Dear Henri and Rick,
I only like to put this "we took out Hitler" to rest. That the Americans
single handed took out Hitler, is a myth that only exists in Hollywood movies.
The crucial material support from US in WWII was the deliveries of war
material. The US infantry troop participation in Europe was on a low level
and not crucial. By only look at the loss of soldiers, you understand
clearly who was doing the major fighting.
Russia 6,000,000 troop causalities
Europe Alliance 600,000
USA 60,000
Germany was very advanced and introduced for the first time the modern
warfare and materials, with a massive air support. They tested much of it
in the Spanish civil war.
US took out Japan, not on the ground, but with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This
at a time when the European part of WWII was at its end.
I do agree that the US propaganda methods was/is superior. Something that
Hitler and his administration several times acknowledged and copied. This
superiority is maintained even today.
Hakan
At 05:13 PM 4/2/2005, you wrote:
Dear Henri,
We took out Hitler because Germany declared war on us after Japan attacked
us at Pearl Harbor. Sadam did not declare war on us and presented no
immediate threat. In the long run he was a danger to US and European oil
interests in that he was determined to get control of the Arabian
peninsula and Iran thus controlling the majority of the oil on the planet
as far as has been proven. From such a position he could have bled us
white. Beyond unlimited avarice he appears to have had no ideology. In
this respect he resembled some of the current administrations most
influential backers. That he was a real threat was demonstrated by his
invasions of Kuwait and Iran though he was sufficiently contained by
international pressure that any risk was potential rather than actual and
manageable without going to war.
There is no question that he was a dirt ball but there are much worse that
we do nothing about and some of them are our allies. What we lost
attacking Iraq so far exceeds what we have gained and if the Shiite party
that won the election establishes a radical theocracy like Iran we will
find ourselves in a far worse position than we were with Sadam.
Rick
Henri Naths wrote:
Hakan,
I would like to give a humble option here,
( Hakan wrote;...Criminal, established by the fact that we now know
that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. )
We took out Hitler for the same reason, Him and Suddam Hussein were
weapons of mass destruction.
H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hakan Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 31 March, 2005 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Bob,
You were right and I am wrong and I am glad that I did get
a very good explanation on how Hubbert could be so right.
It also explains why president Carter was so genuinely
worried, when he developed his energy plan. He had the
foresight to realize that Hubbert was right.
It also explains why we see the surge in the genuine hate
of Americans. It is the cost of aggressive and egoistic foreign
policies, that resulted in about 10 more years of artificially
low oil prices.
All of this, ending up in an almost criminal behavior by the
Bush administration. I say almost, because I do not want
to be too "crude". The legal aspect of being criminal, is very
clearly established, Criminal, established by the fact that we
now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. By laying
the responsibility at the feet of faulty "US intelligence
community", the Bush administration is trying deliberately
to avoid their legal responsibility. A kind of reversed side
of the well known argument "it was not my fault, I was
ordered to do it". LOL
All of this supported by the America people, in a reelection
of president Bush. I hear the false argument that only 48%
voted him in office. This argument is poor mathematics, I
cannot get to this result, when Bush won with a more than
3 million of the populous American vote. It was the first
election of Bush, that he did not have a populous majority
and he was put in office by the Courts.
Hakan
At 11:16 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote:
All I know is what I read in the brief biography. (and what I recall
from hearing about his work many years ago)
Hakan Falk wrote:
Bob,
I stand corrected and the only excuse I have, is that I only brought
forward a mistake that I read earlier. I remember that it was an
article about the hearings in US congress in mid 70'. Will however not
do this mistake again, but do not despair, there are many others I
will do and surely in my far from perfect English. -:)
What was his field at Berkeley?
Hakan
At 05:35 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote:
Howdy Hakan, calling him a mathematician is a bit short-sighted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_King_Hubbert
Hubbert was born in San Saba, Texas in 1903. He attended the
University of Chicago, where he received his B.S. in 1926, his M.S.
in 1928, and his Ph.D in 1937, studying geology, mathematics, and
physics. He worked as an assistant geologist for the Amerada
Petroleum Company for two years while pursuing his Ph.D. He joined
the Shell Oil Company in 1943, retiring in 1964. After he retired
from Shell, he became a senior research geophysicist for the United
States Geological Survey until his retirement in 1976. He also held
positions as a professor of geology and geophysics at Stanford
University from 1963 to 1968, and as a professor at Berkeley from 1973 to 1976.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
