[rockwool]

It has nothing to do with American policies, your love or hate for them (I could honestly careless). What it does have to do with is that you read one side of every story and that's it.

Do you even know who Dr Bakhtiari is and why he might be selling peak oil so hard? That he might have an agenda that requires someone to look a little more closely at the "evidence" that he puts forth. He has been selling $100 a barrel for a long time, he just keeps adjusting when that's coming. That adjustment is what makes the Peak Oil zealots so much fun. They keep moving the diaster date out.

The diaster of Peak Oil has been preached as long ago as the late 1880's. Instead of just falling in with the other sheep, why not see why they maybe wrong or why it might not be the immediate and complete disaster they are selling.

Ouff, I was almost ready with a mega reply but another site I had open (damn you RenegadeRick) effed up so I had to close them all down..

Again, about this peak oil thingie I know nothing about. I just read about it and since we've been discussing this subject pretty much I thought I should show you guys too. Apparantly, you seem to know something about this and you are now sharing your knowledge on this subject.

That is one of the reasons I hand in the PAWN forum, to exchange and further my knowledge about stuff I find interesting. To question this Dr. Dude I can not as I don't posses any knowledge in this subject. I have to let that stand until somthing comes up that says another thing. Like you.

But I sence that by you saying that I only "read one side of every story and that's it" mean not only about this post but in general. I have a few times posted about the importance of collecting info from all sides. If you hear Bush says something about Cuba you have to go to their official news source http://www.granma.cu/ingles/ and get their side of the story too.

Most people have told me that you can't do that as they will only fill you with their propaganda, like the other side don't eat bolony and have to go to the loo. But people belive propaganda is a socialist phenomenon while in fact it was invented by the Brittish who even had a ministry of propaganda in the early 1900s.

Last few years news agencies from the south have started popping up, like this one http://ipsnews.net/. Why are news from them automaticly considered as shady or biased? Why is a story writen by a white man in a medium that is owned by a white man not questioned the same way, and instead belived it is not biased, like the west doesn't have interesets to promote.

Like that medium owner don't benefit from sertain policies, and like that reporter isn't afraid of losing his job if he doen't report the stories to match the outspoken political view of that medium?

I critisize your country for its actions. I don't judge it after what it claims to stand for or by the beautifully put words its presidents air. To trust a politician that has so many times been proven to BS and lie, like Bush has, now that is sheepish. It is so well documented how this administration have huge personal economic interests in sertain fields that if a person like that was heard as a witness by a court, he would be found disqualified.

Now, how can one get an objective view on the Middle East by only collectiong info from western mediums? Don't the voices of the Moslems count? How often are they allowed to answer what Israeli officials all the time get to say about them? Almost never.

So how do you get to hear the voices of the moslems? Do you read http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage , or do you consider that biased and not worthy of your attention?