This is great ... finally we are making sense. The WMD is not the issue. This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed. KS
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henri Naths Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come 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 >>> > _______________________________________________ > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
