BuickNut

I respect your viewpoint, but I don't agree..politely of course. If you look at the history of the First Irag war - we went in to defend our interests - OIL, becasuse Hussain went into Kuwait, occupied it, and was threatening to go into the other Arab States where our interests (OIL....) would be threatened. We won that war, and stopped Hussain from gaining control of our interests (OIL...) that were in the region. The next war (current) we went in becasue of WMD, because somebody from Iraq had a meeting with Al-Quieda....because ????? I'm still not sure. It seems as if we went in for one reason, then somebody had to "fit" or come up with a reason why we ARE there to protect their jobs. The only thing I DO know is that we can get out of the ENTIRE REGION if we don't have OIL interests there. For humanitarian reasons, we have become the world's policeman (which I agree with to an extent - being the biggest kid on the block, we need to protect the other kids from the bullies... but there has to be a limit...). But we wouldn't be there spending ALL THIS MONEY if it weren't for the oil....plain and simple. We might be there spending SOME money with SOME troops...but not nearly to this extent. I don't really care about the arguements about why where "there" vs why we're not "here" or "else where"...fact is that we need to get out of there and CAN get out of there if we didn't have interests (OIL...) there. So regardless of why - lets pull the plug, spend the money where WE need to spend it on OUR interests (...ENERGY !!!!), that, oh by the way - a little side benefit here - we also save the lives or our soldiers. I keep on reading that we're NOT there becasue of the oil...I think that's a little naive (respectfully...don't anybody get their shorts all tied up in knots......) to think we're there regardless of the oil. If one can't agree that whether it's the main reason, one might at least acknowledge that it's a contributing reason. My point - let's make it NOT a contributing reason. Can one deny that with our inventiveness, that $187 Billion might go a little ways in easing our energy worries ? I think so.. Why continue chasing the oil when it has a finite life ? Ya got a bunch of screaming lunatics that wish Hussain was back...well, is that not part of democracy in letting folk have their own free will ? Let them do what they want there, lets NOT give them a reason to hate us, and let's get more energy independent.....

.....simple solution...and a wiser investment for the American public that will ALSO make the Arab nations/and the world, happy in getting us out of their neighborhood ======> Duuuuh, take all the billions and billions of dollars we spend/spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and God knows where else we're "protecting" our interests (ie OIL !!!!!) every cotton pickin' year, put that money into biofuel research as well as subsidizing the final raw material (corn, grass cuttings, pig "fuel" or whatever it is...), and QUITE SPENDING OUR DOLLARS AND SOLDEIRS LIVES where they don't belong AND aren't wanted and instead - do something that only seems to be common sense - spend it on America. If we do that - we are energy independent (at least better off directionally..), and we're out of the countries that don't want us. They can then sell all that wonderful oil to whoever else wants it that will put up with that garbage that goes with putting money in that region of the world. On top of which, the big 3 will be better off as they will have a fuel that doesn't require all the infrastructural changes that fuel cell, hybrid (..where ya gonna get THAT FIXED when it breaks down ?), plug in electrical gizmo-type cars; but will instead have something much closer in technology to the IC gas burnin' chuggin' cars that we all know and love, and love to hear the "WHAAAAA" when you press down with your right foot Our money is ill spent protecting our interests on fuel that we know has a limit, that is being controlled by folks that don't have OUR best interests at heart and by all accounts don't want anything to do with us. Yeah, I know it's pretty simplistic....but aren't those the best kinds of solutions ? ....ok, I'm done venting HERE too... I don't mean for this to be a political statement - but geez Louise - it seems to me that this is the simplest, easiest, "bestest" common sense solution. I keep on hearing how biofuel doesn't make economic sense - well, if we spend the money on this instead of war that involves the current fuel - I think it DOES make economic sense. Didn't I just see on TV that BP was spouting they spend $50 million over the past 10 yrs on biofuels ?...that's a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent on the war. If we aren't over there - they are happier and the terrorists won't have reason to chase after us.

I'm sorry, but as an American, I take offense at this story. No offense intended to the Chinese Designers - but they have a completely different perspective and "design art" than what is expected and acceptable here in the US. This gent Joe Qiu has no connection to the US public whatsoever. I'm sorry, but from the article - he'll have to "design down" to the "less descerning" public in America...I wouldn't want him to "dumb down" his art. He supposedly went to all the chic nightclubs, all the hip and trendy places in China to design the Chinese version of the LaCrosse....and what did he come up with ? A Chinese version of the old Sable with Altima taillights (I agree with the previous postings about this...). Again he has no connection to the American type of mentality in what we want....for crying out loud, he's 31 and still lives with his parents....a far cry from the typical "proud of it" independent American. No - design needs to be done in the region where the vehicle is going to be sold. I think the exception to the rule that breaks the barrier (...but I think is an anomoly..) is the Euro Saturns. Those are hot, stylish, and will definatly be the break-out that Saturn and GM needs. The Enclave is hot style-wise from all pre-production accounts from the public...the next LaCrosse needs to have that type of styling theme...not cookie cutter - but I think the choppers on here have it down pat...congrats guys...MR LUTZ - TAKE NOTE OF THOSE DESIGNS !!!!! If GM does it right with the next LaCrosse - it WOULD make sense to make the changes for just 1 or 2 years..setting up the next LaCrosse on the other platforms (???) to be the very hot desireable car AND THE NEXT BREAKOUT that again GM needs. Don't do this in the name of Globalization and dilute the design direction that the choppers here show, as well as the direction the Enclave is logically heading Buick in. Caddy did it with their new design direction - Buick can do it to. Draw on the history of the '63-'65 Rivs, the '66-'68 Wildcats, the 60's-70's Skylark, the '80s Regals...THAT history shows ya can do class with engine heat WITH SUCCESS That design may work in China..but it won't here. Truthfully - I think Mr. Lutz should hire some of the "choppers" that posted in the LaCrosse chop contest, as well as the posted Century chop. THEY are pertinent to the American public. Those designs are sporty, and a logical "next step" evolution from the current LaCrosse. Global design just plain doesn't work. Fashion (of any kind - whether it be clothes, furniture, OR CARS...) isn't universal. Cultures are too diverse and have different opinions of what's hot. Come on...I'm not talking about anything that isn't anything other than just plain common sense. This "globalization" is being pushed just too far and beyond common sense....and it does nothing but hurt the US (don't even get me talking about NAFTA !!!! )....yeah, right, lets ship SOME MORE jobs out of the US. Now I've driven the current model, and my folks own an '06 model....and while it's a base model - it's still a great car. Now if you would dress it up with 20" older BMW style spoked black rims, add some body tightening to straighten out the curves visa vie better suspension, add a chin spoiler, maybe do something in the back, and pull in some turbo hairdryer to the 3.8 L pushrod cranker - you'd have something very cool and that would pull some G's in a straight line and swizzle stick you around the corners too !!! GM AND MR. LUTZ - GET SOME TESTOSTERONE AND MAKE THE LACROSSE THE NEXT SKYLARK GS STAGE I (at least make one version of it hot and high HP and very attractive to the younger buyers....). I think ya need to keep the base models a bit more hip and outfitted better with better rims and accents - and don't sell it any lesser. Its those base model that are the majority of the sellers that are hurting the cars image - not the design itself (..geez, but if you did THAT...you wouldn't sell as many...but you sell that many because folk like it...what a corrundum ?!?) Ok...through venting for the time being....