Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others wrote: > > 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.
Actually, my understanding of the history is that Hitler committed suicide. So he took himself out, nobody else. The Nazi military was forced into surrender by the "Allies" of WWII, of which the Americans made up a relatively small faction, essentially missing the first the first 4-5 years of the war. Admittedly, they had their hands full in the Pacific theatre come 1942, years after the Japanese had captured Hong Kong and invaded China. > > 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. The U.S. was playing both sides on the materials front. The Roosevelt government was definitely supporting Britain (and her colonies), but U.S. companies were happily trading with the Nazis. IBM provided logistical support for the labour and death camps (the tattoos on the inmates were essentially inventory control numbers used in the IBM machines at the camps). GM and Ford provided the bulk of the trucks used by the mechanized German infantry. The list goes on (e.g Standard Oil, Dupont, Chrysler, Kodak ...) > > 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. There was a lot of support for Fascism in the U.S. during WWII, though it became less strident and publicly visible after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Standard U.S. revisionist history glosses over that now. Leading up to WWII, the U.S. government typically treated the Russian "Bosheviks" as the "bad guys". > > 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. > >> So the real similarity between Hussein and Hitler in the U.S. was that they were good clients for U.S. industry. The U.S. didn't take out either Hitler (see above) or Hussein (he's still alive, and something of a political problem for the U.S. now - can't try him, can't kill him). The U.S. military actions were effectively an afterthought in both cases. Hussein was a useful U.S. ally when Iran was considered a bigger problem. Hitler was an OK guy when the Bolshies were the bigger problem. Clearly, "taking out Saddam" had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction (the U.N. inspectors had all but proven he had none before the U.S. found the courage to invade), or 9/11 (the plans were in play in the U.S. Administration *before* the planes hit the towers). It was not about getting the oil, as it was available for sale on the world market prior to the invasion. It wasn't about Iraq as a military threat in the region - the U.S. and U.K. were flying military and surveillance over the country *daily* prior to the invasion. It wasn't about Al- Qaeda - they despised Saddam. Hussein did not attack or threaten the U.S. So, Henri, in your opinion, why had the Bush White House really decided to invade Iraq - prior to 9/11? > >> > >> > >>----- 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. > -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com/ It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? _______________________________________________ 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/
