Edmund Storms wrote:
I don't believe they hate our freedom and our good life as we are
encouraged to believe.
They say they do! Have you read bin Laden speeches? You can see
what he has to say in books such as, "Imperial Hubris." . . .
I think this conclusion is too simplistic. What they hate are
certain behaviors that are permitted by our society and our attitude
toward sex.
The quotes from bin Laden in the book "Imperial Hubris" do not
mention that kind of thing. No doubt he does hate those behaviors,
but as the author points out, he could not motivate dozens of young
men to kill themselves because they do not like our attitude toward
sex, and he could not gather $3 million a day to combat such
attitudes. (The author was the CIA's top expert in Al Qaeda
terrorism, and he seems to know what he is talking about.) I think
the reasons given by bin Laden are the real ones, and they are the
reasons that stir up his many supporters. I do not think it is any
great mystery why these people are attacking us. Their reasons seem
crazy to me, but you can say the same about the Japanese rationale
for attacking Pearl Harbor. Just because it sounds crazy to us does
not mean they are dissembling or they do not believe it themselves.
I also think it would be pretty easy for us to stop most of the
attacks by choking off their money. The situation seems cut and dry
to me. It is much less complicated than some previous wars. My
proposal, to eliminate the use of conventional automobiles and cut
oil consumption by a factor of 10, would not instantly destroy bin
Laden but it would certainly hurt him far more than anything else we
have done so far. It would also be far cheaper than what the war has
cost so far, with the total is expected to cost which is now roughly
$1 trillion, counting the money will pay in the future to disabled
soldiers and things like that. It would start to cure the fever that
is affecting Middle Eastern society.
Of course there would be other benefits to reducing oil consumption
by a factor of 10, such as the money we would save, preventing global
warming, and giving US automakers overwhelming dominance in the world
market. It could easily be done! The technology has been in place for
decades. Do not let anyone tell you Americans are incapable of
implementing technological leaps on short notice. As I said, it would
call for near-term sacrifice and national unity, which no politician
today thinks he or she can ask for. Actually, the politicians have it
backward. The people are ready to sacrifice, and any leader who
carries out a bold and successful plan such as the one I described
here would have an 80% approval rating. They simply do not realize
that the problem can be fixed, or how to lead, or what people are
willing to do. The politicians have no faith in the people, but they
darn well should.
Of course the automobile companies would squawk, just as they did in
1942. Of course many people would evade the $5 emergency wartime tax
and the 95% emergency wartime income tax at the top brackets. But
Americans know how to sacrifice and work together. If the politicians
make a convincing case that we are seriously at war and we may be
destroyed by nuclear weapons if we do not act, the people can be
counted upon to do whatever is needed. They are strong, brave and
resourceful, as they have shown countless times in the past.
If we are not seriously at war, we have no right to ask even one
volunteer soldier to give his life. That's not how a democracy works.
We have to pull out immediately and, in effect, surrender. A burden
as harsh as war must be shared by everyone.
- Jed
