tbrown 26 #51 July 21, 2006 An interesting proposal, though it would probably end up filed under "seemed like a good idea at the time", when it causes a World War complete with nukes flying every which way. Gotta give the author credit for originality though, I enjoy good fiction. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #52 July 21, 2006 QuoteAn interesting proposal, though it would probably end up filed under "seemed like a good idea at the time", when it causes a World War complete with nukes flying every which way. Gotta give the author credit for originality though, I enjoy good fiction. That's pretty much how I feel about the piece (which is a departure for the Strategy Page. Most stuff I read and post here from SP is intelligence analysis - this was far more of an op-ed piece). I agree with most here that the author's so-called "proposal" is simplistic at best, and makes no effort to seriously consider other short- or long-term consequences that would arise were such unilateral action to be taken, and his optimistic "desired outcome" most likely wouldn't occur. The Persians have a lot of pride, and if we wound that by attacking their infrastructure, the man on the street there (who as a rule holds no ill will towards the USA aside from our unwavering support for the "Zionist Entity") will do what any people would in such a situation - they'll unite behind their leadership and do their best to repel invaders. Were the action (destroying Iran's oil wealth) to be taken, however, it would have to be with sufficient prior provocation on the part of Iran, and it would have to be something far more substantial than what Iran is doing now. Providing missles to Hezbollah, for example, is bad form, but a lot of powers (notably the USA) provide arms to clients. Our supplied arms, for the most part, come with strings attached. As for supporting terrorists, the Iranians aren't the only ones doing that, so it's not enough of an excuse in my opinion. Oddly enough, were an economic and military-based sanctioning against Iran to be initiated, the Arab countries would likely get behind us on it, because if there's anything the Arab powers fear, it isn't the USA stealing their oil, it's a nuclear-armed Iran. It's my firm belief that if the Western powers want to stabilize the Middle East, our best and brightest strategy will be to significantly curtail dependence on petroleum from the region. It's simple in principle, but tough to implement in the real world, partly because of vested interests (read: evil oilmen), but we need look no further than ourselves for a solution. After all, it's ultimately our money that is paying for those damned Islamic fundamentalist brainwashing schools which bred pukes like Osama, and in that, the author has a point. Turn off the money supply, and a lot of this stuff will simply cease. The author's "bomb them back to the Stone Age" philosophy has a simplistic gut-level appeal, but won't solve the problem."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #53 July 21, 2006 Two pages back I invited people to google "a modest proposal" and let yourselves in on the joke. It is evident that few did. Here is a link that should give you all a hint about what this guy is actually saying... and a hint about the rationality of your thoughts on his plans if you actually did anything less than instantly dismiss him as a crank (or satirical genious depending on your point of view). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #54 July 21, 2006 The thread title of a "Modest Proposal" is markharju's. The writer of the article used the title "A BOLD Proposal." A small, but significant departure from Swift. So the term crank is probably more apt than satirical genius. Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #55 July 21, 2006 QuoteIt's simple in principle, but tough to implement in the real world, partly because of vested interests (read: evil oilmen), but we need look no further than ourselves for a solution. also (read: evil consumers) our over-dependence on oil is OUR fault as much as it is any other. It's hard to quit when you have an energy infrastructure so firmly based on petroleum. It is as much our fault as it is the "Oilmen" or the politicians. things really won't change unless WE change. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
