With my brother on his second tour in Iraq, I began thinking about what we as citizens could do to fight terrorism. All I could think of was stop using so much gasoline. 20% of US oil purchases go to the Middle East, and some of that money helps to finance terrorist recruiting and equipment. Since 40% of our oil usage is from transportation, we could make an impact. If my driving less or in a more fuel efficient vehicle means one less roadside bomb killing our soldiers, it's worth it to me.

Questions for Debate: Is curbing our oil consumption the best way for everyday citizens to combat terrorism? Why has the government not raised the FLEET average requirement for miles per gallon on vehicles or raised the gasoline tax to encourage less oil consumption?

Well, cutting back on oil consumption is probably a good idea in general for several reasons. However, I tend to think that it would have little, if any, effect on terrorism. The idea seems to be to starve terrorist organizations of money for their activities. It seems to me that even a large reduction in American oil consumption would, at most, reduce the flow of funds to Middle Eastern terrorist organizations a small amount. For one thing, I'm sure there are other sources of funds. For another, the rest of the world is going to continue to use oil. If anything, the use of oil is going to keep going up until there is a major breakthrough around the world in using other sources of energy.

As for why the government doesn't raise gasoline taxes, well, politicians want to be re-elected. Americans are already very upset by gasoline prices that would seem like a bargain in Europe, and any politician who votes to increase the price even more is going to be looking for another job.

Victoria, you hit the terrorists right smack square on the head.

Give up oil completely. We have the technologies and the resources to do it. Don't vote for pro-oil parties. Just stop it. Vote for anyone else, and preferably, vote for parties that are in favor of alternative energy sources.

Anything less is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

There ought to be a poster, a bumper sticker, a lapel pin.

Meanwhile, as we wait for a level of sanity to enter this world, sure. Drive less, buy fuel efficiency, walk more, ride a bike or scooter, turn the thermostat down, wear a sweater, go positively Carteristic on energy. It'll make you feel better.

The ultimate solution is on our coastlines, in our corn fields, above our heads and under our feet. It's the same the world over, and we can lead the energy revolution. All we need is the right leadership.

I don't think just giving up oil is a very well thought out or reasonable plan.

What about all the nations who are totally and absolutely dependent upon exports of oil? Wouldn't they suffer tremendously economically? Wouldn't such a shift of national wealth cause great social unrest and destabilization? Couldn't we even surmise that terrorist organizations would find more opportunities and conditions ripe for their benefit and political ascend?

Personally I think things like the promotion of education, women's rights, political reform, free trade, human right's protections and economic reform is the best tools we have for promoting peace and further reducing the attraction to such idealogues like al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc.

What the average person can do in regards to these I guess is all dependent upon the person.

Anything that reduces our dependence on foreign oil will help including raising the CAFÉ mileage numbers. Only Bush has done anything on this. Clinton did squat. Unfortunately the auto companies have far too much political power. I am against what would be high gas taxes. They are regressive and would be very unpopular.

But remember the equation has two sides. Why are we not trying to raise our internal supplies?
Like drill in the ANWAR “oil reserve”.
Drill offshore.
Build more refineries
Prohibit states from creating ‘boutique” gas formulas (like CA) or use 1 or 2 everywhere instead of 13.
Have a crash program to build new nuclear power plants.

How about serious mass transit and not just throwing good money after bad with Amtrak?

As OPEC just voted to keep current production levels Venezuela (the new Socialist government that hates us) pushed to lower production (to raise the price). Lets stop buying from CITCO which is owned by this country.

What about nations that have only one leg to stand on economically? If the US led the world in alternative energy, these countries could implement thier own energy plans to use what they have available. Even the worst of environments can be turned into productive hydroponic and greenhouse farmlands. There's one alternative that I have thought out all the way. How about making electricity and doing all the various things that can be done with electricity? If anyone can do this with the energy sources at hand, then the possibilities open up. Instead of piping oil all over creation, it could be fresh water, which is becoming in short supply around the world.

Heh, this could also be a solution for the melting glaciers threatening to raise the ocean levels. Desalinate and store in aquifers. Colorado has several big ones that have been drawn down over the decades. They're easy to refill. I think there's a huge one under the Sahara, and I bet if we look for aquifer formations instead of oil, they will be found.

At some point Arabian horses went out of demand in favor of oil. Now it's oil's turn to become obsolete. Countries like Saudi and Iran will need to figure out how to do things over again. If they are worth anything as human beings, this will happen. As for terrorism, what, they'll get ticked at us that we no longer exploit their natural resouces? That we leave them alone? I think terrorism against the US would go away in a generation or two. Terrorism against Israel is another issue, being as it is regional and not tied to oil or energy.

Developing alternative energy sources would actually equalize the field and avoid countries like China from massively urbanizing without regard to environmental impacts. Why do it with imported oil when plenty of domestic energy is available?

Meanwhile, your education points are good ones. Just how do you suppose these things can be brought about? I don't think they contradict alternative energy as a major national project, but dovetail into a positive outlook for the human race. We can do this if we have the right leadership.

Yes, Ted, we are more than aware of your hatred of all things CLinton, and your need to proclaim such in every post you make. You may want to check your facts before commenting, however.

From the 70s, when they were instituted, until the early 90s, the CAFE standards were done administratively, either through the White House, or the EPA, or some such. In fact, Clinton did get a small CAFE increase his first year in office, and NHTSA was talking in 1994 of increasing the standards again, for trucks, to be enacted by the end of the decade.

The Republican congress, however, in 1995 passed laws prohibiting the administration, the EPA, or the DoT from enacting new CAFE standards. This effectively tied the hands of the Clinton Administration, and ensured that CAFE standards would now have to come through legislation alone.

And except for Bush urging congress to increase the standards (which they have yet to do), or to allow the administration to do it again, I don't see where he's done anything either.


The best way? Hardly. There are certainly a far wider number of things we could do to effectively fight terrorism, than to cut off our noses to spite out faces. Reducing oil usage is good for a number of reasons, but I'm not sure that fighting terrorism is at the top of the list, or even in the top ten.


You'd have to ask congress that question. My best guess is because the Big-3 auto companies don't want to do the hard work necessary to raise the standards significantly, and certainly don't want the government to tell them even what the standards should be. And they spend an awful lot in campaign contributions to make sure they are listened to in congress.

Exactly and this will have an effect. If Bill was strong on the issue he could have done the same thing – and didn’t. Neither did the first Bush for that matter.


The real issue is out dependence on foreign oil requires us to be VERY concerned about the Middle East. If we were less so IMO we might not be in Iraq today.

It won't have any effect at all, if they don't raise the standards, or if they don't return the setting of CAFE standards to the administrative branch.

And if you think that Clinton didn't urge them to return the standards to the administration, your lack of research is showing again. Now, we can agree on the first Bush. He had the power to change the standards all by himself, and failed to do so. Well, that's not quite true.

The last time CAFE standards were really raised, was under Carter. Reagan actually rolled them back to levels originally set by the Ford administration. After Bush I took office, he allowed them to be raised back to Carter's levels, and left them there. He certainly didn't advocate raising them any further.


Wait a minute. Did I just read that correctly? Someone on the right who says we might have gone into Iraq for oil after all? Say it ain't so!

Not that it seems to have done us any good, mind you. All we've done with this war is end up destabilizing the oil markets. New fears of a possible conflict with Iran or other Middle East countries. Venezuela calling for higher oil prices and/or shutting off his supplies to the States.

I'd say we shot ourselves in the foot on this one.

To me that is the point Bucket. Instead of destabilizing Iraq with military force, the poor would become more likely to overthrow these tyrants themselves. By buying their product we are propping up corrupt regimes that teach their people to hate us.


I agree that those are good tools Bucket. I just don’t see how I can promote those things in the Middle East myself. The problem is that I’m depending on the government to do those things.


All good ideas, but they are also things that are so big that the average citizen isn’t likely to tackle this. Increasing domestic supply of oil alone is not going to be enough to cover what we currently buy anyway though. The government has to take dropping oil demand seriously like Brazil. Most of their cars run on ethanol and they do not import hardly any oil. So maybe running for office or voting is the best thing the average citizen can do.


Do you have another idea? What do you do to help the effort?

That is exactly what I said and why would anyone have a problem with it?? We are TOTALLY dependant on the oil there and if we were not thinking of protecting it we would be idiots wouldn’t we. Why defend little Kuwait? Perhaps the oil was as important to the US as it was to Saddam??? Think about it.


George W. Bush's Iraq War, while duplicitous in many respects, is actually the culmination of twenty-five years of U.S. policy to ensure continued domination of the Persian Gulf and its prolific oil fields. In fact, it was a natural expression of the Carter Doctrine. Enunciated by then-President Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union speech in January 1980, the doctrine defines Persian Gulf oil as a "vital interest" of the United States that must be defended "by any means necessary, including military force." Seen in this light, Bush Jr. was merely applying the doctrine when he invaded Iraq in 2003. He's not the first. President Reagan cited it to justify U.S. intervention in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 to help ensure the defeat of Iran. President Bush Sr. invoked it to authorize military action against Iraq in 1991, during the first Gulf War. And Bill Clinton, though not explicitly citing the doctrine, adhered to its tenets.
So the use of force to ensure U.S. access to Persian Gulf oil is not a Bush II policy or a Republican policy, but a bipartisan, American policy
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watc...Global_Oil.html

Well, individually, there is not much one person can do to "fight" terrorism. There are some things you can do to make the government's job easier, however.

Follow the recommended guidlines of someplace like FEMA or EpiCenter in terms of preparing in advance for an emergency like a natural disaster or terror attack. Stock away non-perishable food, bottled water, first-aid kits, cooking equipment. Enough to last at least 3 days and nights, and preferrably a week.

Now, as far as saving oil goes, I also have two small cars, an MG and a Suzuki wagon. We really only use them back and forth to work, and try to combine trips, so it's hard to save much more on gas with our family.

Also, I've noted in another thread here elsewhere, what we did to help "support our troops" at my place of employment.

Our local town's Guard unit was activated in 2003, and sent over to Iraq. They just came back a few weeks ago. At my hotel, two of our employees had spouses that were sent overseas. To help ease their burden, especially during the first few months, when there were necessarily going to be problems in adjusting, we asked for donations, and set up volunteers to help take care of their kids, so the single parent wouldn't have the extra expense of paying for child-care they may not be able to afford, or groceries, or whatever. We did something similar with the folks who had a spouse serving through our church.

The reason being, a lot of these people made more money in their civilian jobs than in the Guard or Reserve, and we wanted to make sure they didn't have to worry about how their families were coping at home, along with everything else they had to deal with.

So, overall, there may not be a lot you can do directly to fight terrorism, but there are some things you can do to make it easier on the folks who do fight it directly.