This is what I have said all along. People miss the big picture. Suddam
Hussein was the weapon of mass destruction. 100% agreed.
KS
Sigh...
I suppose one man's sense is another man's idiocy, and to each his
own and all that, all jolly good and well... But in fact it's a
matter of what you support, what you go along with, what you accept
wihout questioning, what you oppose, to whose benefit and at whose
expense.
Which, I'm afraid, makes this idiocy, not sense. Lethal idiocy,
furthermore, with its hands drenched in blood.
Saddam threatened nobody, certainly not the US.
Keith
-----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/
