Submitted by Ken McPherson(United States), Sep 28, 2002 at 02:42
Unfortunately, all alternative energy sources combined will only provide a small percentage of our energy needs, simply because of volume. Development of the necessary alternative infrastructure would increase our energy needs, as well.
If we must suffer constraint, then let's eliminate the threat that forces our need for constraint. These are some immediate, short term actions.
Embargo hostile oil producers.
Freeze their dollar assets to prevent a financial meltdown of the American dollar.
Then seize or eliminate their oil production capabilities.
Occupation has worked before to change centuries of entrenched militant culture. All the world dreams of, and will come to identify with, a liberator.
Profile, scrutinize and deport militant sympathizers from the West.
Investigate their American fundraising organizations.
Crush the financial base that funds Islamofacism.
Isolate and bankrupt the promoters and participants, most of whom are from upper-class Saudi and Muslim society. (Nazi and Japanese officers were denied the vote or holding of office after WWII.)
Ignore the outraged howls of illegitimate despots, ignorant puppets, and dithering academics. (What you gonna do, punk?)
Imperfect, humane capitalism- or perfectly inhumane sharia. Us or them.
Please try to avoid raising a new class of despots, like the Northern Alliance; maybe this time we could export semi-honest capitalism, instead of politicized corruption. Government spin-offs resemble the parent company, just as in any industry.
I agree, however, that the new McCarthyism would be hard to stop-- if we could avoid American sabotage of it. (Couch the above conditions in suitably anti-Western phrases, and the Left would probably rush to support it- "antiglobalism, anti- Big Oil", that sort of thing.)
Equally problematic is preventing our government's abuse of this power.
Modern government is another growth industry of utopian coercion- I guess cleaning up the domestic front would come after survival. Would the natural Western inclination of outrage at our (future) international errors bring on the needed reforms?
Will the Muslim abuse of Western laws- religious, welfare, immigration, and political- force us to discriminate? Would we transform into our enemies? Or would we simply be more realistic in our distinction between principle and policy?
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.
