Keith, It is not only Godwin, it is also the flame checker on the mail client. If I mention AH by name, the red flames indicate that I said something unsuitable. It is so stupid, that it cannot judge what I said. LOL I guess that they didn't really catch what Godwin in reality said, but still their practise prove him right.
Hakan At 17:48 10/05/2006, you wrote: >I suppose using the abbreviation AH gets us all a Godwin award, but >each time I see it I think it means something else, LOL! Well that >fits too. Very efficient acronym. > >http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html >Godwin's Law > >Mike Godwin writes about why he created Godwin's Law, and what happened then: > >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html >Meme, Counter-meme >By Mike Godwin > > >Doug, > > > >My mother studied art in Paris and then Munich, 1937 to 1939. She even > >knew one of the students who tried to flee to Switzerland, but got caught > >and hanged. She told me about it, long before they made the movie about > >them. When she came home, she and my father volunteered in Finland. > >My father was a surgeon at the front and my mother a nurse in Rovanemi. > > > >When she came home from Germany, no one belive her about what was > >going on there and this was on the eve of WWII. In Munich she had a lot > >of Jewish friends, some of them managed to get to Sweden, and I heard > >a lot of stories from them when I was young. > > > >It is amazing how we let history repeat itself, despite that we now have > >an information age, that discover atrocities in an early stage. > >But the information age also makes it much easier to send people to >sleep. But it also makes it much easier to wake them up again! > > >Some of the > >journalists and the likes are today living a dangerous life. Keith have told > >us some of his adventures in South Africa and I admire his dedication and > >this list, which is a part of it. > >It wasn't only in South Africa that life was dangerous. But life IS >dangerous, it's made that way. But it's pretty nice stuff anyway. > >I guess running the list is a part of it, for me. That's dangerous >too, as it turns out! LOL! > >Not really, no problem. We have had some adventures though haven't >we, as some of us know. We've never even talked about some of them >yet, the worst ones. We're still here though. > >Millions and millions of people are working hard to switch off the >dark, including us,and it's working, millions and millions more are >flooding in to pass the torch. > >IMHO it's not a good idea to be too sure of being among the >enlightened, best not assume it, don't even think that way, reality >checks are better. It's only dumb people who think they're wise. > >Best > >Keith > > > > >Hakan > > > > > >At 09:11 10/05/2006, you wrote: > > >I think the discussions such as we have are one reason the > Mega-corporations > > >wish to control the Internet. Once you have control, it is easy to censor > > >unwanted discussions. > > > > > > The main thing we can do, as a group & individually is discuss > the issues. > > >This was one of the tenets of Robert Theobold (unfortunately no > longer with > > >us), another free-thinker as Keith is. As one of the > enlightened, one needs > > >to discuss issues with friends & work colleagues. Eventually the word will > > >pass around. (Just try to be reasonable about the way the subjects are > > >broached: otherwise one can be labelled a 'nutter' & the ideas dismissed.) > > > > > > We must speak out. There were many people in Germany that stayed > > > silent when > > >AH was in power, & we can now see the results. Try not to let > history repeat > > >in a really negative way! > > > > > >regards Doug > > > > > >On Wednesday 10 May 2006 11:00, Keith Addison wrote: > > > > Hello Randall > > > > > > > > >Keith, > > > > > > > > > >You said: "We've just dealt with this, in the torture thread. > > > > >Please go and read it. You are complicit. What are you doing about > > > > >it? You're obliged to > > > > >be aware of what your government does abroad with your tax money, > > > > >and if you do nothing to counter it you are complicit. What other > > > > >people > > > > >or other governments do is beside the point. The only exception is > > > > >if you live under a totalitarian dictatorship, then you're not > > > > >complicit because you're just a helpless slave." > > > > > > > > > >By your statement, in order for someone to even have a chance to > > > > >avoid the responsibility for any bad actions by their government > > > > >(ie. pollution, torture or nuking a country), it seems that they > > > > >will need to be a person who: > > > > > > > > > >1) Is capable of being aware of EVERYTHING that the government does > > > > >domestically and internationally. To do this, you will need to > > > > >posess God-like omniscience > > > > >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience) since you will need to be > > > > >aware of all actions performed by every single one of the MILLIONS > > > > >of people that are connected with the US Federal government alone -- > > > > >currently almost 2 million employees if you ignore the Military and > > > > >the Postal Service. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm) How > > > > >many more work for the various State and Local governments. How > > > > >many people work for quasi-governmental institutions that have an > > > > >effect on how the government operates? You quoted at least one > > > > ><http://www.pipa.org/>. > > > > > > > > > >2) Is able to influence ALL of those MILLIONS of people, or possess > > > > >the knowledge to choose which of the MILLIONS of people you will > > > > >need to influence to force all the remaining people that you cannot > > > > >influence (time, distance, numbers of people to speak with, > > > > >whatever) to do what you wish them to do. > > > > > > > > > >3) Possess the knowledge of the correct thing to do, and how to > > > > >communicate this to all of the people that you will need to > > > > >influence to make what you want to happen occur in the manner that > > > > >you desire. > > > > > > > > > >--- or --- > > > > > > > > > >Is it ok for someone to just complain about the actions of the > > > > >government to avoid being labeled complicit, or do they have to > > > > >actually DO something? > > > > > > > > > >If they have to do something, does it have to be effective? If so, > > > > >how effective does their action have to be? > > > > > > > > > >How closely related to the government in question can someone be, > > > > >and avoid responsibility for that government's actions? Are other > > > > >countries that benefit from the actions of your government > > > > >responsible for the actions of your government? If so, are the > > > > >people of those other countries then also responsible for your > > > > >governments actions?? > > > > > > > > > >What if you don't want to give the government money, but they take > > > > >it under the threat of death or imprisonment? > > > > > > > > > >So...let me ask you personally: What are you doing? How effective > > > > >have your actions been? What will you do in the future to become > > > > >more effective? When do you become blameless? Are you aware of how > > > > >every single dollar is spent by our government? > > > > > > > > Whose is bigger eh? :-) > > > > > > > > What am I doing. For what's most visible, how about Journey to > > > > Forever? Or running the Biofuel list and helping to keep it well fed > > > > over the last six years with the kind of information you specify, > > > > often against strong opposition by people who would much rather have > > > > it left comfortably buried out of sight where the forces we're > > > > discussing had put it, and put them too in a state of heedless and > > > > uncaring ignorance, consent, and indeed complicity. > > > > > > > > That information includes about the best set of tools I've seen for > > > > doing all the things you specify, including investigation, spin > > > > detection, source checking, counter-spin and counter-propaganda, and > > > > the kind of activism required if you're interested in a sustainable > > > > future. There's been much discussion here on activism, and on "What > > > > can I do?" That's all there too, with solutions offered. And I > > > > provide this resource. > > > > > > > > That's just for now, some things. > > > > > > > > If you go back through my history you'll find an unbroken record of > > > > opposing the forces we're discussing, in many ways and across a broad > > > > range of issues, and in many countries, mainly but not only as a > > > > campaigning journalist. It's something I've never stopped since I > > > > started it long ago in white racist South Africa, where life tended > > > > to be short and have ugly endings for people who felt they ought to > > > > take a hand in deciding what they were going to be complicit in. > > > > > > > > You can find some of the details of all this at our website, and > > > > elsewhere. I'm not planning on stopping. > > > > > > > > Have my actions been effective? Yes, they have. They are being now. > > > > There are very many people, VERY many, who could give you their own > > > > versions of that story. Together it all covers everything you specify > > > > and much besides. Today these people work both separately and > > > > together, sharing resources across a wide range of issues, the whole > > > > range perhaps, via the Internet, the great leveller. Are their > > > > actions proving effective? You could ask the WTO that question for > > > > instance, or Monsanto, or ExxonMobil, or George Bush getting furious > > > > because his ratings are plunging and he can't find anybody to nuke > > > > for it. > > > > > > > > It's a heartless view to ask people who work for change what effect > > > > they're having. It's the accumulative effect that creates change, and > > > > when change happens it's impossible to say quite who or what "caused" > > > > it. > > > > > > > > "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping > > > > with a mosquito." -- the Dalai Lama. > > > > > > > > You point out the disadvantages now facing someone in a country that > > > > for 30 years and more has been increasingly supine in all aspects of > > > > the vigilance required of a population over their government and > > > > business interests. > > > > > > > > Not to say it was exactly perfect before that, but for 30 years and > > > > more your media have been abandoning the flock they're supposed to be > > > > guarding and joining the wolves, and now they're owned and run and > > > > controlled by a very small number of wolves, in straightforward > > > > collusion with an effectively cloaked government-corporate sector > > > > that has gone far beyond the pale of responsible citizenship. Now you > > > > point at this and other such results of heedless inaction as > > > > obstacles to taking action. But aren't you just an accessory, along > > > > with everyone else who let it all just slip through your fingers? > > > > > > > > The law says ignorance of the law is no excuse. Civil society might > > > > say that ignorance of things you should know is no excuse. One good > > > > reason for that is that none of these things has been truly hidden. > > > > The information has always been there for anyone who wanted to know. > > > > That it wasn't in the NYT or on FoxNews doesn't mean it wasn't > > > > available. In fact it's quite surprising how much has been plainly > > > > recorded in the NYT and the other mainstream newspapers that people > > > > say they had no way of knowing. > > > > > > > > There surely is no way of knowing something if you don't want to know > > > > it. The opinion manufacturing industry doesn't really hide things as > > > > much as render them uninteresting, the eye slides away, the ear goes > > > > deaf, the attention wanders. It works very well. But not on > > > > everybody. Not everybody is deaf to the truth, not everybody swallows > > > > the lies. Why's that? How do some people - many people - manage to > > > > stay awake and alert and undeceived? That has a bearing on > > > > complicity, don't you think? > > > > > > > > Now there are many people who genuinely believe that if it's not on > > > > FoxNews it never happened, it doesn't exist. The influence and sheer > > > > lack of quality and responsibility of FoxNews is not something that > > > > could occur in a vigilant society. Nevertheless, everything that > > > > isn't on FoxNews does exist and is there to be found, if only you > > > > look. > > > > > > > > >>I just said in another message: "You have to stop the spin. The > > > > >>trouble is it works so well most people aren't even aware of it, and > > > > >>if they are they think they're immune." > > > > > > > > It's the PROBLEM Randall, not the excuse! > > > > > > > > >If they have to do something, does it have to be effective? If so, > > > > >how effective does their action have to be? > > > > > > > > If they do their best, then the question isn't very relevant. Unless > > > > you claim that individuals are helpless and opposition to power is > > > > doomed to failure. In fact lots of little half-heard voices whisper > > > > that in your ear all the time, and in everyone else's ear too. Or > > > > rather they don't have to whisper that now, not for a long time, they > > > > only have to reinforce it. > > > > > > > > Yet now everyone is talking of an awakening, and there's no doubt > > > > that it's true. Especially since about eight months ago. > > > > > > > > How do you think that happened? > > > > > > > > It could not have happened had there not been *enough* committed > > > > people doing their best to make a difference and achieving worthwhile > > > > results since long before, always keeping the light burning, no > > > > matter how often it sputtered. Enough for the rest not to have any > > > > shred of an excuse. > > > > > > > > People point to social apathy as a problem too, and instead of trying > > > > to get to the root of it they claim it's basic human nature, so > > > > what's the point of trying to do anything about it. If you're a > > > > "believer" in social apathy, do you think people were as apathetic 50 > > > > years ago as they are now? A hundred years ago? They weren't. They > > > > were a lot more skilful too. So what changed? > > > > > > > > Nothing is really hidden, not even the reason that so many people > > > > don't ask the questions they should. > > > > > > > > So...let me ask you personally: What are you doing? > > > > > > > > What aren't you complicit in? > > > > > > > > You don't have to answer Randall. This is not how either of these > > > > issues of torture and nuking Iran arose here. The talk of blame and > > > > accountability and responsibility and complicity started when people > > > > began protesting that it's not *their* fault, it's no use blaming > > > > *them*. But there's rather more to both civic and personal > > > > responsibility than avoiding blame. > > > > > > > > But look at the way you put it, in your second paragraph: > > > > >By your statement, in order for someone to even have a chance to > > > > >avoid the responsibility for any bad actions by their government > > > > >(ie. pollution, torture or nuking a country), it seems that they > > > > >will need to be a person who: > > > > > > > > You say it a couple of times. Is that the holy grail, do you think, > > > > to avoid responsibility? I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you imply > > > > that the bad actions are okay as long as you can't be held personally > > > > responsible for them. That's just how you (pl) got to where you are, > > > > with all the problems you describe. Do you really think that? If not > > > > what do you think? > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > Keith > > > > > > > > >--Randall > > > > >Charlotte, NC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________________________ > >___________ > > > > >_ > > > > > > > > > ><< Heisenberg may have slept here >> > > > > > > > > > >"If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six sharpening > > > > >my xe." --Abraham Lincoln > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________________________ > >___________ > > > > >_ > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Addison" > > > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org> > > > > >Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 5:20 AM > > > > >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran > > > > > > > > > >>Hello Mike > > > > >> > > > > >>Why're you so doubtful about it? Sure, it's always good to check, but > > > > >>it's well in line with what usually happens, as people are saying. > > > > >> > > > > >>For instance (from the list archives): > > > > >> > > > > >>http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20263 > > > > >>War on Iraq: The World According to a Bush Voter > > > > >>October 21, 2004 > > > > >>"A new survey reveals that Bush supporters choose to keep faith in > > > > >>their leader rather than face reality... > > > > >>"But here is the truly astonishing part: as many or more Bush > > > > >>supporters hold those beliefs today than they did several months ago. > > > > >>In other words, more people believe the claims today -- after the > > > > >>publication of a series of well-publicized official government > > > > >>reports that debunked both notions." > > > > >> > > > > >>That poll was conducted by University of Maryland's Program on > > > > >>International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks. Here's > > > > >>the poll report itself: > > > > >>http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/I > raqRealiti > > > > >>es%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf > > > > >> > > > > >>Then there's this: > > > > >>>Results of previous PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll [May 04]: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>- A 57% majority believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in > > > > >>>carrying out the 9/11 attacks or had provided "substantial support" > > > > >>>to al-Qaeda > > > > >>>- 82% either said that "experts mostly agree Iraq was providing > > > > >>>substantial support to al Qaeda" or "experts are evenly divided on > > > > >>>the question" > > > > >>>- 45% believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al > Qaeda has been > > > > >>> found - 60% believe that just before the war Iraq either > >had weapons of > > > > >>> mass destruction or a major program for developing them > > > > >>>- 65% said most experts say Iraq did have them or that experts are > > > > >>>divided on the question > > > > >>>- estimates of the number of US troop fatalities in Iraq > varied widely > > > > >>>- 59% were unaware that the majority of world public opinion is > > > > >>>opposed to the US war with Iraq > > > > >>>- asked how many nuclear weapons the U.S. has, the median estimate > > > > >>>was 200 (the actual number is 6,000) > > > > >>> > > > > >>>These beliefs are closely correlated with intentions to > vote for Bush. > > > > >> > > > > >>So what's new? > > > > >> > > > > >>Look at the escalation in the Iran case: > > > > >>>Iran has not violated the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), > > > > >>>does not have a nuclear weapons program, and poses no threat to its > > > > >>>neighbors or the United States. Never the less, the spurious > > > > >>>accusations in the media have precipitated a dramatic shift in > > > > >>>public opinion. For more than a decade only 6% of the American > > > > >>>people considered Iran the "greatest danger" to the United States. > > > > >>>Now (according to a recent Pew Poll) that number has jumped to 27%. > > > > >>>Also, the survey showed that "nearly half (47%) said they favored > > > > >>>military action, preferably along with European allies, to halt > > > > >>>Iran's nuclear program." -- Jim Lobe, "Polls: anti-Iran Propaganda > > > > >>>Working", February 10, 2006 > > > > >> > > > > >>http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8526 > > > > >> > > > > >>Compare with the current Newsmax poll, it makes a curve. > > > > >> > > > > >>Worse than that, Lobe's piece three months ago said "the polls do not > > > > >>show eagerness to take military action now or unilaterally. The > > > > >>public appears to prefer an effort to settle the crisis > > > > >>diplomatically, preferably through the United Nations." > > > > >> > > > > >>Now they do, and sod the UN. > > > > >> > > > > >>The Newsmax poll and what it says and who's spinning it if anyone is > > > > >>irrelevant. The fact is that the US and Israel are creeping up on > > > > >>nuking Iran, and dragging public opinion along behind, as usual. > > > > >>Check it out for yourself. > > > > >> > > > > >>People are commenting on short term memory loss. It's not short term > > > > >>memory loss, it's manufactured memory loss. > > > > >> > > > > >>Robert said "I think this illustrates how effective the propaganda > > > > >>machine in the > > > > >>US has become." Absolutely. > > > > >> > > > > >>"The United States is not only number one in military power but also > > > > >>in the effectiveness of its propaganda system." -- Edward S. Herman > > > > >> > > > > >>I just said in another message: "You have to stop the spin. The > > > > >>trouble is it works so well most people aren't even aware of it, and > > > > >>if they are they think they're immune." > > > > >> > > > > >>>Hi Fritz and everyone...polls...hmmm...can anyone tell me more about > > > > >>>"NewsMax"? > > > > >> > > > > >>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?search=NewsMax&fulltext=Search > > > > >>Search results - SourceWatch > > > > >>NewsMax.com > > > > >> > > > > >>Not to be trusted, but in this case it's irrelevant. Tear your eyes > > > > >>away from what's disturbing you about NewsMax, and do some work on > > > > >>the Internet, and in the Biofuel list archives, on the mounting US > > > > >>fear and loathing campaign against Iran. > > > > >> > > > > >>How come your reply doesn't even mention the word "Iran" in your > > > > >>haste to defend... to defend what, exactly? > > > > >> > > > > >>>Who owns and controls this website? Fritz, have you asked anyone at > > > > >>>NewsMax how this poll was conducted? What are the demographics of > > > > >>>this poll? I see on their homepage as of today, Sunday, May 7, just > > > > >>>after 7pm Central (USA), where they site a poll WITH HEADLINES that > > > > >>>says Fox is the most trusted news source in the U.S., but the story > > > > >>>says we're talking about 11% of the public making it this "popular." > > > > >>>Hey, if only roughly One in Ten Americans are fatheads, we're not > > > > >>>doin' too bad. I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of > > > > >>>these 11% make up the largest percentage of the "voters" who > > > > >>>answered the NewsMax poll, which would make that "77%" actually an > > > > >>>incredibly small percentage of the U.S. population. Sorry you > > > > >>>blame the "ordinary" U.S. citizen for however our government acts. > > > > >> > > > > >>We've just dealt with this, in the torture thread. Please go and read > > > > >>it. You are complicit. What are you doing about it? You're obliged to > > > > >>be aware of what your government does abroad with your tax money, and > > > > >>if you do nothing to counter it you are complicit. What other people > > > > >>or other governments do is beside the point. The only exception is if > > > > >>you live under a totalitarian dictatorship, then you're not complicit > > > > >>because you're just a helpless slave. > > > > >> > > > > >>>What's the deal in your country? Is your government walking in > > > > >>>lockstep with the will of the overwhelming majority of the > > > > >>>"ordinary" citizens? What is "ordinary" anyway???? I'll leave it > > > > >>>at that for now. > > > > >> > > > > >>Sorry, you'll have to respond, those are the rules here. > > > > >> > > > > >>Keith Addison > > > > >>Journey to Forever > > > > >>KYOTO Pref., Japan > > > > >>http://journeytoforever.org/ > > > > >>Biofuel list owner > > > > >> > > > > >>>Mike > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>----- Original Message ----- > > > > >>> > > > > >>>From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fritz Friesinger > > > > >>>To: > <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>biofuel@sustainablelists.org > > > > >>>Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:09 PM > > > > >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Hakan, > > > > >>>indeed dejea vu, > > > > >>>once the propagandamachine works as fine as it does in the US,all > > > > >>>out war is'nt far away! > > > > >>>The whole polemic about the communist threat BS, it was and is > > > > >>>always the migthy US who uses Nukes to intimidate the rest of the > > > > >>>world! > > > > >>>I dispise them for it and can not help to blame the ordinary US > > > > >>>Citicen.As a German i felt long time the blame for the wrong doeings > > > > >>>of the Nazis even i was born in 48! > > > > >>>eh bien and so on... > > > > >>>Get better Hakan,there is no time to loose > > > > >>>Fritz > > > > >>> > > > > >>>----- Original Message ----- > > > > >>>From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hakan Falk > > > > >>>To: > <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>biofuel@sustainablelists.org > > > > >>>Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 5:23 PM > > > > >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Poll in favor of Nukes on Iran > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Fritz, > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Have a strong feeling of dejavu and this time I will save > the info in > > > > >>>a special place. Pre Iraq, I saw similar figures and also some > > > > >>>support on this list. Today it is overwhelming negative numbers in > > > > >>>support for the Iraq war and approval ratings for the president. > > > > >>>Maybe I should frame this, for future use. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Talk about a violent population, 77% in support of military action > > > > >>>and killing Iranians. In two years we will have 65% in denial and > > > > >>>against the US engagement in Iran. It will be an even bigger mess > > > > >>>than Iraq, with attacks all over the world. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>Hakan > > > > >>> > > > > >>>At 20:07 07/05/2006, you wrote: > > > > >>> >just received > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >Fritz > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >Poll: Strong U.S. Support for Bombing Iran > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >An Internet poll sponsored by NewsMax.com reveals that > Americans are > > > > >>> >overwhelmingly in favor of the United States undertaking military > > > > >>> >action to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >Nearly 60,000 people have taken part in the poll so far, and more > > > > >>> >than nine out of 10 say U.S. efforts to contain Iran's weapons > > > > >>> >program are not working. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >A large majority of respondents also believe that Iran poses a > > > > >>> >greater threat than Saddam Hussein did before the Iraq War. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media and > > > > >>> >share them with radio talk-show hosts across the country. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >Here are the poll questions and results: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >1) Do you believe U.S. efforts to contain Iran's nuclear weapons > > > > >>> >program are working? > > > > >>> >Working: 7 percent > > > > >>> >Not Working: 93 percent > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >2) Should the United States rely solely on the U.N. to stop Iran's > > > > >>> >nuclear weapons program? > > > > >>> >Yes: 11 percent > > > > >>> >No: 89 percent > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >3) Do you believe Iran poses a greater threat than Saddam Hussein > > > > >>> >did before the Iraq War? > > > > >>> >Yes: 88 percent > > > > >>> >No: 12 percent > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >4) Should the U.S. undertake military action against Iran to stop > > > > >>> >their program? > > > > >>> >Yes: 77 percent > > > > >>> >No: 23 percent > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> >5) Who should undertake military action against Iran first? > > > > >>> >U.S.: 45 percent > > > > >>> >Israel: 35 percent > > > > >>> >Neither: 20 percent > > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
