The Green Zone: The Worst Lie Of All

In a series of posts this week on HuffPost, author Barry Sanders discusses one of the least-explored but significant consequences of the Iraq war: the amount of pollution - including radioactive pollution -- produced by the U.S. military and its effect on global warming. Here is the first installment:

Over the years, my family has bought three or four little books on how to live the greenest life possible. We've all seen those well-intentioned pamphlets at the checkout counters of bookstores and grocery stores: Fifty Ways to Save the Planet; Go Totally Green; Making a Difference; and so on. While they may pale these days considering the enormity of the environmental crisis, we nonetheless still take the advice to heart, choosing low-energy light bulbs, installing low-flush toilets, turning down the thermostat, refusing to warm up the car's engine for extended periods, and on and on. Every little bit helps, as the experts tell us and, besides, we need to feel that we are doing something. But no list in any of those books addresses the largest source of global pollution: War.

In a nation like ours, where military might trumps diplomatic finesse, the supreme irony may be that the planet, and not human beings, will provide the most powerful corrective to political overreaching. The earth can no longer absorb the punishment of war, especially on a scale and with a ferocity that only the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world--no, in history--knows how to deliver. While the US military directed its "Operation Iraqi Freedom" solely against the Iraqis, no one--not a single citizen in any part of the globe--has escaped its fallout. When we declare war on a nation, we now also declare war on the earth, on the soil and plants and animals, the water and wind and people, in the most far-reaching and deeply-infecting ways. War insinuates itself, like an aberrant gene, and, left unchecked, will eventually destroy the earth's entire system.

As we contemplate America in the opening years of the twenty-first century, we might reconsider George Washington's farewell warning that "overgrown military establishments . . . under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." Today, our own military has grown beyond a mere hostility to liberty and wrapped its arms of death around life itself. And it will not let go. Unless we all garner the strength to confront the military, it will continue to work its evil.

I write as a citizen, not a politician; as a layman, not a scientist; as an outsider from the academy, not an insider from the Pentagon. Most of the information that I present here the Department of Defense (DoD) withholds from the general public, makes intentionally obscure, folds inside arcane reports, and hides on hard-to-find governmental websites. Researching the military is like trying to uncover the truth in the former Soviet Union. I rely on my own digging--in military manuals, government and anti-government websites, in reference books, exposes, and an increasing supply of leaked memos. I also rely heavily on the work of a dedicated and dogged cadre of snoops, who have managed to mine important data from the most varied and, at times, the most unlikely of sources and have published their findings on blogs and webs and e-newsletters. The country owes a great deal of thanks to that motley band of Insurgents of the Internet. In many cases, they have put the major newspapers to shame.

To determine even something as straightforward as the exact number of GIs in Iraq turns out to be complicated. The "surge" confounds things even more, what with various stop-orders and early-rotation orders in place, shortened training-periods, National Guard call-ups, along with requests by field generals for thousands more Military Police and support battalions. To say nothing of civilian contractors, some of whom are well armed and armored.

When Bush announced his new strategy on January 10, 2007, he said he planned to supplement the approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq with an additional 21,500. That projected supplement now exceeds 35,000, with another 12,000 National Guard soldiers, deployed in June 2007, on top of that number. That totals roughly 177,000 GIs, but who really knows what the actual number is, or what it will eventually turn out to be? General David Patraeus, the top military-commander in Iraq, promised we would know the exact figure by the end of May. But he never revealed that number. Add to that 177,000 the troops in what the Pentagon refers to as the "War Theater"--Iraq and its neighboring countries--and that number increases by another 100,000, to a whopping 277,000.

In August 2006, while the President reported that the number of troops in Iraq hovered somewhere between 140,000 and 160,000, the Congressional Research Service, quoting the DoD's Contingency Tracking System, put the total deployment well past that figure--at 260,000. Chalmers Johnson, in his book Blowback, argues for a much higher total number of troops. Citing the DoD's Base Structure Report, which itemizes foreign and domestic military real estate, Johnson points out that, for the fiscal year ending 2003, the Pentagon owned or rented 702 bases in about 130 foreign countries. For fiscal 2005, I found that the figure had risen 22 percent, to 860 bases, in the same number of foreign countries. Johnson maintains that we must add in the more than 500,000 soldiers, dependents, technicians, and civilian contractors, along with their rolling and flying stock, that the US has stationed in those foreign countries. The actual number of personnel on active duty, including Afghanistan, thus comes closer to one million.

One question, and one question only, drives this piece: how much does the United States military add each year to worldwide pollution? To say it in a more pointed way: how much does the military contribute to that most dire and most imminent of problems, global warming? I am particularly interested in this question whenever the military ratchets up its presence, and that means now, for during times of war, the military's use of fossil fuel radically increases. (In 1940, for example, the armed forces accounted for one percent of the nation's total energy consumption. Five years later, as World War II got underway, that number increased to twenty nine percent.)

I have limited myself to the current invasion of Iraq. Adding Afghanistan onto what I have found, of course, increases the numbers. I also limit myself to the US military. I could have easily picked the Israeli military, but I live in this country. Its actions represent me; I aim at making change here first. And so, I want to determine just how much damage America has visited on the planet these past four years since that first evening of "Shock and Awe," March 20, 2003, when 1,700 aircraft--bombers, fighters, and other warships--flew 830 strike sorties on critical targets, and fired 504 cruise missiles, directly into the heart of Baghdad. (I will take up the subject of Afghanistan later in this essay.) In the space of two days, the US military delivered eight hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles--one every four minutes, day and night, for forty-eight hours. Eight hundred cruise missiles--each one weighing close to 3,000 pounds--a total of 2,400,000 pounds of explosives, or 1,200 tons.

How can we fathom that number--2,400,000 pounds of explosives? And what does that term actually mean that we use so easily and with such facility--an explosive? What actually explodes? What lives? Who dies? Certainly, no one really knows like Iraqi families, who carry out their lives, or try to, directly beneath bombs that fall on their homes, or IEDs that explode in their markets or mosques or schools. And for those who survive, what kinds of chemicals are they breathing? What sort of polluted water are they drinking? How much contaminated produce are they eating? To answer these questions, we must consider more than greenhouse gases and the atmosphere. We must concentrate on the earth itself, the grit and dirt that people walk on and in which they grow their fruits and vegetables, and so I look at the pollution of the land, the animals, the rivers, lakes, and the ocean, by the United States military. In Iraq, that means confronting more than the ordinary pollution. For a United Nations report, dated 2005, estimates that four million pounds of low-level but radioactive dust, the residue from spent munitions made with depleted uranium, has settled over the deserts and cities of Iraq. Which means that a good deal of the country is now radioactive. How could that have happened? How did we allow that to happen? Several questions of perhaps even more importance now: How can that horrific condition be corrected? Is it even possible?

I start the story with the combat vehicles, planes, and helicopters, and then only with a selection of them. The vital statistics for almost all armament--their type and number--remain highly classified. By my count, the US Armed Forces currently commands the deserts and the neighborhoods of Iraq with about 30,000 vehicles. (According to its own figures, the DoD inventory of non-tactical vehicles worldwide totals 187,493, thirteen per cent of which it keeps overseas.) These vehicles consist of hundreds of that most ubiquitous military mule, the Jeep, along with other familiar vehicles like Chevrolet Suburbans and Humvees. The sight of those SUVs might make you think you were in the States, until you noticed the thick armor plate. Armor often means the difference between living and dying, and so the Army relies on heavily armored machines like the HMMWV (M1114), the Guardian Armored Security Vehicle M1117, (popular with MPs), the Cougar HEV Armored Truck, the LAV (light armored vehicle), the ICV (infantry carrier vehicle), the Stryker troop carrier, the High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle M1151, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M-1 Abrams tank, and a behemoth called the Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protective vehicle, a 30-ton armored bus for ferrying VIPs, and popularly known as the Rhino Runner. Military brass covet the Rhino Runner, for it holds the distinction as the most heavily armored, safest vehicle ever manufactured.

These are but a few of the vehicles in the Army's inventory. The military uses scores of other, more obscure tracked- and wheeled-vehicles as well. As you can imagine, such armored vehicles do not sit lightly on the ground. A United Nations environmental report about the first Gulf War points to the damage inflicted by seventy-ton tanks like the M-1 Abrams on the ecology of the desert: "Approximately fifty percent of Kuwait's land area has had its fragile soil surface destroyed as scores of tanks moved out of that country each day and headed for Iraq." Once the surface of the earth has broken apart, the report goes on, the wind has an easier job of eroding even more land mass.

The military--the Army, Navy, and Air Force--leads the world, of course, in its wide range of flying machines, like the fixed-wing A-10 Attack Jet, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the F/A-18 and F/A-18 E Super Hornet, the CASA 212, a short take-off and landing-transport aircraft, the B-52, B1B and B-2 bombers, the MQ-1 Predator, and rotary-wing helicopters like the Blackhawk, the CH 47 twin-rotor, the H-53E Sea Stallion, the CH-53D Super Stallion, the MH-53J Pave Low III, and the MH-53E Sea Dragon (the world's largest helicopter), along with dozens of other fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, including headline-grabbing monsters like the F-22, B-52, F-111 and the F-117 Stealth Bomber. In all, I count 43 different types of fighter planes, 11 attack planes, 13 bombers, 16 cargo planes, and 9 different kinds of helicopters--all told, ninety-two different kinds of aircraft.

Military brass also operates its own private airline, known as the Air Mobility Command or AMC. The Pentagon prefers to keep these planes, for the most part, off the record. The AMC consists of a fleet of long-range C-17 Globemasters, C-5 Galaxies, C-141 Starlifters, KC-135 Stratotankers, KC-10 Extenders, and C-9 Nightingales. As an additional perk, for generals and admirals, the military has on hand for their private use 71 Lear jets, 13 Gulfstream IIIs, and 17 Cessna Citation luxury jets.

These armored vehicles, planes, and luxury planes, consume close to two million reported gallons every day of oil, a commodity that some critics of the war say we are fighting to protect. But such a contradiction should not seem so strange, for the business of the military, in times both of peace and war, is oil itself. The US must have adequate supplies of oil to maintain its position as the most prosperous nation in the world. Of the Army's top ten gas-guzzlers, only the M-1 Abrams tank and the Apache helicopter are combat vehicles. As for the rest, ironically, the military needs most of these fuel-famished vehicles--along with a good number of its troops--for re-supplying its vast fleet of fuel-dependent combat vehicles and fighter planes.

These support vehicles consume over half the fuel in the battlefield. Fuel is the lifeblood of these vehicles, and they require it in astonishing amounts, consume it with astonishing speed, and demand it with astonishing rapidity. To complicate things even more, the military currently uses fourteen different kinds of fuel products, from gasoline and diesel to a range of highly-toxic jet fuels--either kerosene or naphtha-derived--including the latest development, JP-8, designed to burn at a very high temperature in very cold climates.

No wonder, then, that the DoD is the largest purchaser and consumer of fuel of any agency or country in the world. It is--no surprise--also the largest polluter. According to the US Defense Energy Support Center (the governmental agency charged with buying fuel for all branches of the military, located at Fort Belvoir, in Virginia) Fact Book, the military fuel consumption for fiscal 2004 hit 144 million barrels. That amounts to 395,000 barrels of oil per day, almost the as much as the daily energy consumption of Greece. Only three countries consume more oil per capita than the DoD: Gibraltar, Netherland Antilles, and Singapore. For just the first three weeks of combat in Iraq, the Army calculated that its branch alone would require more than 40 million gallons of fuel, an amount equivalent to the total gasoline used by all Allied Forces combined during the four years of World War I.

For that same fiscal year, 2004, the DESC, itself, spent its yearly budget of 3.5 billion dollars for 110 million barrels of petroleum products. That represents such a colossal amount of fuel I feel compelled to let the DESC boast about its own numbers: "That's enough fuel for 1,000 cars to drive around the world 4,620 times--or 115.5 trillion miles." In gas station numbers, that's 2,200,000,000 gallons of fuel. In fiscal 2005, the DESC purchased 128 million barrels of fuel at a cost of 8.5 billion dollars, or 2,560,000,000 gallons of gasoline! If the average passenger vehicle holds 20 gallons, one could fill up 128 million of them right to the brim.

Comments

[zagyzebra]

The real war that needs to be won by the U.S. is the one over alternative fuel. For the nation that wins that race will become the next superpower. Not the nation with the greatest military might.

[longnow]

IMO long range planners have already conceded
that we will lose one or two cities to radiation
and or nuclear attack. The DOD knows that we
have encouraged the crazies of the world to
bring their limited resources to bear on
doing just that. Want to know what they're
thinking? Want to know what drives this madness?
Think in those terms. Think of people who
don't really need an excuse to go into a
raging fugue. Chaney's MO is fight the war
now, on our terms, and if another 911 happens,
he thinks, let it happen before 11/08.
This will be his parting gift to the GOP
and their candidates. Bomb the crap out
of a country AND WAIT FOR BLOW BACK to
happen at an opportune time. He'll be
relieved if it's "only" a few suicide
bombers or a few ferries in Seattle.
He really isn't all that crazy, you know.

[BushSunkOurShip]

This shows people that Bush and our government really doesn't give a damn about their citizens or the people of the world.
We now have a government that is controlled by the elite and global corporations and even the democrats have now joined the group.
American citizens no longer have a say in developing & creating the policies and actions of our government.
The people controlling our government has become arrogant, deceitful and corrupted and their only concern is for more power and wealth for themselves.
They look at the world as being two group of people.
The first group of course being the largest are their workers (slaves) and in their opinion are up-educated, so there forth should not be involved in the creating or developing of policies which govern this country or the world.
Then of course the elite group, of course themselves, being the wealthy and people that should make all the policies and decisions to govern our country and the world.
This is the same type of government in which our forefathers fought the revolution in order to create our nation; a country of democracy , freedom and controlled by the majority of citizens in which "everyone voted" and have a "voice" in creating our policies, which no longer exist, because the elite with their greed for power and wealth has deleted all rights and freedom for their subjects...
They now will teach us how to respect and cheer them in a manner that is respectful for alL .

[Vajara]

Thank you, Senator. It is about time that our politicians begin to point out the impact on our natural and social environments by war--bombs, vehicles, transportation and other military resources.

We also must eventually see the impact of these chemicals and petrolium products on our troops. eg. our Vietnam and Korea vets are still experiencing physical, mental and emotional symptoms that are hard to detect during their duty abroad.

I don't hear any of our presidential candidates or news media speaking out on this subject. War is Hell and everyone knows it, they just won't stand up for our country, collateral damage, and our military forces.

The truth will eventually prevail, but it may be too late to change the course we are headed.

[Dandy12]

"War is bad for all living things" and "It's nature's way of telling you that something's wrong", sayings, lyrics and truisms of the 1960's and 1970's. "Waste not, want not".
We are the most wasteful nation in the world in all respects.

[hippynanainblingland]

Another very a propos truism, thanks to author of "Woman on the Edge of Time", Marge Piercy: we live in the "Age of Greed and Waste."

[Plowboy]

As tourists travel in Wales, they find some interesting attractions: those fortress castles Longshanks built, not to protect anybody but to cow the Welsh. They made me think of police stations in Northern Ireland during the past several, decades. In a healthy society, police stations are for ther protection of the public; they are open and present a friendly helpful image. But those were more like the Longshanks fortresses, meant to control the people.
Now, in Iraq, what are the key things America is building? Permantent looking military bases and this fortress of a Green Zone.
So is America there to protect or control?

[jannahanna]

Does the term "Green Zone" strike anyone else as ironic?

[HeevenSteven]

I appreciate that the DOD uses a s-load of oil. I'm NO fan of this war, or the M.I. complex; but this piece has too much hyperbole. For instance:

"Eight hundred cruise missiles --each one weighing close to 3,000 pounds-- a total of 2,400,000 pounds of explosives....How can we fathom that number --2,400,000 pounds of explosives?"

800 x 3,000 = 2.4 million. The entire missile weighs 3,000 lbs; the warhead containing the explosives is certainly in the hundreds of pounds --500lbs at most-- not 3,000.

You asked how much the DOD contributes to global warming, but then buried us in a bunch of numbers without answering that question.

The best figure here is the 2004 DOD total of 144 million barrels of oil --395k/day. The country uses close to 21 mil brls/day. So DOD accounts fot 1.9 percent of the nations daily consumption --a, s--t load to be sure; and at some 80 mil brls/day of oil consumed world wide, about 0.5% of world total.

Now it's my understanding that liquid transportation fuels account for about 20% of CO2 production; and assuming that the lion's share of DOD energy use is liquid transportation fuel, in really rough numbers the DOD produces 0.1% of world-wide CO2. So 99.9% of CO2 production does not come from DOD sources. Q.E.D. (Quite Easily Done)

I think there are bigger fish to fry in the global warming solution, and much better reasons to scale back the "Empire".

[floridagal]

Thanks for your report. I have long been saying that the increase in gas prices is due to supply and demand, and that our occupation of Iraq is a major reason that the demand is up and the supply is down. We went to Iraq for oil, but we are using oil to get oil. Are we using more than we will get? Are we wasting the oil with this war? Is our country totally crazy?

[Overd0g]

True. Although you're not considering the positive impact on global warming that killing people has. Each person killed represents possibly thousands of carbon dioxide emitters in the future, had they not been killed. It is a worthy goal however, to reduce the carbon footprint of killing machines so they don't greatly exceed the future carbon value of the beings they kill. Given that a typical human emits 1kg of CO2 per day, they will emit something like 22000kg in a lifetime. Multiply that by potential offspring, and the amount is staggering. In conclusion, an efficiently conducted war, using green weapons, can actually be an instrument in reducing global warming. I call for another Manhattan project.

[Overd0g]

And no, I'm not serious. Just pointing out the dubious value of criticizing war based on the amount of carbon emissions created.

[Yukon Jack]

Senator Sanders,

please answer the following:

1. What is the square footage of your home?

a. do you maintain such homes in Vermont as well as in D.C.??

b. if you do, why? D.C. is only a four hour drive from Vermont.

c. What does three-quarters of your post have to do with being "GREEN"?? Isn't it just another way to bash the administration??

2. What is your vehicle?

3. What does your wife drive?

4. What do your children drive?

Just curious.

P.S. If you are "INDEPENDENT" as you claim, how come you NEVER have anything in common with the Republicans?? How come you blindly caucus with thec Democrats?

Once again, just curiuos.

[StephenWilliams]

Senator? Did I miss something or can't you read?

[Economike]

Yeah, I thought he was a football player.

[Yukon Jack]

Your laconic post left no indication whether you questioned Barry Sanders's claim to be the real, legitimate Senator of Vermont or if you had some doubts about my addressing Mr. Sanders as "Senator" of the great state of Vermont.

In either case, yes, you MISSED something.

I do not expect you to answer the posed questions (and really preferred if you did not even try) on Mr. Sanders's behalf, but that being the case, please, keep your nose out of areas it does not belong.

[ultomatt]

The Senator is Bernie, not Barry. Gonna have to get pissed at Bernie for something else.

[nopartygal]

Ummm... 'Barry' does not equal 'Bernie'. This blog was not written by Bernie Sanders. But if you want to read one from him, here is his current one:

"Why I Will Vote "No" on Mukasey"
Posted October 26, 2007 | 03:13 PM (EST)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/why-i-will-vote-no-on-m_b_70043.html

Enjoy! :)

[Ais4Atheist]

well you have to admit, bernie and barry's appearances are strikingly similar...

[wldnswmmr]

It's true that the writer is not Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator from Vermont. It remains true, however, that Washington D.C. is about a 4 hour drive from Vermont, and for that insight, we should credit this trenchant comment.

[Purple Girl]

Our Gov't - esp this admin- practice the refined art of Projection. We, the mere individual is responsible for all global probelms. We are addicted to oil, we are over extended on our credit, we pollute the air with cigareetes, we eat too much fatty foods, we don't want universal health care, we don't want to end the War, we are devoted to our Gov't policies and corporate goals. we are greed and shallow and evil, not them.
The World Hates US (for our Freedoms..???). they hate US for our Freedoms- thats why they are constantly pushing to elimiante them. And Ultimately is is US who pays for their lies, sins, crimes. We pay with not just money and resources bu our lives an dthe lives of our decendants.the real enemies of the republic sit in 'leadership roles'. they have set US up not only to be hated by the world- but also have set in motion an , at least, philosophical war amongst US. What othe rconclusion can a thinking person come too- esp in light of the recent addition to legislation that adds another gag to our mouths. "Give me Liberty or give me death". the line in the sand has become a crevasse- choose your side before the chasm widens and no choice remains."Aint gonna work on Maggies farm no more"

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

Another "hate America" person amongst us with no clue to reality.Do some research barny

[Economike]

Maybe, what you think America is.

[ConnieInCleveland]

As Cheney seeks war with Iran and the use of tactical nukes on nuclear sites in Iran, no one is talking about what it would do to the environment. Once these neocons do it, will anyone survive the fallout? Americans need to stand up and stop this madness. The World needs to stand up, so we can get these madmen to stand down. George W. has explained over and over how the Iraqi's can stand up so we can stand down. I think AMERICANS NEED TO STAND UP, SO WE CAN CONVINCE THESE NEOCONS TO STAND DOWN! WE CAN STAND UP!! BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

Lets stand down so these crazy maniacs can take over with nuclear weapons in their back pocket.Get a clue connie.

[Abenormal]

Hello time to wake up america. We are in world war 3, the fight for the last of the oil rescources.
Soon there will be no more holidays. It's the end of the long road trip. The military will have total control of the resource. Imagine waking up and finding out that the only way you're going to get to work is on your bicycle or walking. Imagine you've flown out to Alaska for the perfect vacation and suddenly all flights cancelled due to lack of oil. How long will it take you to get home again?
The price is at 90+ dollars a barrel and we're still drinking it like it'll never run out!!

[dragn1]

I would actually go along with the author that says we are in WWIV but you can save your breath because these people are not going to listen. Until gas is 8 or 9 dollars a gallon they will keep on with the fantasy that there is oil forever. A well respected think tank came out with its view that we have passed the high point of oil supply it is down hill from here but what does the market do? Ramp up! Are people setting aside food or water for a bad month when money is tight? No Way! Gotta have them new curtains or shoes or ipod. Is anyone worrying about what happens when people do not have food and water? Katrina was a city what happens when it is a lot of cities because good cannot get through because of no gas.
Is anyone worrying that we have groups in this country now that say they want Sharia law imposed? Nope!
12 to 20 million illegal are in this country but they are just looking for work. What if 10 percent want more then work. Maybe northern Mexico. Now that you are laughing lets look at reality. Fires, Floods and any of the above issues;as crazy as they may sound; could cause issues for weeks and we have people living paycheck to paycheck on food and water with no backup. I am sorry people but the government is not going to be able to help. Make sure you have 3 to 4 weeks of water and food for yourselves and try and help your neighbors.

[Overd0g]

Why so gloomy. Once the oil is gone, we can have a agrarian utopia. So materialistic.

[Economike]

Time to get a horse.

[dragn1]

Not sure it will be that easy to go to a nice agraian utopia with all the hungry people around and as for the horse might have some issue from the former owner unless you have some now. Also you should not talk about post oil times to much. Next you will start stocking food and water then fuel and ammo and then people will whisper about you and they will call you eeeek a survialist. I am not sure but how did being someone ready for a disaster become a bad thing.

[Jonahson]

Barry, you forgot about those mercenaries and Iraq forces they too use humvees and other bulky armoured vehcles. What about those large transpoters used to ferry supplies to the green zone and other places.
Come to think of it those combine forces together with the mercenaries and Iraq army already exceeds half million and just to fight kids with IED.

[maddogbitesback]

For the cost of the war how many windmills and solar panels could have been given to the people of the United States. The effect of the war works as a double negative. Less energy efficient technical progress and more overwhelming debt. The US could be living better and competing better in the world market if it had just got off oil altogether. More efficient industry would have brought cheaper goods into the market. China would have to compete with a new up to date America. The poor could all afford electricity. But that would not have helped Exxon or Haliburton.

[CyrusBeaucephus]

Exactly--this whole fiasco has been about a huge handout of corporate welfare, under the phony guise of security, freedom, democracy, or whtever else they will tell us before it is over. For that huge outlay of national treasure and lives we could have achieved any goal we wanted to as a people. Universal Health care and energy independence. Instead we end up helping corporations, Israel, and the rich. Moral of the story is--"Never trust Whitey" . We (America) F*cked up--we trusted them. Big mistake

[DickTater]

You blew it for me Cyrus. "Whitey"? There are more white people that hate what is going on than white people who condone it. "Money" is what you should have said.

I agree with Barry Sanders. How about the numbers he is NOT bringing you? How about how much oil, energy, escaped gasses had to go into building 2 million pounds of bombs? How about just the gas burned in delivering them?

One thing that STUNS me, from TOP TO BOTTOM in the armed services (and even worse in their suppliers) that because 'National Security' may be at stake....EVERYTHING is allowable. To save one life, dump a whole fueltank. To save one military objective, blow up an oilfield. To show them we mean business, blow up a chem plant.

I have said for years, the entire gas savings of entire small town could be wiped out with one Battleship making an extra circle around an island somewhere.

And the military...gawd. They dump more chemicals and nasty stuff off the back of their ships...I mean the military has procedures that would make us all puke. And everything is A OK because it has to do with War, National Security, Life or Death...blah blah. Just because we are at war does not mean that all old drums of floor cleaner in San Diego have to be dumped in the ocean.

I don't have any great answers about how we change this mindset. Yes, we need a military. But the military mindset of doing whatever, however, to whomever just because their 'bidness' is important is killing off huge swaths of life. "We're saving lives" they grunt. Dichotomy in a nutshell.

[Overd0g]

Agreed. But coming up with a true alternative to oil isn't easy, despite what you might think. It is has not be shown possible to create energy more efficiently than burning oil, except nuclear. And only the French and Iranians seem to be enamored with nuclear.

[laocoon]

I have a friend who just converted his van to run on vegetable oil. It was neither very difficult nor expensive. At this time the oil is free as you can use oil that has had food cooked in it. Restaurants now pay to have used oil taken away. the exhaust fumes smell like french fries.
all my adult life I have hearing about developing alternative energy but it seems that it is never allowed to be a viable option for most. Remember Bush gave huge tax breaks to buy SUV's. Why? the bush administration has been primarily about price support for the petro industry.