June bankruptcy filing, GM estimated that Hummer was worth $500
million. The deal requires regulatory approval in both Washington and
Beijing.
GM said it will continue to make the Hummer at least until June 2011,
with an option to continue another year. Hummer's management team will
stay in place, and company headquarters will be located in the Detroit
area.
After GM's attempts to sell its Saturn brand failed last week,
analysts called the deal a victory for GM despite the low price tag.
"It's good news for General Motors, they actually got some money out
of it versus having to spend money to wind it down, as they have to do
with Saturn," said Michelle Krebs, an analyst with auto information
site Edmunds.com.
Back in February, while seeking more federal aid, GM said that it
would sell or close its Hummer, Saturn and Saab divisions in an effort
to succeed as a leaner, more profitable company.
Concern about Hummer's sale to the Chinese was muted.
"Yeah, it feels a little weird," said Anthony Cancel, new car sales
manager at Moore Cadillac Hummer in Chantilly.
"But Americans are still going to build these cars" for a while, Mr.
Cancel said. "That's going to employ 3,000 Americans."
He noted that even with Hummer's future in doubt, his dealership was
still selling 15 of the vehicles a month, down from a peak of 75. GM
has not produced the car for six months, he said.
"It came at a pretty good time, we only have two left. From the time
they turn the factory on it takes four weeks for us to get cars," Mr.
Cancel said.
Ms. Krebs said the Chinese are following the lead of the Japanese and
Koreans, but not by building the cars on their own.
"The Chinese are achieving a global presence by acquisition rather
than introducing their own brands," she said. "They're buying low
right now."
Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co. has joined a Swedish
consortium led by Koenigsegg seeking to complete the purchase of Saab
this month. China's Geely Automobile was interested in buying Opel
from GM and is bidding to buy Volvo from Ford Motor Co.
"It's the same with the Indians, with Tata [Motors] buying Jaguar and
Land Rover," Ms. Krebs said.
The Financial Times reported this week that Geely's bid for money-
losing Volvo was worth $2 billion but that Ford had concerns about
protecting its technology. The London newspaper reported that a U.S.
consortium led by former Detroit executives has also placed a bid.
Independent auto analyst Tom Libby said trade is so interconnected now
that Chinese ownership of Hummer is unlikely to diminish its macho
appeal.
"I have always held that the Hummer brand has value in this market and
I consider it a viable competitor to Jeep," he said.
The Jeep had its origin in the U.S. military, he said, and still
benefits from "sort of a patriotism connection."
The Hummer is derived from the Humvee, the U.S. military's successor
to the Jeep.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican and former action-
movie hero, persuaded military contractor AM General to make a
civilian version of the Humvee in the early 1990s. AM General of South
Bend, Ind., continues to make the military Humvee.
The challenge for Hummer, with fresh capital from Tengzhong, will be
to reinvent the brand, which has suffered in recent years from its gas-
guzzling image. The company will improve efficiency and performance
and branch out to alternative fuels and diesel engines.
There's no image problem in China, though.
"I think it works for China," Ms. Krebs said. "I have been to China
and Hummers are real popular there, even though they are only sold on
the gray market. I've seen them on the streets of Shanghai.
"They're popular in the Middle East and there are opportunities
elsewhere, such as Russia," she said.
rob
October 9, 2009 - 1:08 pm ET
UPDATED: 10/9/09 3:45 p.m. ET
DETROIT -- General Motors Co., working to cut its U.S. brand count in
half as it recovers from bankruptcy, today completed an agreement to sell
the Hummer SUV brand to China's Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery
Co. Ltd. The companies did not disclose financial terms in announcing the
deal. News reports Thursday said Tengzhong would pay $150 million.
The accord moves GM a step forward in its effort to remake itself by
selling brands it had taken on over the past two decades. Last week, a deal
to sell Saturn to Penske Automotive Group collapsed a day before it was
expected to close.
Tengzhong will purchase Hummer through an investment entity, in which
it will hold an 80 percent stake. Entrepreneur Suolang Duoji, whose holdings
include Chinese chemical maker Lumena, will control the other 20 percent.
Hummer spokesman Nick Richards said it was too early to say when the
sale will close. The next step is getting approval from U.S. and Chinese
regulators.
"It's ready when it's ready," Richards said. He called media reports
that the Chinese government might reject the deal "speculation."
Brand, trademarks
Tengzhong is scheduled to buy the brand, its trademarks and licensing
rights to make vehicles and will assume U.S. franchise agreements. GM had
158 Hummer franchises at the start of the year. Tengzhong will also get
manufacturing, business services and some components from GM during a
transitional period, which was not defined.
As an example, the companies said GM's assembly plant in Shreveport,
La., will make the H3 and H3T, and military-vehicle maker AM General LLC's
factory in Mishawaka, Ind., will produce the H2 until June 2011. The deal
includes an optional, one-year extension for the factories to make the
vehicles until the following June.
Hummer CEO James Taylor, formerly head of Cadillac, will remain in his
current position with the new company.
GM had said in June that it expected to sell Hummer to the Chinese
heavy machinery maker, which has no experience in the auto industry.
Hummer's 64 percent sales decline through September from year-earlier levels
was the steepest of any volume brand in the United States.
GM bought the Hummer brand in December 1999 from AM General, which has
also continued to make versions for the armed forces.
Sales history
Hummer entered the civilian market in 1992. Non-government Hummer
sales were averaging between 800 and 1,000 units annually when GM bought the
brand.
Hummer's U.S. sales peaked at 71,524 in 2006, before demand was choked
by gasoline prices that soared above $4 per gallon last year. Sales through
September of this year dwindled to 8,193.
GM had estimated in the summer of 2008 that the sale of Hummer "might
realize $500 million or more," CEO Fritz Henderson said in documents filed
during the automaker's 39-day bankruptcy.
GM's agreement to sell Saturn to Penske, the nation's second-largest
auto retailer, fell through after Penske's arrangements to get vehicles from
Renault SA was rejected by Renault's board. GM is now winding down Saturn
and its dealer network.
In addition, GM has an agreement to sell its Swedish Saab brand to
supercar maker Koenigsegg AB. Koenigsegg has said it expects to finish the
deal by the end of this month.
GM is dropping Pontiac and keeping Chevrolet, Buick, GMC and Cadillac.
Reuters contributed to this report
News
> after 2011 the Chinese are on their own.
>
> October 9, 2009 - 1:08 pm ET
> UPDATED: 10/9/09 3:45 p.m. ET
>
> DETROIT -- General Motors Co., working to cut its U.S. brand count in
> half as it recovers from bankruptcy, today completed an agreement to sell
> the Hummer SUV brand to China's Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery
> Co. Ltd. The companies did not disclose financial terms in announcing the
> deal. News reports Thursday said Tengzhong would pay $150 million.
>
> La., will make the H3 and H3T, and military-vehicle maker AM General LLC's
> factory in Mishawaka, Ind., will produce the H2 until June 2011. The deal
> includes an optional, one-year extension for the factories to make the
> vehicles until the following June.
>
> also continued to make versions for the armed forces.
Cheap price for AM General military-grade IP.
Dori A Schmetterling
Has the Lenovo lost any of its IBM appeal?
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Michel" <yard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0e4e0050-d073-4ec1...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
[...]
>
> Independent auto analyst Tom Libby said trade is so interconnected now
> that Chinese ownership of Hummer is unlikely to diminish its macho
> appeal.
>
> "I have always held that the Hummer brand has value in this market and
> I consider it a viable competitor to Jeep," he said.
>
> The Jeep had its origin in the U.S. military, he said, and still
> benefits from "sort of a patriotism connection."
[...]
News
QX
full steam ahead all the way.
MoPar Man
> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is
> yelling full steam ahead all the way.
And Bush was different?
What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their
death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting?
News
Bingo.
Joe Pfeiffer
>
> Cheap price for AM General military-grade IP.
My impression is it's just the Hummer brand, which no longer even
includes the original civilianized Hummer.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
rob
it.
"Joe Pfeiffer" <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
news:1bvdimz...@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...
News
> News <Ne...@Groups.Name> writes:
>> Cheap price for AM General military-grade IP.
>
> My impression is it's just the Hummer brand, which no longer even
> includes the original civilianized Hummer.
"Tengzhong needs approval from the Chinese government, including the
Ministry of Commerce, which industry and government officials say holds
the ultimate authority over the deal.
Chinese officials have signaled that the deal would be treated
favorably, Jim Taylor, the GM executive who has helped steer the sale,
said on Friday.
A completed deal would mark the first major acquisition of distressed
U.S. auto assets in the global downturn by Chinese firms seeking to
acquire higher profile names and */more advanced technology/*."
Dori A Schmetterling
(I am a Toshiba man, though Lenovo would be my 2nd choice probably.)
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"News" <Ne...@Groups.Name> wrote in message
news:0IednbyvE66GlEzX...@speakeasy.net...
SteveT
news:4AD127E9...@Man.com...
You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending thousands
of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current
dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)? But I expect
everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of
now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened by
their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly
disagree with you.
CF
> In what way?
>
> (I am a Toshiba man, though Lenovo would be my 2nd choice probably.)
>
> DAS
I only use "real" IBM machines, ones built before the Lenovo takeover.
My oldest IBM is a PS/2, 9556, and two refurbished desktops, a 6579
PIII, and an 8303 P4.
News
Dori A Schmetterling
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"News" <Ne...@Groups.Name> wrote in message
news:uvSdncotM4gGLE7X...@speakeasy.net...
News
back to fix unworked problems, then goes missing completely, for days.
satyr
Iraq hasn't been so much liberated as Bosniafied. Shiite and Sunni
segregation is complete and the Christians have mostly fled. As soon
as we leave, the bloodbath will commence.
Iran certainly is pleased that Sunni control of Iraq is over. I can
see a great friendship between the two nations as soon as Iraq has
been ethnically cleansed of Sunnis. At least that is one possible
outcome.
On a bad day, Israel is as bad as anyone else in this godforsaken holy
land.
Bill Putney
> ...On a bad day, Israel is as bad as anyone else in this godforsaken holy
> land.
You are obviously devoid of judgement.
--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "MoPar Man" <Mo...@Man.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4AD127E9...@Man.com...
>
> > QX wrote:
>
> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is
> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way.
>
> > And Bush was different?
>
> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their
> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting?
>
> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending thousands
> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current
> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)?
You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us,
period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it.
> But I expect
> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of
> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened by
> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly
> disagree with you.
Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and
want us out. Explain why something that had no bearing on us was
worth 4000 American lives, $1 trillion, and loss of US reputation the
world over.
Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists
recruited by American actions in Iraq.
SteveT
news:9d4f6f79-1a71-447c...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" <turetzsr-nos...@deletethis-yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> "MoPar Man" <Mo...@Man.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4AD127E9...@Man.com...
>>
>> > QX wrote:
>>
>> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is
>> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way.
>>
>> > And Bush was different?
>>
>> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their
>> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting?
>>
>> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending
>> thousands
>> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current
>> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)?
> You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us,
> period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it.
First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out
that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I believed
the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in Europe
*was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our
allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention against
Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling
and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World powers
don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is the
point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise
relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under
Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted (WMD and the
possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists, Iraqi
interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that
ended the first Gulf war).
>> But I expect
>> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of
>> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened
>> by
>> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly
>> disagree with you.
> Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and
> want us out.
> <snip>
Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done.
Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence just
because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness to
defend itself and its people are happy we're there. As are a significant
number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the governments,
militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors.
> Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists
> recruited by American actions in Iraq.
Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well
before we were embroiled in Iraq. And I disagree with the notion that the US
should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in check,
that is just one more element to include among those bearing on the
decision. Also, you forgot to mention Afghanistan; I assume you deliberately
excluded North Korea because of geography. :) <grin>
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9d4f6f79-1a71-447c...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 12, 1:23 pm, "SteveT" <turetzsr-nos...@deletethis-yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> "MoPar Man" <Mo...@Man.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4AD127E9...@Man.com...
>
> >> > QX wrote:
>
> >> >> This country is going down the road to hell, and Mr. Obama is
> >> >> yelling full steam ahead all the way.
>
> >> > And Bush was different?
>
> >> > What did he do in 8 years, besides send thousands of US troops to their
> >> > death at a price of a trillion dollars and counting?
>
> >> You might as well ask, what did FDR and Truman do besides sending
> >> thousands
> >> of US troops to their death at a price of <whatever number of current
> >> dollar-equivalents was spent in the execution of WW II>)?
> > You really think WW II was the same? Iraq was no threat to us,
> > period, and Bush either knew it or should have known it.
>
> First: I wasn't trying to equate them, I was simply trying to point out
> that the question, as asked, was not sufficient to make the point I believed
> the poster was intending to make. And I certainly think that WW II in Europe
> *was* similar. Germany and Italy were no direct threat to the US but our
When the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared
war on the US.
> allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention against
> Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling
> and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World powers
> don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is the
> point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise
> relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under
> Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted
So what was the threat
>(WMD and the
> possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists,
But there was no clear evidence Saddam had WMD (all the evidence he
didn't was dismissed) and the inspectors were there doing their job.
>Iraqi
> interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that
> ended the first Gulf war).
Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's
airspace?
>
> >> But I expect
> >> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of
> >> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis threatened
> >> by
> >> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly
> >> disagree with you.
> > Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and
> > want us out.
> > <snip>
>
> Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done.
And with it, the ones who knew how to make a gov't work and who knew
how to make a military work; then we had 5+ years of Amateur Hour.
> Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence just
> because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness to
> defend itself and its people are happy we're there.
Polls say it's a tiny number. You might also note Iraq has lost a
huge portion of its population since we invaded to people simply
leaving.
>As are a significant
> number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the governments,
> militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors.
Oh great, 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars so the royal
family of Kuwait can be happy. The country where women cannot vote or
drive.
>
> > Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists
> > recruited by American actions in Iraq.
>
> Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well
> before we were embroiled in Iraq.
Iraq was a great recruiting ground.
>And I disagree with the notion that the US
> should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in check,
So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia,
Sudan, ...
rob
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78f1104b-f348-4456...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
the first war never really ended....cease fire only. restrictions from that
war were still in place.
rob
"rob" <m...@home.orgg> wrote in message
news:4ad675e5$0$5122$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
SteveT
news:4ad675e5$0$5122$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
against countries that formally declare war on us, that would seem
consistent with a (very, very) strict Constructionalist view of the
"declaration of war" provision of the US Constitution. I personally consider
what the US Congress did just prior to the invasion to be sufficient. Back
to the original question: "What did he [Bush] do in 8 years, besides send
thrown at FDR and Truman with respect to WW II in Europe. Thousands of US
troops went to their deaths and a lot of money was spent, both before and
after the war. The missing point in the original question is that the Iraq
war was unjustified (in the mind of the person asking). I don't see the
point in pursuing this any further in this context -- the rest of our
exchange addresses this question (how justified, if at all, was the Iraq war
that overthrew the Ba'athist government) well.
>> allies were either overrun (happily avoided by allied intervention
>> against
>> Iraq by GHW Bush) or in danger of attack by mad despots who were killling
>> and/ or imprisoning thousands or millions of their own people. World
>> powers
>> don't necessarily react only to direct threats to themselves (which is
>> the
>> point of organizations like NATO, although NATO itself is not otherwise
>> relevant to my point). And, still, your blanket statement that Iraq under
>> Hussein was not a threat to the US is not universally accepted
>
> So what was the threat
Interference with our overflights, financial support of terrorists in
Israel (a country visited frequently by Americans), the danger of
proliferation of WMD to terrorists, to name a few.
>>(WMD and the
>> possibility of their falling into the hands of terrorists,
>
> But there was no clear evidence Saddam had WMD (all the evidence he
> didn't was dismissed) and the inspectors were there doing their job.
Not so! WMD is more than just nuclear weapons.
>>Iraqi
>> interference with US attempts to verify and enforce the conditions that
>> ended the first Gulf war).
>
> Meaning they didn't take kindly to being denied 2/3 of their country's
> airspace?
To which they had earlier agreed.
> the first war never really ended....cease fire only. restrictions from
> that war were still in place.
>> >> But I expect
>> >> everyone gets your point, you believe it was a waste. Millions of
>> >> now-free-from-Ba'ath-domination Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis
>> >> threatened by
>> >> their formerly bellicode neighbor and Israelis would almost certainly
>> >> disagree with you.
>> > Yet poll after poll shows the Iraqis resent our presence there and
>> > want us out.
>> > <snip>
>>
>> Sure, now that the real work, getting rid of the Ba'athists, is done.
>
> And with it, the ones who knew how to make a gov't work and who knew
> how to make a military work; then we had 5+ years of Amateur Hour.
Insufficient, IMHO. The Nazis and the Italian Fascist government knew
how to make a government and military (well, at least the Nazis did! <grin>)
work. I'd MUCH rather have an amateur government than an efficient, brutal
immoral one, wouldn't you?
>> Many knowledgeable Iraqis who do not viscerally oppose allied presence
>> just
>> because we are us and who understand the current state of Iraqi readiness
>> to
>> defend itself and its people are happy we're there.
>
> Polls say it's a tiny number. You might also note Iraq has lost a
> huge portion of its population since we invaded to people simply
> leaving.
Of course, only those both willing to give the US and allies the benefit
of the doubt AND who are fully cognizant of the sad (although improving, or
so we are told) state of the Iraqi police and military, are happy with our
presence (and very likely not everyone in that class, as we've simply messed
things up too much in many ways).
>>As are a significant
>> number of Kuwaitis, Israelis and no doubt other members of the
>> governments,
>> militaries and general population of Iraq's neighbors.
>
> Oh great, 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars so the royal
> family of Kuwait can be happy. The country where women cannot vote or
> drive.
What makes you think this point has anything to do with mine? The fact
that our intervention made the royal family of Kuwait happy is not
particularly relevant. I think it's fair to assume that, as a whole, the
Kuwaiti people feel fortunate that Hussein did not succeed, whatever their
feelings are towards their royal family. Clearly, the US intent is NOT to
suppress women's right to vote or to education, otherwise we'd be on the
other side of the fight in Afghanistan.
>> > Now the threat is Iran (which Iraq held in check) and terrorists
>> > recruited by American actions in Iraq.
>>
>> Terrorists existed and were acting against Americans and allies well
>> before we were embroiled in Iraq.
>
> Iraq was a great recruiting ground.
So are nearly all other countries in the region. So is the US support of
Israel. So is our power, both military and economic. So, no doubt, is the
behavior of our fellow citizens when they visit other countries, or interact
with visitors of other countries who come here. During the Tehran hostage
crisis, I overheard a discussion between an Iranaian woman and an American
couple at Detroit Metro airport. No doubt finding her accent intriguing,
they asked her from whence she had come. "Iran" she replied (with a short
"a" and a slightly trilled "r"). "Where?" they asked. She repeated the name
of her country a couple more times, then added "you know, Tehran, where the
Ayatollah is?" "Oh," one of the Americans replied, "you mean I-RAN!" As if
she didn't properly pronounce the name of her native country!
>>And I disagree with the notion that the US
>> should necessarily ignore the evils of one despot to hold another in
>> check,
>
> So I assume you advocate invading North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia,
> Sudan, ...
<snip>
Um, I think you missed the word "necessarily" that I used. I don't know
whether we should invade North Korea, China, Russia, Somalia, Sudan, because
I don't have access to the necessary intelligence. But I wouldnt
automatically be against the suggestion, just because "those countries are
no threat to us." I think it might have been Ayn Rand who said something
like "Moral countries have the right, but not the obligation, to overthrow
despots in other countries." I'm not sure I *quite* agree with that
statement but I'm inclined to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the
morality that it suggests.
Dori A Schmetterling
Tosh has an authorise workshop in central London not a million miles from me
so can deliver and collect machine, and even have some work done
"while-u-wait".
DAS
To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"News" <Ne...@Groups.Name> wrote in message
news:buGdnbWK1vRoKk7X...@speakeasy.net...