Can't Fight Terrorism Without Energy Security

NATO AIR

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2004
4,275
285
48
USS Abraham Lincoln
so let's get the ball moving folks....
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200601200810.asp

January 20, 2006, 8:10 a.m.
Ex, On
We can’t fight terrorism without energy security.

Each day’s headlines underscore a central reality of our time: The United States has no choice but to make real progress on energy security — specifically by reducing the exclusive reliance of America’s transportation sector on gasoline and diesel fuels, most of which are derived from oil imported from overseas. Consider a sampler of recent developments in nations from which we obtain such oil:

Saudi Arabia: Sunday’s Los Angeles Times gave prominent treatment to expressions of growing frustration by U.S. officials about the lack of Saudi cooperation in countering terrorism. The bottom line is that, while the Saudis may be trying to crack down on terrorist operations within the Kingdom, they continue to support the Islamofascists, the terror they wield as a weapon elsewhere around the world and the large and growing global infrastructure that enables them to be so dangerous. We are funding both sides in this war for the free world, as our petrodollars are enabling much of the threat we most immediately confront. This is an intolerable — and unsustainable — situation.

Russia: Vladimir Putin’s increasingly authoritarian regime has demonstrated anew the Kremlin’s traditional willingness to use energy exports as an instrument of economic and political warfare. While the immediate target of the most recent such warfare was Ukraine, every other nation — including the United States — that contemplates reliance on Russian natural gas and oil supplies is on notice: Russia cannot be viewed as reliable source.

Mexico: The Washington Times reported earlier this week that armed units, at least some of whom are believed to be members of the Mexican army, have made over 200 incursions inside the United States over the past nine years. Some have included firefights with U.S. border-patrol officers. With the likely election of a radical anti-American leftist, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, as the next president of Mexico, relations between the two nations are sure to become even more strained — with potentially significant repercussions for Mexican oil imports to this country.

Nigeria: Islamists are increasingly destabilizing Africa’s most productive oil-exporting nation, with attacks on the industry’s infrastructure and personnel a tool in their campaign to establish control over the main source of the country’s wealth and to impose sharia in Muslim areas — and beyond. Such attacks have recently taken off line one-tenth of the country’s output. The threat to foreign investment in the country and the reliability of its supply of oil is only likely to increase.

Venezuela: The ever-more-despotic and -ambitious president, Hugo Chavez, is seeking to consolidate his rule at home and facilitate his destabilizing and aggressive designs elsewhere in the hemisphere. Among other techniques being used for these purposes is Chavez’s ludicrous declaration that the United States is preparing to invade his country. He has threatened in the past to interrupt oil supplies to the U.S. It is entirely possible that, at some point, he may decide to do so.

Iran: While the United States does not buy oil directly from Iran, the availability of Iranian crude in the international market — or, more precisely, the lack thereof — can have a significant impact on prices American consumers pay for gasoline and other petroleum-based products. The escalating crisis precipitated by an Iranian regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening the destruction of Israel and “a world without America” could well translate into possibly lengthy disruptions in the availability of Iranian (and perhaps other Persian Gulf-originated) oil exports.

Sudan: As with Iranian oil, U.S. sanctions on the terrorist-sponsoring, slave-trading, weapons-of-mass-destruction-proliferating and genocidal regime in Khartoum means that Sudanese oil supplies are not directly available to the American market. The ongoing, horrific state-sponsored assaults on the people of Darfur, however, raises the possibility that the so-called “international community” may finally be shamed into taking action to punish the Islamosfascist government of Sudan, with repercussions for its oil exports and global markets.

Virtually alone among major oil-exporting nations, Canada’s capacity and willingness to provide its energy resources to America remains steady and strong. There, as elsewhere, however, the ability of Communist China to recycle its immense trade surpluses by buying up oil, coal, natural gas, and other energy assets raises questions about the future availability of Canadian petroleum exports, to say nothing of their ability to offset shortfalls that might be associated with one or the other of the foregoing problems.

There is simply no way America’s leaders can responsibly further defer concrete actions needed to reduce the amount of oil we use in that part of our society and economy where most of it is consumed: the transportation sector. In a new book, War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World, I'm among those who describe these actions — which comprise the “Set America Free” Blueprint and which will, if implemented, provide the United States with fuel choice. The time has come to make far more widely available supplies of alternative fuels (ethanol, methanol and electricity); to ensure that every car sold in America is flexible-fuel compatible and that as many as possible are plug-in hybrids; and to ensure that the necessary, relatively modest adjustments are made to our transportation infrastructure.

This agenda should be a top priority in President Bush’s upcoming State of the Union address and at the top of the legislative program for the new session of Congress.

— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is a contributor to NRO and the lead author of War Footing: Ten Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World (Naval Institute Press, 2005).
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Drilling in ANWR! :rock:
Pointless bandaid by itself.

Bush's single greatest failure as a President and maybe as a human being was his failure to seize the opportunity presented by 9/11 to call upon American citizens, our businesses, our transportation industry, our engineerings and our energy companies to radically change the face of America's energy dependency.

Unlike most envrionmentalists, I'm willing to open up ANWR, but only as a bridge to a revolution in energy.

The one thing that's clear about energy policy is that dependence upon Middle Eastern oil will only work so long. And it opens our nation up to all of the crap we are facing today.

If the was even just one reason to consider voting for John Kerry, it was his willingness to launch an "Apollo Project" for energy. Bush's deep commitment to oil is a disservice to our nation and our national security.
 
jAZ said:
Pointless bandaid by itself.

Bush's single greatest failure as a President and maybe as a human being was his failure to seize the opportunity presented by 9/11 to call upon American citizens, our businesses, our transportation industry, our engineerings and our energy companies to radically change the face of America's energy dependency.

Unlike most envrionmentalists, I'm willing to open up ANWR, but only as a bridge to a revolution in energy.

The one thing that's clear about energy policy is that dependence upon Middle Eastern oil will only work so long. And it opens our nation up to all of the crap we are facing today.

If the was even just one reason to consider voting for John Kerry, it was his willingness to launch an "Apollo Project" for energy. Bush's deep commitment to oil is a disservice to our nation and our national security.

Oh. I've seen the apollo project propaganda. Where they basically admitted that there's no science behind environmentalism, and to talk about it in terms of "clean" jobs creation? http://www.apolloalliance.org/

I've seen their white papers. They're red through and through.
 
jAZ said:
Pointless bandaid by itself.

Bush's single greatest failure as a President and maybe as a human being was his failure to seize the opportunity presented by 9/11 to call upon American citizens, our businesses, our transportation industry, our engineerings and our energy companies to radically change the face of America's energy dependency.

Unlike most envrionmentalists, I'm willing to open up ANWR, but only as a bridge to a revolution in energy.

The one thing that's clear about energy policy is that dependence upon Middle Eastern oil will only work so long. And it opens our nation up to all of the crap we are facing today.

If the was even just one reason to consider voting for John Kerry, it was his willingness to launch an "Apollo Project" for energy. Bush's deep commitment to oil is a disservice to our nation and our national security.

Any private company that can develop cheaper and more sustainable energy is certainly free to do so. Do they need a president to tell them " Hey guys, get out there and get rich? Do you really believe that the government has to take the lead on this one ?
 
It's the same as my argument about funding for stem cell research. I keep hearing that stem cell research will find an Altzheimer's cure, so it needs federal funding. My response is, "If that were true, you'd have to beat off private investors with a stick, so why do you need federal funding?"

If alternative energy was just on the horizon, it wouldn't need any push from the government. I mean, if somebody said, "Hey, I've got a car that runs on lawn clippings and gets 1000 mpg. You'll never have to buy gas again," I'd pay a lot for it. If I saw substantial proof that a company was on the road to developing a cheap, alternative energy source, they'd get my entire life savings as an investment.
 
America consumes 20 million barrels per day (BPD) of oil.

Anwar is projected to be capable of producing less than 1 million bpd.

Taking into account the continued decline in production of our own oil fields over the past three decades, Anwar will merely slow down the continued decline of domestic production.

That being said it should still be done.
 
dilloduck said:
Any private company that can develop cheaper and more sustainable energy is certainly free to do so. Do they need a president to tell them " Hey guys, get out there and get rich? Do you really believe that the government has to take the lead on this one ?

We have the wrong government in charge today, and it was the wrong one 10 years ago. Those greedy assholes should all deported off a cliff in an old school bus for driving this country into the ground. Taking a piddly 18 million research program and cutting it down to 2 million, yet allowing the drilling of Alaska is a f'n crime against the planet. The only president who tried to make a difference along these lines was Jimmy Carter. Clinton, the Bush's, Reagan are all useless. Because of their greed, and combined stupidity, we are in this peril today.

The more US dollars spent on buying foreign fuel, is more money spent against the security of this country. It is counter productive.. I do believe that some of the "spillover" profits is being channeled to the terrorists who have it out of the US.

Then, take all the overpaid yuppy scum hosebag soccer moms, who feel that their family's safety is only assured when they drive a GM Suburban, or Ford Navigator around in the city, while their equally useless little split tales bip on their cell phones while watching videos on the seat mounted LCD monitors,,, and hit them up with a surcharge ($100/week proceeds go to FE vehcile development).. I see many of the little dicks driving every morning in their bigblock Silverados, Ford F350's, etc... on their way to office jobs. It is wrong.

For the most part, Americans are ignorant and NEED to be told, lead, or outright forced to buy more fuel efficent cars/trucks.. But also, to buy/use the right vehicle for the need at hand.

(Own a boat of about 1500# weight or more, or a towable camper of the same??? You should own a v8 powered SUV. That is what they were meant for.))

Government needs to offer more incentives for people to buy alternate energy powered vehicles, and penalize those who care less about the importation, and waste of fossil fuels. The gov needs to spend money to educate the people on what is good and bad in a FE vehicle.

Those who choose the status quo should pay the price, dearly.
 
Mr.Conley said:
I think he means the wrong government in charge for facing what is the greatest crisis this country is facing, oil depletion.

Do I want to attack the political party that I cound't wait to be in power??? No, of course not.. GW and those other bible toten hippocrits are more worried about whether I like to see some nice crotch and tits on the internet than where all the jobs are going from this country. The governments pursuit of Google should be as much a concern as to why Google feels it is necessary to track what I go looking for.. Both are wrong.. GW's team is now going to go after sat-com programming so, I would guess, they can try and stifle Howard Stern again.. DON'T WASTE MY F'N TAX DOLLARS YOU STUPID BASTARDS!!!

I used to be a democrat when I was much younger. But, they like to stick their noses in my F'n business and want me to pay for the scumbags who sit on their asses all day while I have to dodge cell phone bipping hose bags on the road during my commute to work.. I jumped ship and had some hope for the GOP.. My guess is that they will cause the pendulum to swing so far to the left that Hillary may look like a moderate..

LOU DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT!!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top