Sunday, July 27, 2008

A Modest Proposal

A long post coming...

I've been half-jokingly telling folks that I believe we should use nucular (nuclear) weapons in the Middle East. It started at a local Walgreens, when someone asked about a book I was reading, and I said that we should nuke Iran and Saudi Arabia in order to insure a constant oil supply without interference from the wackos there. About 2 weeks later I had an argument on a plane with some dolt who thought we could "talk Iran back from the edge". Uh-huh. I then was at a sales meeting listening to our European friends saying our "cowboy ways" were the root of all of our problems with Islam (and the rest of the world, for that matter).

To that last comment, I replied by taking the hand of one of our female co-workers in my hand. I then pointed out that, under sharia law, this women could now be killed (what is honorable about "honor" killing, anyway?) because she and I were not related and I had spoiled her family honor by holding her hand. "Just what do you propose to do with these crazies that think it's perfectly acceptable to kill her?" No answer. Of course, when it comes to the application of their pacifist theories, most folks don't want to address such mundane questions as mine.

I have honestly and truthfully expressed my contention that we should nuke Iran in order to take out its leadership and wipe out their ability to build nukes of their own. I have also said we should put a laser-guided bomb in the next OPEC ministers' meeting, and make it the policy of the US Gov't to assassinate any new OPEC ministers that are named. We should continue this policy until we've broken OPEC, which, in my estimation, would take about a month.

Look, I don't give a rat's ass what religion you practice, as long as you don't push it on me, and as long as your religion doesn't call for you to kill those that don't believe as you do. Live and let live. But I'll be damned if I'll stand by and lose this great country (and the small corner of it that I actually own) to a bunch of idiots that want to take us back to the 12th century. Both Obama and McCain don't have the stomach for what must be done -- but I really think McCain would act offensively if he discovered a plot to nuke NYC or LA. Obama would call Imajerkwad or Abbas and want to talk about it, while in the meantime their surrogates would be lighting that nuclear candle and bringing this country to a standstill. Jesus, we all froze in place on 9/11/01 for a week or more...what do you think would happen if Houston suddenly was vaporized? (I don't really like Houston, but jeez, I don't want to nuke it -- just maybe block off I-45 northbound at Conroe.)

My point is that we must take the initiative in securing oil for this country - and securing our country itself. Because make no mistake that this is what it's about. As Americans, we really don't care if a third-rate sand-filled country kills half of its own population, as long as they keep selling us their oil. I'd give us about 10 days of gas at 10 bucks a gallon before the US rises up and votes to nuke that same country -- AS LONG AS WE CAN BUY GAS AT $2 A GALLON AND A CASE OF BEER FOR $15 AT 7-11.

As you might imagine, I get a lot of shocked looks when I state my true opinion (as described above). You just can't DO that, they say. Oh yeah? says I. Why the hell not? Cause they'll hate us, they say. Well, duh, they already do.

I am serious as I can be that we need to get out there and spray a few gamma rays. Hell, we're falling asleep guarding them and shipping them halfway across the country under the wings of B-52's by mistake...if we're going to start becoming lackadaisical about them, let's pop one off in the desert of Iran before they do it to us. At least it would keep the missile crews awake.

So along comes a blogger who thinks as I do. From Westerner, as posted at Gates of Vienna, here is a good start at a plan:

Dealing With the Islamic Threat
by Westerner


In recent years, several knowledgeable writers — including Serge Trifkovic (The Sword of the Prophet) and Ibn Warraq (Why I am Not a Moslem) — have described what Islam is actually like, both in theory and in practice. It is not a religion of peace, but rather an intrinsically expansionist movement, and serious Moslems wish to establish the rule of Islam over the entire globe. They will accept temporary truces, but are resolutely determined to continue their struggle until total victory, and will utilize whatever methods are necessary to achieve that goal.

The nature of the Islamic state that they seek to impose on us is clear, both from their ideology and from their history. It will not include either freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, nor will it include equal rights for women. Those non-Moslems who are neither killed nor forcibly converted, will be dhimmis (lacking the normal rights of citizens, and subject to special taxes and humiliating treatment). Since Muhammad himself held slaves — and, indeed, enslaved formerly free persons — it will be blasphemous to allege that slavery is immoral. No vestige of our democratic system will endure.

However, although the writers mentioned above correctly state the nature of the Islamic threat to our country and our way of life, they do not say how we can counter that threat. The same is true of such other writers as Melanie Phillips (Londonistan) and Mark Steyn (America Alone).

Larry Auster is somewhat better, because he not only takes the Islamic threat seriously, but has a plan of action for defending our society. He suggests (quite sensibly) that we should defend ourselves against terrorism by refusing to accept immigrants from Moslem countries, and sending home those who are already here. He also suggests that we must destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, and should prevent any other Moslem from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- - - - - - - - -
However, although Auster’s suggestions are advisable, they are still inadequate. Even if an American president (and a sufficient number of congressmen) were to become convinced that Auster is correct — and even if the president proceeded to carry out those suggestions — the world would still contain a sizable number of Islamic states, most of which contain a large, powerful Islamic establishment dedicated to the spread of Islam throughout the world. Furthermore, many of those states possess enormous reserves of oil, and the wealth that those reserves lead to. In a few years, that American president would leave office, and sooner or later would be succeeded by a leader who is less convinced that Islam is a mortal threat to us and must be opposed by such firm measures. Auster’s suggestions, therefore, even if adopted, will only bring us a brief reprieve.

We cannot be safe unless Islam is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. To some readers, this may seem impossible: How can a movement which boasts of 1.2 billion followers ever be crushed? But we should not despair. Remember, just a few decades ago, the Communists ruled far more territory — and a considerably larger fraction of the world’s population — than the Moslems do today. The West is far stronger than the Moslem world, and if we use our assets wisely and act boldly we can crush Islam permanently. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps:

1. We should start by thoroughly destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities. (Yes, we could triumph even if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, but only at a far greater cost.)
2. Next, in order to protect our homeland from Moslem terrorists we must adopt a policy of not accepting any immigrants (or even tourists or students) from Islamic countries, and by deporting all foreign Moslems who are already here, whether illegally or legally. (It is not that most Moslems are terrorists, but rather that most terrorists are Moslems, and that by keeping Moslems out of our country we can greatly decrease the frequency of terrorist attacks in the United States.)
3. We must make it an invariable policy that we will not permit any predominantly Moslem country to build or obtain weapons of mass destruction. (Pakistan obviously represents a special case, since it already possesses nuclear weapons. However, even though the present government is reasonably friendly to us, we cannot permit them to keep those weapons, nor the facilities producing them.)
4. There are various ways in which we can eventually reduce our (and Europe’s) dependence on Middle Eastern oil. However, those programs will take decades to carry out. The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Moslem states and our dependence on their oil reserves is forcibly to seize the oil fields in the Middle East. The states bordering the Persian Gulf are all weak, and if we make up our mind to do so we can easily seize the regions where most of that oil is located, drive away the people who live there now, and produce the oil ourselves. These, of course, are acts of war, and would be immoral if done solely to enrich ourselves. However, the Moslem world is already at war with us, and we are fully justified in taking such actions to defend ourselves and our way of life.
5. Our government must then embark on a policy of persistently denouncing Islam. We should repeatedly state and broadcast that Muhammad was not “the messenger of God,” but rather was a false prophet. We should also tell the world that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant, and a cruel, greedy, and lascivious man. (The truth of these statements is amply documented by ancient Arab writings.) Islam cannot be defeated if, in an attempt to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, we continue to ignore these truths and continue to speak of Islam and its founder respectfully.
6. Finally, we must demonstrate — in an absolutely unmistakable way — that the Moslem religion is not favored by God. The most convincing way of doing this is by (after suitable warnings) totally destroying several Moslem holy sites, including Mecca and Medina. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Allah is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence. (In order to avoid unnecessary loss of life, the first two or three such sites should be sparsely populated, and the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina should be given a reasonable length of time to evacuate.)

Since most Moslems believe that the truth of Muhammad’s statements were demonstrated by his military victories, the total destruction of those cities cannot be reconciled with Islam. It is therefore probable that over the course of a century the number of Moslems in the world will drop drastically. Some Moslems will convert to other religions; some will become agnostics or atheists; and those who remain “Moslem” will break up into many small sects. In any event, bereft of military power, oil — and the diplomatic power that brings — and money, Islam will lose much of its appeal and will cease to be a menace.

It may be objected that this program involves the killing of a large number of people, many of them innocent. So do all wars. We did not choose this war; it has been forced on us. And just as we were justified in killing millions of Germans and Japanese to achieve victory in World War II, we are justified in killing large numbers of Moslems to maintain our independence and freedom from the Islamic menace. Note that our victory in World War II did not occur until about eight million Germans — and a similar number of Japanese — had been killed, a far greater number than would be killed by the program suggested here.

Of course, this program cannot be carried out by the United States — or any coalition of Western nations — until there is sufficient popular support for it. The purpose of this article is not to cause the immediate adoption of this program, but rather to create an understanding of what needs to be done. It is vital that when an American president is elected who understands the gravity of the Moslem threat, and is willing to take strong action to counter it, he uses that window of opportunity to deal a crushing blow to Islam, so that the threat does not continue.

Now here's someone that I can drink with, laugh with, and know that my kids would be safe with. Let's start thinking about the practical effects of that nuke going off in Seattle, and let's visit a little of that hell on some Islamic fascists before they do it to us.

I'm really not crazy -- and I'm a big enough guy that I don't get picked on, so I don't have a Napoleon complex. But what I do have is this -- I have a great desire to see my kids, nephews, nieces, and cousins grow up in a safe US of A, without worrying about Londonistan becoming Dallastan. I attended a wedding this weekend, and I'd like to bounce their future kids on my knee and know they can grow up safely and soundly in a free America. Let's get out ahead of this threat and remove it -- as we should have done with Hitler before he had done any real damage.

Because you're not going to like the US with a few more smoking craters. I don't want them to happen. Let's whack a few bad guys and get some future security while doing it.


1 comment:

TransplantedTexan said...

Nice post.
I am completly with you on this.
I have suggested some of these things, particularly the nuking and taking of oil fields to people I have had conversations with. I have also seen the dumbfounded faces on the people I was having said conversations with, followed by the remarks that you just can't do that. Well, I agree with you.
When dealing with psychos, you cannot play be the same rules as you do when relating to sane individuals.