Pragmatic and realistic!
Reader comment on item: How the West Could Lose
Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 15, 2007 at 19:17
"I can't help wondering, if you guys are living on the same planet of enlighted people. "
On the contrary, we are the enlightened people, living on a planet full of fools.
"The kind of chaos and wars LLC and you all seem to promote, would likely have a nuclear component ( IRAN) at some point. Can you imagine what the "fall out" in any sense of the word could mean to all of us? Do you guys even realize what the consequences of such action could look like?"
We have low-yield nukes, ground penetrating low yield nukes, neutron bombs, etc. And if we're worried about fallout, we can always use non-nuclear MOAB bombs, or even resort to simple firebombing like we did in Dresden.
"When the price per barrel of oil fluctuates by only 10 %, the entire western world rattles.
Who said anything about letting the arabs maintain control of the oil? We'd take it for ourselves and manage it. Obviously we would not nuke the oil fields. If we took over just Iran and Saudi Arabia, we'd see prices of gas at $0.50 per gallon. That's part of the battle. Depriving the Muslims of control over oil production.
"This here so often manifested drive to simplify a very complex matter is not prone to deli ver pragmatic, feasible ideas and solutions."
On the contrary, you and others like you are making things too complex. The problem is simple...Islam is evil. The solution is simple...get rid of Islam. See how easy it is when you decide to look at the clear light of reality? Obviously we'd need distinct tactics for removing the Muslims from America and distinct tactics for taking out the Muslim countries and seizing the oil fields, but the solution to the problem is simple. We didn't agonize over how to or whether to defeat the Nazis, now did we?
"All aforementioned in itself are extermely complex matters, and deserve the corresponding attention to detail - hence must be examined and explored individually too. The helicopter point of view with an allencompassing strategic longterm perspective seems to dominate this discussion to a dangerous extent."
You're not reading our posts then. We've outlined detailed actions to take on each issue.
"Also - action and consequences - let us think those through at least 4 moves down the chess board, before we endanger the very way of life we try to preserve and applaud such naive, outright fashist suggestions."
We are looking ahead. We're looking all the way down the board to "checkmate". What's going to endanger our way of life is not deporting Islam and forcing it to civilize itself before we allow it to exist in Western society, but rather this incessant, cowardly hand-wringing and worry over offending others or being seen as "fascist".
"In conclusion, if Susan becomes secretary of state, militant muslims across the globe would applaud, as it would give them justification and we as progressive, enlighted western Civ would be doomed."
On the contrary. Susan (as Sec. of State) would give the Muslim world an ultimatum on Monday:
"Islam is evil and is hereby banned from America. Islam must immediately call for and implement a cessation of Islamic terror and violence. You have 24 hours to surrender your oil fields and to surrender in the war on terror."
On Tuesday (when they foolishly ignored her warning) we would nuke Tehran, Riyahd, etc. We would start rounding up and removing all Islamists living in America,...etc.
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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (2101) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes