In a message dated 10/27/2001 1:56:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
bill_douglass@onebox.com writes:
<< I wish I could subscribe to Professor Forte's sunny conclusion that
"By
recognizing bin Laden's evil for what it is, Americans can begin a
process
of engagement with the vast populations of the Muslim world." Instead,
I must offer a more pessimistic formulation: "By recognizing the wide
backing of bin Laden's evil for what it is, Americans must begin a
process
of confrontation with 10 to 15 percent of the vast populations of the
Muslim world."
<<<<< >>
I tend to subscribe with Pipes pov (no surprise) but I believe it
points to
the dichotomy that exists embedded in all government levels, that we
really
need to maintain this curious relationship with the Wahabbi-led Saudis.
I believe this is a categorical mistake and has compelled the United
States
to become involved (in part) in the last two wars. This transcends party
and
is, or must be a right of passage in the Commerce department, State, and
the
Pentagon; to genuflect to the oil kings.
My solution is fragmented, ugly, but I believe, will be the best
solution.
Bluntly stated: we get away from Saudi oil, by hook, or crook; and to
hell
with the 'natural' marketplace.
We need to purchase oil that is not dependent on Wahabbi political
interests,
we need to drill for conventional oil, we need to convert heavy oil and
natural gas into gasoline, and we need to convert coal and biomass into
either gasoline, and run cars on ethanol or methanol.
Concurrently, we need to begin to phase-in a fuel cell, hydrogen
infrastructure, as well as focus on generation methods (no hydrogen
wells),
but as this will take many years to accomplish; we are stuck with the
aforementioned 'dirty' sources.
The President could lose this war by his coaltion mentality. Everyone's
a
armchair general or an energy expert, but a lack of political willpower,
yoked to 'inside the box' thinking; could mess this up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT