• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

War on Iraq is a product of poor planning

Why a war on Iraq

  • Disarm Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • Regime Change

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Privatize the Iraqi Oil reserves

    Votes: 13 39.4%
  • National Security

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • Total voters
    33

geotransit

Member
Messages
3
Points
0
I can not argue with the article below. Our country is dependent on oil and our current energy policy is to continue this dependence. So my question to planners is: how can we change this and fast? Smart growth, moritorium on highway construction, light rail? We need to act fast and I want to start this thread to begin that conversation. Thanks.

Published on Saturday, January 18, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
Car Wars
The US Economy Needs Oil Like a Junkie Needs Heroin - And Iraq Will Supply Its Next Fix

by Ian Roberts

War in Iraq is inevitable. That there would be war was decided by North American planners in the mid-1920s. That it would be in Iraq was decided much more recently. The architects of this war were not military planners but town planners. War is inevitable not because of weapons of mass destruction, as claimed by the political right, nor because of western imperialism, as claimed by the left. The cause of this war, and probably the one that will follow, is car dependence.

[snip!]

Administrator's note: Instead of reposting a long, copyrighted article, please limit quotes to a paragraph or two, and provide a link to the original article if it's available online. Better yet, instead of repeating a source word-for-word, read the article, attempt to understand it, and rephrase what it says in your own words.

[/snip!]

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
 

DA Monkey

Cyburbian
Messages
84
Points
4
Interesting article, although its probably drawing a long bow to blame the proposed war in Iraq on town planning.

I would suggest look to your economic policies and politics first. The hold major corporations have on the political agenda is really a cause for worry.

Roads were not built by planners and cars were not marketed by planners, the various "gasoline wars" are not the result of town planning.

The call for more pedestrianism and TOD's walkability etc is getting a little "old hat" not to mention hypocritical, especially when you see governments advertising "roads to prosperity".

The focus on road death and injury is also a little tired, surely there are bigger problems that the world's societies can resolve - how about Israel and Palestine for instance, third world hunger and disease, poverty.

The bleatings of the wealthy few who can afford the luxury of choosing whether to walk to work/shops, or to live in upmarket TOD's are of little real consequence - the phrase "lead by example" comes to mind.

Tell these people who sponsored the article to get real, donate their services to a third world country if they feel so strongly about changing the way things are - we have enough whingers in the world who do nothing but point out the problems and do nothing to solve them.

At least planners in their own way are working to hold back/prevent the mistakes of the do nothing, whining, "look how bad things are" wannabe social engineers around the place.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
Give me a break. The world does not revolve around planning. Planners don't build roads, the DOT does. Planners don't give the go-ahead for a new construction project, the municipality does, etc. etc.

The war is not about oil. It is about stopping a kook with weapons systems that will turn your skin inside out.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
Mike you are right. The premise is pure rubbish. If there is war in Iraq, its because Saddam Hussein threatens the world's democracies.


Town Planning ha.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
24
That argument is about as ridiculous as blaming terrorism on SUV drivers. I guess we’d all be better off driving around in Segways, huh?
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,903
Points
34
jtfortin said:
I guess we’d all be better off driving around in Segways, huh?
I think you ride on a segway...

I agree though - that article wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Blaming planners for war? Sheesh - must have been written by an engineer!
 

geotransit

Member
Messages
3
Points
0
Full Article

I dont think the full article was posted, so here is the link.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-01.htm

Another article that hits on the point of this war is about oil and our addiction is linked below.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/518/518p13.htm

The article points out the energy policy Mr. Cheney has set forth and is an education in policy words.

Like- National Security is not about citizen security, but more about ensuring our current stream of oil dependence.

By posting these articles I am not trying to make planners mad. And I understand the limits in which we work, but as public servants what can we do to help reduce our dependence on foriegn oil?
 
Messages
5,353
Points
31
That was probably one of the most subjective articles I've ever read. Never mind that ridiculous assertion that town planners are directly (or indirectly) linked to causing this impending war.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
Re: Full Article

geotransit said:
And I understand the limits in which we work, but as public servants what can we do to help reduce our dependence on foriegn oil?
This is a troll from the APA Houston Zoning board....
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
Re: Re: Full Article

Mike DeVuono said:


This is a troll from the APA Houston Zoning board....
Maybe we need to pay them another "visit"
 

green22

INACTIVE
Messages
101
Points
6
Instead of debating the idea presented, you attack the person who posted the article. It is hard to think that you actually believe that Bush is trying to make the world free for democracy. He supported the coup leaders in Venezuela who wanted to suspend the constitution. Attacking the planners for designing one of the most car dependent transportation systems on earth was not necessarily a personal attack on any 1 planner. It is hard to argue that the government didn't lead the country to auto dependency. I am not suggesting that most planners had evil intentions, we know more now than we did in the past.
It was the government that decided to pay for all land, roads, policing, maintenance, to subsidize parking and to phase out tolled turnpikes. The government decided to force all buildings to provide convenient off street parking at their own expense. The government incorporated zoning which segregated land uses away from each other, so that homes were far from malls were far from offices. The government mandated a street pattern which protected against frequent access to arterials so that traffic could move faster, and restricted street crossings that would slow down traffic. The government redlined the inner city and pushed development to the greenfields in it's racist loan programs. Who moves the post office to the outskirts, who consolidates schools and places them at the edge of communities, the interstate system? Let's face it, the government likes to talk transit and force auto dependent sprawl to be built.
Bush and Cheney are married to oil. Right now France and Russia have the most control over Iraqui flow. The first part of American war plans are to secure the oil fields. Right now republicans are furious with Saudi Arabia, remember the hijackers? Since the US is in control of most of The number one oil producer's oil flow it would be suicide to trouble relations now. However if the US can gain control of the number 2 producer's oil they will have much more leverage.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
24
Your argument fails to address the real reason for dependence on foreign oil....personal preference. Some people love to live away from the City. Some people like driving SUVs. Some people don't mind driving 30-40 miles to work so they can live where they choose. I rather enjoy living in a Country where I can decide what kind of car to drive and where I can live.
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,241
Points
27
A planner from Houson- that's an oxymoron.. wait, isn't that just a..

Planners didn't create the wack job that wants to play hide and seek with nukes. We're planners, not G*d.
 

green22

INACTIVE
Messages
101
Points
6
Iraq war

It is true that there are many other variables involved in going to war besides building an auto centric transportation system. In fact the US would still exist if it had to pay higher prices for oil. We could still survive if US based transnational oil companies lost distribution rights, (pipeline control & drilling rights) in several countries.

Planners did not decide that the US should spend the most on the military. Planners did not allow campaigns to be financed by the oil industry. Planners did not vote 5 to 4 to select two oil executives as leaders of America. Planners did not fight for years for fossil, not renewable energy. Planners did not tell Sadam to stop co-operating with the US and switch oil distribution to France and Russia. Auto centric planning was only one part of the story, it could have gone differently..
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,270
Points
30
The Power of Planning

Blaming planners for oil dependency and by extension war is ridiculous primarily because planners have no real power or backbone. Land use planners either:

say it's the free market that makes all the decisions, in which case why does the planning profession even exist, (oh and by the way there is no such thing as the "free market"),

or

get bogged down in reactionary regulatory minutia as evident by the number of hours spent in Planning Commission hearings discussing setbacks, kennels and landscaping requirements to dress up the pig (big boxes, parking lots, etc...). Not to say that details of the built environment aren't important, but that there are larger forces that shape our communities.

Is oil dependency a problem? Putting all of your local and regional transportation eggs into one basket is dangerous. Just like putting all your money into one stock. Political power of the automobile industry fueled by the consumer's love affair with the automobile spawned a century of investment into the largest road system in the history of the world.

But the beast got away from us. We've built a road system that we can't maintain indefinitely to the level expected by consumers. We've started subsidizing the purchase of SUV's. The politics of oil is very real, not that oil is a primary reason for war, yet. The beast is also in our brain. The car a person drives is a status symbol in our society. It's not whether you can get from point A to B efficiently, but how you look doing it. This is societal self centeredness at the expense of public education, for instance.

Yes, this is a personal choice, but in the broader sense, there really is no choice. Do an experiment. Ride your bike (if you own one) or walk to work or to do your shopping. Was it safe? Were there facilities in the right-of-way for you? How far did you have to go? We've invested too much to consider anything else. It's an addiction that spirals out of control. If you don't believe it. If you still think it's a choice, try to wean yourself off or leave cold turkey. Then you will find out if you have a choice or not.

Has anyone ever noticed that politicians continously talk about "growing the economy"? What does this mean? In part it means promoting inefficiency so we can spend more for the same result. Thus the SUV tax break, otherwise we'd be giving tax breaks for Ford Escorts. If we find a more efficient way to travel, rest assured the automobile industry, highway engineers and insurance companies will flex their political muscle.

Within local government, planners are reactionary peons, while most transportation engineer's livelihoods are tied to the need for increased traffic congestion. Without traffic congestion, they'll need to learn new tricks.

Believe me, my house is awash in hypocrisy, but I recognize it and am weaning myself from it. I took a major step backwards last year and am paying the price.

Dear Responder: Please, don't fall into partisan babble. I only submitting my view and there is no black and white. I find that people on this site have a habit of "defending" their beliefs by accusing "liberal elitism" followed by "it's the free market driven by choice". If this were so, there would be no taxes and no subsidies, PERIOD. To say everything is "free market drive" is to simplify reality to terms fit for a child.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
"Dear Responder: Please, don't fall into partisan babble. I only submitting my view and there is no black and white. I find that people on this site have a habit of "defending" their beliefs by accusing "liberal elitism" followed by "it's the free market driven by choice". If this were so, there would be no taxes and no subsidies, PERIOD. To say everything is "free market drive" is to simplify reality to terms fit for a child."
Perhaps you would feel better if you wrote my reply for me? :)
 

dbhstockton

Member
Messages
12
Points
1
Does anybody know what percentage of oil is used for petroleum products other than gasoline? A nit-picking point, I know, but I've always wondered (I'll probably have to dig that up on my own later).

Taking another topical leap, what would be the economic consequences of the collapse of the US auto industry? I've read again and again that profits from SUV's are keeping the whole thing afloat -- Detroit loses money on every other line of automobile. In that light, Detroit is fighting for its life in these SUV culture wars (which probably means odds are good that they'll find a way to keep winning). But in the event that the political will did arise to enact less SUV-friendly legislation, overwhelming the auto lobby's obstructions, the long-term consequences could be disastrous. What are the middle-ground positions in the SUV wars? Is there room for compromise?


Let it be said that I drive a Honda Civic (best car ever made) when I'm not walking or riding mass transit.

As for blaming planners for our oil wars, it's definitely unfair, but not entirely off the mark. I'll leave it at that for now.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
33
UN Update

Hans Blix has demanded that Saddam Hussein immediately begin destroying the Iraqi cache of DPMs. The Donkey Propelled Missle is beleived to have extended range and is fuelled only by water. "This serious threat to regional security should not be underestimated" said Blix.
 

nash

Member
Messages
12
Points
1
worthwhile to note

Let's not forget the simple fact that we only import about 20% of our oil from the Middle East. Someone mentioned Hugo Chavez earlier, and I think that if you wanted to find American support for dictators (tied to oil concerns), that's the place to look - not Iraq.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
worthwhile to note
Let's not forget the simple fact that we only import about 20% of our oil from the Middle East. Someone mentioned Hugo Chavez earlier, and I think that if you wanted to find American support for dictators (tied to oil concerns), that's the place to look - not Iraq.



Dictators aren't democratically elected in landslides. Disagreeing with a leaders politics or economic theories also doesn't make that leader a dictator. The guy was elected to a three year term. If, when his three years is up, he doesn't get reelected, and he doesn't give up the presidency then you can call him a dictator.

Plenty of people don't like George Bush but that doesn't mean we go staging coups with a wink and a nod from the pentagon.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
Are you saying that Saddam Hussein WASN'T a dictator?
Then what would he be? President of Iraq for life? Let's remeber that Saddam was on top of the Iraqui government for more than 20 years. If that's not a dictator...then what the hell is one? Sure he won a presidential election not long ago with 100% of aproval, that's just plain logical. All voters felt free and didn't feel fear that if they voted against him, they would die.
Actually what other candidate was there? There must have been a handfull since Iraq had one of the most stable democracies in the world under Saddam.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
jresta brings up a good point: How deep is our support for "democracy" if that "democracy" pursues policies we (or our multinationals) don't like. Not very deep. (Skeleton?)

My question about Iraq is the benefit to the world if, once having removed Sadaam, Iraq degenerates into some fanatical "Islamic Republic"? Is that already happening? Iran is sure meddling effectively. Its amazing that Arabic pride is NOT offended when Iranians are doing the meddling.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
In the context of planning i find it peculiar that there were plenty of troops to "secure and guard" the oil fields but virtually none could be found when museums, hospitals, and aid stores were looted.

Priorities?

I also find it interesting in a geographic context that, without a doubt, the US now has hegemony in that region. Syria is now flanked by Israel and a US controlled Iraq

Iran is now flanked by a US controlled Iraq and a US puppet in Afghanistan as well as a nuclear Pakistan controlled by a US friendly military dictatorship. (actually, for those who care, the Afghan war isn't over and Karzai doesn't control much more than the province around Kabul.)

So what makes a dictatorship friendly and what makes them "brutal"?

The cause was looking noble for a few days and now it's looking less and less like Operation Iraqi Freedom and more and more like

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
BKM.. did you mention my name because of the peace supporting government that there is in Chile? Is it because many US government officials have said that they're "dissapointed" because our government chose to stand by it's principals and not be a Uncle Sam ass licker?

War in Irak is not over, it hasn't stopped since 1991... in between the DS I and this "liberation" there were intense bombings and surveilance from the US in the No Flight Zone (ok, it was to protect the Kurds, and Saddam should have been kicked out in DS I...)
Sure, Saddam is gone, but anti-american protests are beginging in Irak, who knows now, mabye in a few more months a civil war starts in Irak, tribes fighting to get the control of the country. So will the war have stopped? Let's hope that after that civil war comes democracy, just like it happened here, and in the US.

The foundation of a democracy isn't automatic or fast... it takes long to grow and develop, to create a legitimate democracy, not some foreign implant. A good democracy can't be implanted, it must be done by the own people, and if they can't do it, it means that they're not prepared for a democracy.

that was my rant for today... :D
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,078
Points
33
As long as this thread has been revived, did anyone notice that we used a new bomb during the war? It is designed to just kill people without destroying buildings. This is one that should make planners happy.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
How come this one wasn't plastered all over the place?

Los Angeles Times
May 13, 2003
A NUCLEAR ROAD OF NO RETURN
Bush's bid for new kinds of weapons
could put the world on a suicidal course.
By Robert Scheer
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-scheer13may13,0,5142385.column

It turns out the threat is not from Iraq but from us.

On Sunday, the Washington Post wrote the obituary for the United States' effort to find Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. "Frustrated, U.S. Arms Team to Leave Iraq," read the headline, confirming what has become an embarrassing truth - that the central rationale for the invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq was in fact one of history's great frauds.

The arms inspectors "are winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms," reported the Post, putting the lie to Colin Powell's Feb. 6 claim at the United Nations that Iraq possessed a functioning program to build nuclear bombs and had hoarded hundreds of tons of chemical and biological materials.
 

biscuit

Cyburbian
Messages
3,904
Points
25
I'm suprised we didn't find anything at all. Perhaps it's all in Syria.

If not, at very least the administration should have stuck by its lie and planted some anthrax or something instead of switiching to an "liberation" story - which they probably should have used from the begining.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
24
flak

I caught flak for suggesting more or less in jest that the US might try this very thing. Can you say credibility? Well most of the people in the administration can't.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,551
Points
23
jresta said:
How come this one wasn't plastered all over the place?
It's beginning to become more widespread. Conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote this article about the growing concerns in the Republican leadership about what's happening in Iraq.

Although I was against the war effort, I don't claim to be on the "right" side of this debate, or take any solace from the fact that "freedom-building" has been more difficult than we thought. If anything, I'm upset that the Democrats were outflanked politically by Republicans who labeled us as "whining doves" who couldn't come up with a viable alternative.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Skeleton: Just saw your query (from a month ago).

I was referring more to the Allende government and the CIA "encouraged" coup.
 

jresta

Cyburbian
Messages
1,474
Points
23
biscuit said:
I'm suprised we didn't find anything at all. Perhaps it's all in Syria.

If not, at very least the administration should have stuck by its lie and planted some anthrax or something instead of switiching to an "liberation" story - which they probably should have used from the begining.
hahahaha - i could just see the excuse for that one. Ari Fleischer comes to the podium trying to explain how intelligence missed a huge convoy full of NBC gear headed straight for the Syrian border but managed to get all the tank convoys coming out of Bagdad every night.

and sticking with the liberation story would've caused a lot of problems because, with the exception of the president himself, the presidents advisors and cabinet are fully interchangeable with that of the last Bush administration. People would start to ask too many questions about what happened last time.
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,111
Points
26
geotransit said:
Published on Saturday, January 18, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
Car Wars
The US Economy Needs Oil Like a Junkie Needs Heroin - And Iraq Will Supply Its Next Fix

by Ian Roberts

War in Iraq is inevitable. That there would be war was decided by North American planners in the mid-1920s. That it would be in Iraq was decided much more recently. The architects of this war were not military planners but town planners. War is inevitable not because of weapons of mass destruction, as claimed by the political right, nor because of western imperialism, as claimed by the left. The cause of this war, and probably the one that will follow, is car dependence.
Adbusters published this quote in its July/August 2003 issue. It is attributed to Ian Roberts, Professor of Public Health, London School of Economics. But the quote is a little different: "...not millitary planners, but city planners." Your source says town planners. Interesting. If you read Adbusters, check out page 7 of the "Us" side of the issue.
 

geotransit

Member
Messages
3
Points
0
Old Thread Same Argument

WOW

I have not looked at this thread in a long while. Over two years late and we are still in an endless war. I have not joined the peace corps, but I have moved to Dallas. Looking back at this thread pisses me off! I cant believe there are so mant numbskull planners that think they have no power. hell maybe that is reality. I dont know anymore. Just make the dollar bills..........
 

dobopoq

Cyburbian
Messages
1,002
Points
20
When new urbanists and peak oil people say what we need is more transit and less sprawl, many people respond that that doesn't seem to be what the people want. You have to let the market decide. Well this kind of thinking is totally ignorant of all the ways that the government subsidized sprawl after WWII. FHA loans only for new single-family homes, and Robert Moses with his city destroying highways are just a couple of ways that come to mind.

The fact of the matter is that most people want what they want when it comes to transportation, because they have little other choice. So many people have now grown up in this country in environments that are so sprawled out that the avoidance of auto-dependence is unthinkable. People can't even hardly lose their virginity in many places before they've found it necessary to get their own internal combustion engine.

New ubanist/peak oil proponents don't want to eliminate cars, they just want to diversify our current monoculture of transportation that is ruled by an auto-hegemony. Sure there are buses and transit in cities, but government needs to bring the level playing field back to transit that was by undercut by GM, the FHA, and the cold war era Great Wall of China system of Interstate Highways. Individuals can chose to eschew auto-dependence, but as long as Americans elect insiders of the auto-industrial complex to the presidency, they can't count on government to provide any macroeconomic encouragement or incentivizing, of what's in the best interests of humans on a global scale.

Screw nationalism. As if it should make us feel so much better when we hear on the news that no Americans were killed in the latest tragedy.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
"Individuals can chose to eschew auto-dependence, but as long as Americans elect insiders of the auto-industrial complex to the presidency"

What is that supposed to mean? Are you talking about all Presidents since say, Truman or did all of your fears rise suddenly with a two term President you likely did not vote for?

Why ruin a reasonble point regarding lack of choices with a silly partisan slap?
 

richiefullerton

Cyburbian
Messages
27
Points
2
Perhaps we can settle the debate by removing the word "poor" and allowing that in some ways perhaps past planning did contribute. I'm just starting planning grad school in the fall and have much to learn though.

But for the sake of argument, let's not forget that before even discussing whether or not there were WMD, to start this war you have to accept the premise that wars can be started for "pre-emptive attacks" when there is no clear threat. The start of the war had much more to do with the fact that no one rejected this argument than anything else.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
23
So if there was better planning and we were not oil dependent and auto dependent would 8 million Iraqis have voted in free and democratic elections just a few months ago?

I think we know what that answer is.

sorry for the edit but did not want to pad


and I think the UN resolution infact determined there was a threat.
 

iamme

Cyburbian
Messages
485
Points
14
gkmo62u said:
So if there was better planning and we were not oil dependent and auto dependent would 8 million Iraqis have voted in free and democratic elections just a few months ago?

I think we know what that answer is.
We do know the answer to that. The Iraqis would have probobly been voting sooner if not for the Billions in oil revenues propping up corrupt governments, like Iraq under Saddam, all over the world.
 

richiefullerton

Cyburbian
Messages
27
Points
2
gkmo62u said:
So if there was better planning and we were not oil dependent and auto dependent would 8 million Iraqis have voted in free and democratic elections just a few months ago?

I think we know what that answer is.

sorry for the edit but did not want to pad


and I think the UN resolution infact determined there was a threat.



Debating consequences is different from debating principle.
 

dobopoq

Cyburbian
Messages
1,002
Points
20
gkmo62u said:
"Individuals can chose to eschew auto-dependence, but as long as Americans elect insiders of the auto-industrial complex to the presidency"

What is that supposed to mean? Are you talking about all Presidents since say, Truman or did all of your fears rise suddenly with a two term President you likely did not vote for?

Why ruin a reasonble point regarding lack of choices with a silly partisan slap?
gkmo62u, although I am a liberal, I didn't mean to confound the issue with partisan loyalties. Politics are odious, I admit. Basically, what I meant is that people are going to have to act locally at this point at least in this country to effect the post-carbon transition, even though action on a national and global scale is also necessary. The Kyoto signatories will wind up reducing their oil-dependence as an offshoot of their goal to reduce carbon emissions. But our leaders have given us Hummer tax breaks as the antithesis of decreasing our oil dependence.

But since you thought I was singling out our current administration lets do a quick rehash of how post-WWII presidency's have dealt with oil-dependence. There was no inkling of the finite nature of oil until the 1970's. The formation of the EPA and passage of the Clean Air Act happened on Nixon's watch in 1970. So did the first oil shock. Hooray for tricky Dick! Ford was very much a supporter of early environmental legislation, back when it seemed to have more bi-partisan support than it does today.

The second oil shock came on Carter's watch. As a response, he actually put solar panels on the roof of the white house and is the only president thus far to pay any significant lip service to the need for Americans to reduce their energy use. Then came Reagan who took the solar panels off the white house and said, "It is morning in America again." As if to say, forget about fuel-efficiency, there's no reason to think oil will run out. Bush I wasn't about to let Saddam Hussein get his hands on the oil-floating landmass that is Kuwait. Thus the Gulf War. Clinton/Gore had the kind of rhetoric I'd like to hear, especially Gore with his "Earth in the Balance." But Gore never had the balls to bring the issues he cared about to the forefront. Instead he sat idly by, while the media obsessed with Clinton's balls. Gore's spinelessness with confronting the nation about fossil fuels in 2000, was matched by Kerry's qualified aquiescence to the Bush policy of unleashing war in Iraq, another major source of oil reserves.

So there you have it. Plenty of criticism for all.
 

illinoisplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
5,336
Points
24
HELLO??? If you don't want to be dependent on foreign oil, just drill in Alaska and work on energy efficient automotive technology. That's pretty much the energy bill Congress has stalled in a nutshell, isn't it?? You give me a better solution to reducing foreign dependence on oil.

Also, if the War in Iraq was about oil, it would be called the War on Saudi Arabia. Iraq produces very little oil compared to the Saudis. If we wanted to, we could make this an oil war. That's not the purpose of this war though. It's to remove an evil dictator and spread freedom, the strongest way to win the War on Terrorism.
 

dobopoq

Cyburbian
Messages
1,002
Points
20
illinoisplanner said:
HELLO??? If you don't want to be dependent on foreign oil, just drill in Alaska and work on energy efficient automotive technology. That's pretty much the energy bill Congress has stalled in a nutshell, isn't it?? You give me a better solution to reducing foreign dependence on oil.

Also, if the War in Iraq was about oil, it would be called the War on Saudi Arabia. Iraq produces very little oil compared to the Saudis. If we wanted to, we could make this an oil war. That's not the purpose of this war though. It's to remove an evil dictator and spread freedom, the strongest way to win the War on Terrorism.
First of all, when I speak of dependence on foreign oil, I'm referring to the average American. I myself have never even had a license, and do just fine in an urban setting, with walking, biking and transit.

Second of all, because I don't drive, I am dependent on oil only to the extent that it is used to make fertilizers that produce the food I eat, and the products I buy that contain plastic. So desite the fact I don't drive, oil is such a pervasive aspect of the modern world that it can still have a dramatic impact on my disposable income.

Sure Americans can reduce their reliance on foreign oil by drilling in Alaska - by a few cents/gallon for a couple years, but it is still a reliance on oil. I'm all for greater fuel efficiency, but I think we should be putting as much or more effort into developing clean renewables like wind, and solar.

I don't know the specifics of the current energy bill in congress, but I do know that with the exception of Singapore, U.A.E., and Quatar, Americans have the highest per capita daily consumption of oil in the world at 2.85 gallons. (Source: Nationmaster
[(67.85barrels/1000people) * 42 gallons per barrel = 2.85]
That the oil we consume is increasingly foreign dosn't help our trade deficit, but our primary concern should be that we rely on oil too much as an energy source period, and that our national endowment of oil, led us down a path of extremely dispersed living arrangements that consume absurd amounts of energy.

Major cities should be charging single occupancy vehicles that enter downtown areas above a certain level of density, a fee to discourage congestion, and encourage more transit use. HOV lanes are another way to this as well as higher-speed highway lanes that will charge you a fee to use them.

Ilinois Planner: Saudia Arabia is already on our side. Our going to Iraq ensures that it's oil won't be nationalized as in Venezuela, and it allows us to set up a police station there so that if the Chinese or any other country were to attempt to take over Saudi Arabia, America would be close by to prevent it. According to the EIA, Iraq produces about 2/9 of the oil that Saudi Arabia does. I would not call this "very little".

And as for the "War on Terrorism", is war not terror? We know about 1600 Americans have lost their lives so far. How many Iraqi civilians have we killed since the war began? Take a wild guess. Was it more than the 3,000 some people who died on 9-11? Oh yeah. Probably well over 100,000 I would venture to say. Certainly more than all the Americans who died in Vietnam.

"There might be a terrorist in this building, never mind about the dozens of Iraqi civilians who might also happen to be inside."

Does that sound like spreading freedom to you?
 

illinoisplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
5,336
Points
24
dobopoq said:
First of all, when I speak of dependence on foreign oil, I'm referring to the average American. I myself have never even had a license, and do just fine in an urban setting, with walking, biking and transit.

Second of all, because I don't drive, I am dependent on oil only to the extent that it is used to make fertilizers that produce the food I eat, and the products I buy that contain plastic. So desite the fact I don't drive, oil is such a pervasive aspect of the modern world that it can still have a dramatic impact on my disposable income.

Sure Americans can reduce their reliance on foreign oil by drilling in Alaska - by a few cents/gallon for a couple years, but it is still a reliance on oil. I'm all for greater fuel efficiency, but I think we should be putting as much or more effort into developing clean renewables like wind, and solar.

I don't know the specifics of the current energy bill in congress, but I do know that with the exception of Singapore, U.A.E., and Quatar, Americans have the highest per capita daily consumption of oil in the world at 2.85 gallons. (Source: Nationmaster
[(67.85barrels/1000people) * 42 gallons per barrel = 2.85]
That the oil we consume is increasingly foreign dosn't help our trade deficit, but our primary concern should be that we rely on oil too much as an energy source period, and that our national endowment of oil, led us down a path of extremely dispersed living arrangements that consume absurd amounts of energy.

Major cities should be charging single occupancy vehicles that enter downtown areas above a certain level of density, a fee to discourage congestion, and encourage more transit use. HOV lanes are another way to this as well as higher-speed highway lanes that will charge you a fee to use them.

Ilinois Planner: Saudia Arabia is already on our side. Our going to Iraq ensures that it's oil won't be nationalized as in Venezuela, and it allows us to set up a police station there so that if the Chinese or any other country were to attempt to take over Saudi Arabia, America would be close by to prevent it. According to the EIA, Iraq produces about 2/9 of the oil that Saudi Arabia does. I would not call this "very little".

And as for the "War on Terrorism", is war not terror? We know about 1600 Americans have lost their lives so far. How many Iraqi civilians have we killed since the war began? Take a wild guess. Was it more than the 3,000 some people who died on 9-11? Oh yeah. Probably well over 100,000 I would venture to say. Certainly more than all the Americans who died in Vietnam.

"There might be a terrorist in this building, never mind about the dozens of Iraqi civilians who might also happen to be inside."

Does that sound like spreading freedom to you?
I must say I agree with you on biking and mass transit. I love to bike, even if I must travel far to reach my destination. And if mass transit was more accessible and more functional in my life, I would probably use it more often. I also agree with you on finding better energy sources (i.e. wind and solar).

And I think standing ground in the Middle East is a good way to prevent the spread of terrorism and tyranny and build allies. And 2/9 is very little. My point being that the Saudis have more oil, so if this war was truly about oil, we would be attacking them or downright stealing their oil. And war is different from terror. Terrorism purposely takes innocent civilan life. War accomplishes a mission for the greater good and sometimes accidentally takes civilian life. And anyone can put up wild guesses about how many Iraqi civilian lives were taken by the U.S. And terrorists who blow sh!t up aren't innocent, and we are not responsible for the lives they took. The terrorists themselves are.

Take a look at the big picture. Iraq has their own elected government and is establishing a Constitution. The U.S. Military continues to train Iraqi soldiers and policeman. We continue to capture bad guys everyday. We can't stop now after all the progress made. When the country is stable and ready, we will move out.
 

dobopoq

Cyburbian
Messages
1,002
Points
20
Ok, I agree as you define war, there is a difference from terrorism. But I still feel queesy when I think about all the innocent Iraqis who have died thus far because of Bush policy.

I don't dispute that we are achieving some things in Iraq that are for the good of the Iraqis, but I wonder if we may have stirred up more terrorist sentiment then we have vanquished. Saddam wasn't about to invade all of Europe like Hitler did. The Allies appeased Hitler, but Saddam did not even warrant appeasement.

That's where this whole notion of the preemptive strike comes in. Bush's reasons for the war shifted several times, but his primary point about the threat posed by WMD's has been found to be completely faulty intelligence. Our establishment of a precedent for a preemptive strike is just good old-fashioned might makes right, Lord of the Flies type thinking. It is belligerent and provocative. Our starting a war in Iraq because of 9-11 is like you blowing up someone's car because they stole your bicycle. It is an over-reaction in my opinion. There is substantial evidence that suggests that the neocons were already hellbent on invading Iraq prior to 9-11. But without 9--11, the people definetly wouldn't have gone for the Iraq war.
 

iamme

Cyburbian
Messages
485
Points
14
illinoisplanner said:
2/9 is very little. My point being that the Saudis have more oil, so if this war was truly about oil, we would be attacking them or downright stealing their oil.
Let's correct some assumptions about the extent of Iraq's oil reserves and production potential.

Iraq: "Iraq is estimated to hold 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and possibly much more undiscovered oil in unexplored areas of the country. Iraq also is estimated to contain at least 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The country is a focal point for regional and international security issues."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

Saudi Arabia: "Saudi Arabia contains 261.9 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (including 2.5 billion barrels in the Saudi-Kuwaiti Divided, aka "Neutral" Zone), around one-fourth of proven, conventional world oil reserves...Overall, Saudi Arabia may contain up to 1 trillion barrels of ultimately recoverable oil, with Oil Minister Naimi stating on December 27, 2004 that the country's proven reserves could reach 461 billion barrels within a few years."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html

ANWAR: "The USGS estimates that it contains a mean expected value of 10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil."

http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm


Now, that being said "During 2004, Saudi Arabia produced around 10.4 million bbl/d of total oil " vs "Historically, Iraqi production peaked in December 1979 at 3.7 million bbl/d, and then in July 1990, just prior to its invasion of Kuwait, at 3.5 million bbl/d. From 1991, Iraqi oil output increased slowly, to 600,000 bbl/d in 1996...For the first ten months of 2004, Iraqi crude oil output was averaging around 2.0 million bbl/d."

-quotes here from above links.

Now, the point is that Iraq has sizable oil reserves and with proper investment, the ability to produce it in ample quantities. Oil may have not been the sole reason for this war but it sure played one helluvah part. I must confess, these figures cannot be taken as pure fact, after all, they were put out by the same government that purported the development of WMDs in Iraq.
 

illinoisplanner

Cyburbian
Messages
5,336
Points
24
dobopoq said:
Ok, I agree as you define war, there is a difference from terrorism. But I still feel queesy when I think about all the innocent Iraqis who have died thus far because of Bush policy.

I don't dispute that we are achieving some things in Iraq that are for the good of the Iraqis, but I wonder if we may have stirred up more terrorist sentiment then we have vanquished. Saddam wasn't about to invade all of Europe like Hitler did. The Allies appeased Hitler, but Saddam did not even warrant appeasement.

That's where this whole notion of the preemptive strike comes in. Bush's reasons for the war shifted several times, but his primary point about the threat posed by WMD's has been found to be completely faulty intelligence. Our establishment of a precedent for a preemptive strike is just good old-fashioned might makes right, Lord of the Flies type thinking. It is belligerent and provocative. Our starting a war in Iraq because of 9-11 is like you blowing up someone's car because they stole your bicycle. It is an over-reaction in my opinion. There is substantial evidence that suggests that the neocons were already hellbent on invading Iraq prior to 9-11. But without 9--11, the people definetly wouldn't have gone for the Iraq war.
Well at least we agree on some things.

Bush had plenty of reason for going to war. Personally, I believe the media exploited the WMD thing, but that's another story. And who knows... Maybe while we were delayed in the UN for so long, Saddam shipped his nukes off to Iran, Yemen, North Korea, Syria, etc. Remember that one story about a ship that was stopped near Yemen before the war began?? You never know. Saddam was an evil man. He did horrible things to his people. And Bush realized this was a perfect opportunity to establish ground in the Middle East to fight the war on terror, promote democracy, economics, education, etc.. And be able to watch other nations more closely. I mean if we can make friends and spread freedom in Afghanistan, why not Iraq, Iran, et. al. Heck, we did it in Japan.

And I probably would overreact if someone stole my bike...to blow their car up might be a little extreme though. But if someone stole my bike, and I was looking for the person who did it, and I came across Saddam's car, I might just blow it up, simply because he's Saddam.
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,111
Points
26
The question on this poll is, "Why a war on Iraq?" and in light of the Downing Street memo [PDF document], it seems like the real answer is beginning to come into focus:

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Millitary action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through millitary action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. Bu the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
Poor planning? Apparently not.

Remember this image during the run-up to the Iraqi invasion in 2003?
 
Last edited:
Top