The second gasoline war and how we can prevent the third
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7381.171 (Published 18 January 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:171
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Perhaps, Bush and Blair are after Iraq's oil, but there are many
reasons not to love Sadam.
1- A dictator.
2- Gassed the Kurds.
3- Gassed the Iranians.
4- Got 99.9% of the votes in the last election. No freedom of choice.
5- Sent Scuds to Israel, noncombatants in the Kuwait war.
6-Support terrorim and terrorists. Remember Abu Nidal.
Now, it's cheaper to buy oil, than to conquer a distant nation and
alienate friends all over the world. The Age of Imperialism is over.
If oil turns out to be too expensive, there are ways to reduce it's
use.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
the technology exists, and has existed for years, to bypass the need
for oil/gasoline to feed our vehicles via the "hybrid" which is no more
expensive than the run-of-the-mill war machine vehicle -
we are told by the military-industrial-newsmongers that there is no
"demand" for these vehicles, and hence, we must churn out the standard
variety -
there is no demand?
since when?
and whose brainchild was the hideous SUV?
the same military-industrial complex mechanism which touts bigger must be
better/drive as if you own the road, and some of you probably do! hah!
time to buy the hybrid, folks, and stop fueling the need for the excesses
of the all-too-ready oil-rich war machine.
is it a coincidence that bushie is from texas?
and cheney is from halliburton?
methinks not!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir, Prof. Roberts view on inevitable war in Iraq is politically
naïve and misleading. He says that the reason for this war is not western
imperialism as claimed by the left but United States dependence on oil. He
says, “Even before the first shot has been fired, there have been
discussions about how Iraq’s oil reserves will be carved up”. These are
two contradictory political views. The dictionary definition of
imperialism (which is different to the political and philosophical
definition) is “the policy of annexing the territory of, and ruling, other
nations and people”. If a war is waged to change a government and take
control of its wealth, it is an imperial war by definition. This
imperialism is different to the imperial wars of the past. Some countries
will be annexed with what is called diplomacy with threat of military
action in the name of human rights and democracy. The western superpowers
will not directly control the people and the wealth of those countries as
in the past but by western superpower erected governments. This is neo-
imperialism.
1.Roberts I. The second gasoline war and how we can prevent the
third. BMJ 2003:326:171
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Roberts’s proposal (1) to prevent the third gasoline war (“We must
reclaim the streets, promote walking and cycling, strengthen public
transport, oppose new road construction, pay the full social cost of car
use, and advocate for land use policies that reduce the need for car
travel”) is in line with WHO’s policy on transport (2): “Healthy transport
means reducing driving and encouraging more walking and cycling, backed up
by better public transport. The evidence: Cycling, walking and the use of
public transport promote health in four ways. They provide exercise,
reduce fatal accidents, increase social contact and reduce air pollution”.
Roberts added a 5th (and major) way: prevention of war.
WHO also had (and I hope has) an inspired policy against war (3):
“This book proposes targets for health for all in the Region. To reach
these targets, much will have to be done to improve specific health-
related aspects of lifestyles, environmental conditions and health care,
but such improvements will have little effect if certain fundamental
conditions are not met. Without peace and social justice, without enough
food and water, without education and decent housing, and without
providing each and all with a useful role in society and an adequate
income, there can be no health for the people, no real growth and no
social development”.
Freedom from the fear of war is the first prerequisite for health: “War is
the most serious of all threats to health. The devastation that a nuclear
war would entail in terms of people killed, wounded and permanently
disabled simply defies imagination. The dropping of a one-megaton bomb
over a large city would kill more than 1.5 million people and injure as
many. It has been estimated that a ‘limited’ nuclear war, with smaller
tactical nuclear weapons delivering a total of 20 megatons on military
targets in a relatively densely populated area, would exact a toll of
about 9 million dead and seriously injured, while a full-scale war
exploding 10000 megatons of nuclear bombs would kill 1150 million people
and injure 1100 million, so that more than half the world's population
would be immediate victims. The impact of such an event on the world
environment would be immense.
However, it must not be forgotten that conventional war is also a terrible
threat to humanity. The immense devastation of the Second World War is
only a small indication of what could result from a major international
armed conflict today given the more destructive ‘conventional’ weapons now
available.
But peace is not just the absence of war. It is also a positive sense of
wellbeing and security for people of all countries, implying the
opportunity to freely determine their own destiny and fully exploit their
human potential. It assumes the possibility of all nations actively
participating on a basis of equality and in a true spirit of solidarity
and reciprocity in the development of a more satisfying world for all
people. An important point in this regard is that in Europe, at the
present time, it is not war itself that presents health problems but the
fear of war. The increasing international tension in recent years has
raised this level of apprehension to a point that severely hampers the
opportunities for all peoples in the Region to work together in harmony
for a better future.
All these elements contributed to the recent decision of the General
Assembly of the United Nations to adopt resolution 38/113 stressing once
again the urgent need for the international community to make every effort
to remove the growing threat of war.
There are some things that the health sector can do that fit in with its
basic role and that can help to reduce international tension. In each
country, the health sector should take the lead in promoting close, long-
term collaboration on health problems across national borders. The
bilateral and international research, meetings and contacts involved, in
addition to improving health, will increase understanding and forge links
among individuals, institutions and countries, thus serving to reduce
international tension and demonstrating the value of mutual cooperation.
Moreover, each national health sector should take responsibility for
creating a better understanding of what a war, and particularly a nuclear
war, would really mean for health, and thus strengthen the motivation for
peace. By analyzing objectively the extent of human destruction, suffering
and disability that a war would entail in their country, by giving a
realistic analysis of how little its health services would be able to do
to treat the civilian and military casualties, and by making these facts
known and understood by politicians and the general public, the health
sector could help to encourage a more active search for ways of preventing
war from ever breaking out again.
At the international level, the WHO has taken the initiative in this
respect with the adoption by the World Health Assembly and the later
distribution of the report concerning Effects of nuclear war on health and
health services. Such efforts should be continued”.
War was 17th cause of DALYs worldwide in 1990; unfortunately it is
forecasted to be 8th in 2020 (4). War is increasingly a major public
health issue, and WHO is the World’s Public Health advocator. Then, WHO
should take the lead. Though “The main responsibility for attaining these
objectives lies outside the health sector. This responsibility must be
fully recognized at all levels of policy-making in countries so that
priorities in overall national development take into account the need to
strengthen those aspects of life that are a prerequisite for health” (3),
WHO could take the responsibility to bring up those aspects -war first of
all- in world’s agenda.
(1) Roberts I. The second gasoline war and how we can prevent the
third. BMJ 2003;326:171.
(2) WHO-Europe. Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts. Copenhagen
1998: 26-27. (EUR/ICP/CHVD030901:
http://www.euro.who.int/document/e59555.pdf or
http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/who/progs/hcp/documentation/20010918_10,
accessed 20 Jan 2003).
(3) World Health Organization- Europe. Targets for health for all.
Copenhagen 1985: 13-15 (ISBN 9289010347).
(4) Murray CJL, Lopez AD, Eds. The global burden of disease: a
comprehensive assessment of mortality and morbidity from diseases,
injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1996.
Competing interests:
As a member of humanity and as a public health professional I have competing interests with war.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor,
The horrors of the war being contemplated by Bush, Blair and Howard
are not confined to the maiming and killing of innocent men women and
children - another dimension was exposed in the war in Vietnam.
Here is an account by Sergeant Scott Camil, 1st Battalion, 11th
Marine Regiment 1st Marine Division. ‘I saw one case where a woman was
shot by a sniper, one of our snipers. When we got up to her she was asking
for water. And the lieutenant said to kill her. So he ripped off her
clothes, they stabbed her in both breasts, they spread her eagle and
shoved an E tool up her vagina, an entrenching tool, and she was still
asking for water. And then they took that out and they used a tree limb
and then she was shot.’ [1]
This is but one of the atrocities committed by American troops. Read
of others in Susan Brownmiller’s Book.[1]
Muslim countries currently aiding the forces of America, Britain and
Australia preparing to assault Iraq should reflect on what might be the
fate of their sisters in Iraq should the invasion succeed.
It is not too late for Governments of Turkey, Yemen, Saudi Arabia,
Oman and Kuwait to expel the enemies of Iraq before they perform their
hideous crimes against the daughters of Islam.
And it is not too late for the women of all nations, particularly
America, Britain and Australia, to confront their leaders with the
historical reality of the rape of women by conquering armies [1] and
demand they cease preparing to attack an innocent people.
Michael Innis
Reference:
1. Brownmiller. S. Against Our Will. Men, Women and Rape (From ancient
Greek Warriors to American soldiers in Vietnam) Bantam Books Published by
arrangement with Simon and Schuster Inc 1975 pp 112-3
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Fact and Thought
Editor,
Professor Ian Roberts (BMJ Personal view, 18 January 2003)
offers his thoughts on the cause of a possible war against Iraq. To imply
that the first Gulf war waged in Kuwait was over the American’s desire for
oil is ridiculous. That war was waged because Saddam invaded Kuwait, a
point omitted by Professor Roberts. In other words, if Saddam had not
invaded Kuwait, the first gulf war would not have happened. If it had been
a gasoline war on behalf of the US, Arab states such as Saudi Arabia would
not have sanctioned and joined the coalition led by the US.
In another sense though, Professor Roberts is right: the first Gulf
war was about oil. Saddam has started 2 external wars, the first being
against Iran, the second Kuwait. Both wars were an attempt to acquire the
oil fields of those 2 respective countries. Had he been successful, his
aim would be then, most llikely, to invade Saudi Arabia (which is the
reason why Saudi wants such a large US presence in Saudi). Then he would
have gained control of the majority of the Middle East oil. He could then
switch off the oil supply, or hugely increased the price. Either course of
action would have caused catastrophic consequences with the (near)
collapse of the world economies and the consequences thereof, including
mass unemployment and disruption to the social fabric in many countries.
Is that what Professor Roberts wants?
Other points Professor Roberts needs to address are:
* If these are gasoline wars why does the US not attack
Venezuela, Nigeria etc which would be much easier financially and
politically?
* Why did the US attack Afghanistan which has no oil?
* If the proposed Iraqi war is about the US and oil, why did
Syria vote in favour of the first resolution?
All nations have cars, and many of us use them, appreciating the
freedom and convenience they give us; it is unfair to pillory the US
simply because it is the biggest economy. In any event, we can buy the oil
from Iraq - that is simpler and cheaper, financially and politically. It
is appropriate that the future of oil production post Saddam is discussed
and the US is trying to reassure the Russians etc will not be frozen out.
Professor Roberts then discourses on road traffic accidents. What
relevance has that to the Iraq problem? GM, like many major companies, are
expending substantial sums on improving the efficiency of the combustion
engine, as well as developing other technologies such as fuel cells. The
latter look as if they will be realized and will produce virtually no
pollution. But people will still be killed on the roads, as that is the
nature of transport. Similarly arguments about car use and obesity,
diabetes etc although true have got nothing to do with Iraq. Does
Professor advocate the banning of cars?
We do not accept the carnage on the roads – we have many laws and
technologies to try and reduce the numbers killed and injured.
I take offence to Professor Roberts’ snide remark about leafy garden
suburbs – many people like to live in such places with gardens for
children to play in, to run around in and get exercise. Many parents wish
to live and bring up children in such environments, regarding them as
better than ‘dirty crowded cities.’ Is that what Professor Roberts wants
when he talks of ‘ “urban villages” ’? Does he wish us all to live in
townscapes like Manhattan, towering blocks where thousands live? How much
exercise is a child going to get going up and down in lifts? One of the
joys of childhood is playing safely in the garden, but having gardens
takes space.
Professor Roberts needs to base his arguments more on fact and thought.
Yours sincerely
William D H Carey
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests