David Pryce-Jones has a long but interesting read on Europe's Islam problem.

“It’s very difficult sometimes to distinguish between Mr. Bush and Mr. bin Laden.”

Clearly, Bush has maintained power on the terrorism ticket. It would be a potential catastrophe for the Republicans for OBL to be captured or killed.

It's not at all a ridiculous idea that the reason OBL is escaped was because 'W' deliberately let him go; and it might not be that difficult to arrange. Certainly, the terrorist camps that were wiped out in Afghanistan were run as Islamist camps, *intra*national terrorism, not international terrorist/Al Qaeda camps, so the work there would probably not result in his capture.

If we are going to have a global war on Islam analagous to the Cold War against the Soviets then it seems to me that kicking the petroleum habit should be job #1.

Move to a hydrogen economy. Use nuclear power (fission) to crack H2O and use the hydrogen to drive our cars will deny the Islamicists access to billions in cash and protect our economy in case we need to shut down the Saudi royal family.

Doesn't France generate ALL its electricty by nuclear power?

= = =

A gasoline tax would be one way to start. ;-)

Opinions, please.

Is it now inevitable that Iran will become a nuclear power? True or False? Why?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38316-2004Dec5.html

My first thought when reading this was also that we need to get off oil as our main energy source. That would instantly hurt Islam in such a way that no one could possibly complain -- except for the Muslims themselves of course.

When I got to the part about the parallels to Communism, another red flag was raised in my mind: Communism was a purely politcal idea to be attacked, but Islam is also a religious one. That means that fighting Islam like Communism will bring up all sorts of "racial profiling" and other nonsense accusations from the liberals. It would seem to me that it would be a much tougher fight, although I am young (23) and cannot remember the days when Communism was considered a serious threat. If any politcal group was continuously spouting statements along the lines of "We wish to exterminate you" they would be immdeiately classified as an enemy and treated as such. Can't do that with a religion, however, nope -- very un-PC. The article then proceeds to expand on this concept.

I think there is something about the left that always seeks to have the unconventional opinion. History, politics, business ... you name it.

Bill,

I think you are absolutely right on kicking our gas habit. See Tom Friedman's Sunday column on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/opinion/05friedman.html?8hpib

As for Iran, I agree with the WashPo editorialists on this one point: the only "practical" way to prevent Iran from developing nukes is an all out invasion.

The million dollar question is whether Bush pushes forward with an invasion/regime change in the face of international criticism. At the end of the day, I think Bush will opt for invasion, because if he doesn't, it's all but guaranteed that the Mullahs get atomic weapons. If that happens, then no more Tel Aviv. No more Manhatten. Bush won't allow that.

It would be a potential catastrophe for the Republicans for OBL to be captured or killed.

That's funny, because right up until election day the Bush-haters were all convinced bin Laden's capture would be announced on November 1 as a means of ensuring Bush's re-election.

Somebody needs to make up their minds.

It's not at all a ridiculous idea that the reason OBL is escaped was because 'W' deliberately let him go; and it might not be that difficult to arrange.

No more difficult than getting a private citizen (George H.W. Bush) the use of an SR-71 (belonging to his ticket's opponent, then-President Jimmy Carter) to lobby the Iranians not to release the hostages before the 1980 election.

Good lord, where are people's heads these days?

Quote: "If we are going to have a global war on Islam analagous to the Cold War against the Soviets then it seems to me that kicking the petroleum habit should be job #1."

I agree but don't think a gas tax is necessary since its already expensive to buy gas. Since your wishing for pie in the sky policies then I say lets legalize Hemp products and start producing Methanol just as Henry Ford originally envisioned.

The people see our need to decrease dependance on foreign oil. Once more stylish cars with hybrid engine system become available we will see the next great revolution in mass transportation. Hell, I'd love to get my hands on one of those new 2005 Honda Accord v6 hybrids with 255 HP and 37 MPG on the highway.

I agree that dependence on oil from the Middle East should be minimized. I hardly think hydrogen will be the answer though. Hydrogen will however be useful for cracking lower grade fuels or coal (which the West has in plentiful supply) into gasoline, just like the Germans did at the end of WW2. Thermal Fission is the ideal low-cost hydrogen producing process. Add more fuel-efficient cars to the mix and the problem should be decreased. Should buy us off another century or two. I certainly hope we have figured out a better solution by then.

Hemp, or fuel crops in general, would require substancial tracts of land (I suspect the economics are pretty poor for hemp in particular, other crops have been proposed, e.g. rapeseed or switchgrass). Only good for limited applications.

Regarding the impossibility of going against violent religious groups, because of PC issues, I would discard that, given the rich history:
USA: vs Branch Davidians
Germany: vs Church of Scientology
Japan: vs Aum Shinrikyo

So much for that theory that invading Iraq had took off pressure from Saudi Arabia though:
http://www.aina.org/news/20041206105816.htm

Terrorism is cheap. If every Muslim in the Middle East was reduced to abject poverty by the total loss of the West's revenue, they would still be able to hijack planes and crash them into our buildings, commit suicide bombings in our public places, etc.

Our adventure in Iraq is part of an attempt to change the culture of Muslim countries. If it fails, I fear nothing short of a total separation of Muslims from the West will be enough to keep us safe. It is a last effort to avoid extremely harsh and unpleasant measures.

lmg makes a good point, however I don't agree completely. No, taking away all the money that floods into Muslim countries won't make terrorism go away---the culture needs to be changed, which is what we're trying to do in Iraq.

But if we fail to change the Middle East, it would be much, much better to be dealing with poor terrorists than well financed ones. The difference is that rich terrorists are much more likely to get their hands on a nuke.

If people loyal to Ayatollah Sistani sweep the Iraqi elections on January 30th, does that help or hurt the culture change cause?

If people loyal to Ayatollah Sistani sweep the Iraqi elections on January 30th, does that help or hurt the culture change cause?

I suspect the possibilities of that happening are slim to none.

If people loyal to Ayatollah Sistani sweep the Iraqi elections on January 30th, does that help or hurt the culture change cause?

I suspect the possibilities of that happening are slim to none.

Why? Do you work for Diebold?

{ Wink }

Charles Krauthammer, is he Red enough for you?

"People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side is fighting it. The other side, the Shiites and the Kurds, are largely watching as their part of the fight is borne primarily by the United States. Both have an interest in the outcome. The Shiites constitute a majority of Iraqis and will inevitably inherit power in any democratic arrangement. The Kurds want to retain their successful autonomous zone without worrying about new depredations at the hands of the Sunni Arabs."

Sistani simply is the most influential Iraqi Shiite. During the seige of Najaf, he returned from London and told Allawi and Sadr both to just "knock it off" and they both said "yes, sir" and Sadr's men walked free with their weapons.

Wow! Ahmed Chalabi's back. This guy has more political lives than a cat!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/03/news/chalabi.html

Godzirra

Regarding the impossibility of going against violent religious groups, because of PC issues, I would discard that, given the rich history:
USA: vs Branch Davidians
Germany: vs Church of Scientology
Japan: vs Aum Shinrikyo

Please remind me of the violence perpetuated by the Branch Davidians prior to the confrontation at Waco.

Rich

Please remind me of the violence perpetuated by the Branch Davidians prior to the confrontation at Waco.

Precisely Rich. If there were no qualms in going en force against a non openly violent religious group, there will be even less constraints on going against violent religious groups.

AFAIK the Church of Scientology never did any large acts of violence or started stockpiling automatic weapons either.