posted
While I agree with all that OSC says in his essay about terrorism and what the fight means, I think he need to also look deeper into the problem. Or at least discuss his opinions on these issues.
I am sure that those who have read my opinions think that I am firmly on the Right politically, and perhaps I am. Further Right perhaps then the Republican party!
My point of departure is also the point that I would argue would finish the war on terror in our generation.
Marx once wrote that the Capitalists would sell the weapon that would be used to destroy them. Well who can help but feel that that has been the case with the Middle East?
Just because Marx was so wrong about what motivates human behavior, doesn't mean he is always wrong, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
What we need is alternative energy. Heard that tune before? Well there are more trucks on the road then ever, big eighteen wheelers getting all of four miles to the gallon of deasel fuel have increased by 30% since the eightees. SUV's and big engines are back.
I belive I just heard a commercial where Nissan brags about having four models that get thirty miles to the gallon, weren't there a dozen getting fifty in the seventies and eighties?
That is not the point, less consuption is not enough, we need alternative consumption. Atomic, Fusion, Solar, Wind, Wave, Lightning, and whatever else and we need to treat it like a defense issue.
The great construction projects of the last century are what make us great as an economy now, the Interstate Highway system, Boulder Damn, the Big Bridges. The Interstates were built as a military project, and so too should our power problem be addressed.
Expensive square miles of solar tiles need to be laid, perhaps in the median between the interstates, where it will be available at charging points for electric cars. High speed electric trains need to replace planes domestically. The power needs to come from anywhere but oil.
Obviously this is a huge undertaking. Yet it would provide a generation of workers with a great labor, and it would break Opecs power like a reed and reduce the entire region to a more reasonable state. No Billions of American Dollars, no Saddam, no Osama.
The fact is that we have the Technology now, not even hidden, but underutilized, unsubsidized and no great government emanent domain to back it. The Democrates have not advocated such things since Jimmy Carter gave us Gasahol as a sop to the corn belt. So where does a guy on the Right go to get away from the power of big oil that is at the root of our weakness in the Middle East?
posted
Bean Counter- I've been arguing much the same thing, from the perspective of someone far to the left of the democratic party. Construction projects aimed at freeing us from oil is an economic benefit, security benefit, and environmental benefit. The fact no one in government seriously considers huge building projects of solar power strips or nuclear plants is an indictment of the whole system.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm more than a little worried that once we become fairly un-dependent on oil from the Middle East (which I think is a good goal, BTW), there will be even less income there and more chaos. I don't think that will help decrease terrorism, as what the social sciences make pretty clear is that the better the standard of living in a country, the lower the level of chaos in general, including terrorism. So I think there's a lot lot lot more to the story than just becoming independent of Middle Eastern oil. We also would have to put resources into their system as we withdrew other resources (oil money), but that's not to say that we shouldn't make that switch, of course.
[ September 19, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once read an article -- was it over at Amnesty International's website? can't remember -- that noted that for oil-producing states where oil was the main source of income, those states tended to be dictatorships. (Basically, since oil is the main source of income, and that's a relatively easy resource to control access to, controlling oil becomes the easiest way to have power and to exercise power.) So running out of oil may actually be GOOD for oil-producing states with dictatorships.
(I agree that increasing the standard of living IS a good thing... but ideally we can do that through other means...)
posted
Of course, plaid. I was taking Bean Counter to be stating that "the point that I would argue [i.e., ending our reliance on their oil] would finish the war on terror in our generation."
I was just expanding it to include our having to help ensure other resources for the country as well as pulling out, otherwise (as past countries have shown) destabilization would likely lead to more elements of chaos, including terrorism.
Don't get me wrong: I agree oil is not a great basis for running a country, either from the supply or demand side. I'd just like to make the transition thoughtfully, rather than assuming if we didn't buy ME oil, there wouldn't be terrorism.
[ September 19, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
