Why Bush didn't attacked North Korea or Pakistan ?
Personally, I think the NeoCon Republicans have been desperately
trying to diversify the oil market, and by attacking Iraq, hoped to
bring Iraqi oil back online as a hedge against extremists other
volatile places on earth. (Witness the situation in Nigeria, for
example.) To answer your question directly, I also believe North
Korea and Pakistan could likely put up a fight that we would struggle
to win. I've never witnessed a national army defend its territory
with such ineptitude as we witnessed with Iraq last year. (They
didn't even TRY to blow up a single bridge to stop our tanks from
rolling northward!) As I was watching "Alfred E. Newman" debate
"Farmer John" last night on television, I shook my head in disbelief
that a nation whose army couldn't mount more than laughable resistance
to invaders from the other side of the world could somehow constitute
"a serious threat" to us. It's sad that Mr. Bush talks as if he
really believes Saddam Hussein presented an imminent danger to the
United States, and worse, that so many people in my country believe him.
Yes, you have the force but European countries never said that USA
should not use it. France and Germany only said that it must serve the
International Right.
Sir, is it an international right to invade another sovereign nation
on the basis of pretext and deception? I don't think this is what
you're trying to communicate here, but I'm not quite understanding
your statement. (My eldest son speaks and reads French, so post in
French if you must!)
What is good for USA is not
automatically good for the world.
Many Americans believe that we act with the world's best interest in
mind. This is why it's so hard to speak out against the evil manifest
in our foreign policy. I have had fellow American citizens stare at
me aghast when I suggest that people in other parts of the world don't
appreciate our blunt, forceful, militaristic manner. These people
really believe that we are a force for goodness and justice in the
world, and can't understand (or simply refuse to accept) any view to
the contrary.
We do not understand this policy and how the US voters can swallow such
lies and manichean sight of the world. Bush administration seems to
follow a policy based on religious faith and economic dogma, obviously
not on facts and people interests.
Trust me, sir. Some of us Americans find it absolutely incredulous
that a man whose most strident supporters would never characterize as
deep thinker managed to get into the position he's in. Those of us
who live on the west coast have very little say in national politics,
as the candidates are essentially chosen for us by the political
system on the east coast. I watched the debate in stunned amazement
that "Mickey Mouse" and "Dopey" are both vying for the opportunity to
have their fingers on the trigger of the world's biggest nuclear arsenal.
I'd like to have a section on the ballot that says "Neither candidate
is suitable. Please try again."
"are the US voters like him,
dangerous, selfish, cynical, narrow-minded, fanatic, cupid, simply
stupid or deaf and blind ?".
No. Not all of us.
But let's back on biofuel subject : at last Kyoto protocol has been
ratified and the US industry will be obliged to make efforts to compete
with more virtuous companies especially in Europe. It should be good for
the planet...and the americans who are living on. Despite their government.
Biofuel is suspected to be a carbon wells but with a bad ecological
balance when produced even from organic and extensive agriculture if far
from consumption places and if the fuel needs heavy process.
We have discussed this problem at length in this forum. Regional and
community level energy resource development must follow after
conservation, otherwise, we'll end up with Big Agribusiness displacing
Big Oil.
One of the only ecologicaly interresting way right now is in a "short
circuit" meaning local organic production of vegetal oil and local
consumption in basic diesel motors (or more efficient special built ones)
You have your finger on an important principle. As you describe
further on, sometimes government gets in the way of such progress.
This is true in Canada as well. I cannot produce ethanol for my
vehicle where I live. It's illegal to do so. I'm allowed to waste a
lot of electricity making hydrogen from the grid (and run my vehicle
on H2), but I'm not permitted to distill ethanol. There are farms all
over the valley where I live that simply burn their "agricultural
residue" and pollute the air (rather than gasifying it for energy),
but I can't aid in cleaning the airshed by burning ethanol in my truck.
I don't think the United States has the corner on the world market
for governmental stupidity.
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
