Secondly, the oil slicks created by saddam hussein were large but the vast bulk of the oil floating on the world's oceans comes from the over-industrialized world when supertankers clean out their holds and motorists dump used lubricating oil into the sewers which eventually runs into the world’s oceans.

Thirdly, in the 1980s, the allied coalition pushed saddam hussein into an eight year long war with iran. They provided iraq with the finance and weaponry to fight the war. The war degenerated into trench warfare which was no less barbaric than that which happened during the first world war. The war is estimated to have cost a million lives and caused an extensive degree of ecological destruction. The allies caused more ecological destruction in their proxy war against iran than saddam hussein did during the war against kuwait.

Finally, the ecological damage caused by iraq during the war was insignificant in comparison to the damage caused by the americans during the vietnam war. Even now, two decades after the event, the americans have done nothing to repair this damage.

The iraqis used oil as a military weapon by dumping oil into the environment. After the end of the war, iraq sabotaged over 700 kuwaiti oil wells. This caused a massive level of atmospheric pollution and, because some of the oil wells either failed to ignite, or were deliberately sabotaged to release oil, vast areas of desert were turned into oil lakes. The damage to kuwait's oil wells was a retaliation for the damage the allies inflicted on iraqi's oil facilities.[3]

Finally, a considerable amount of ecological damage was caused by both the allied coalition and the iraqi military which had to refuel their military vehicles and dump Manure/rubbish/waste materials.

In addition, if saddam hadn't dumped oil into the Gulf Straits much of it would still have ended up in the world's oceans as a result of oil tankers cleaning out their holds and motorists pouring used oil into the sewage system.

There are a number of different estimates as to the amount of oil 'wasted' because of the gulf war and thus different estimates as to the cost of the lost oil. However, the exact sum is not relevant to this argument. The following estimate is used solely as an illustration, "By the time the fires are put out, roughly one percent of Kuwait's oil (worth about $20 billion) may have gone up in smoke."[7]

If the $20 billion worth of oil which went up in smoke had been sold on the global market, then the multiplier effect would have generated approximately $100 billion worth of business around the world. For example, the profits that kuwait would have earnt from the sale of the crude oil would probably have been invested in a variety of ‘overseas’ businesses (who knows, perhaps even in japanese multi-national corporations logging the Amazon and Boreal Forests); the multinational oil corporations who would have bought the crude oil may have invested the profits from the sale of refined oil to open up new oil wells (such as those in the Amazon and boreal Forests); the power utilities who would have bought some of the refined oil may have used the profits from the sale of electricity to invest in the construction of new power generation stations; the petrol retailers, who would also have bought some of the refined petrol, may have invested their profits in yet more businesses (perhaps in a construction company building a trans Amazonian road); and, near the end of the multiplier effect, the motorists who bought the petrol would have used their cars to work for such paragons of environmental virtue as rio tinto zinc or union carbide or ici or bp etc..

If the oil dumped into the environment during the gulf war had been sold on the open market, the economic multiplier effect would have generated 5 times more business than the original sale price of the oil, and would, correspondingly, have produced 5 times more ecological devastation.

Saddam hussein's actions have to be condemned as typical of the Planetless, denatured mentality of the world's political leaders - although in this respect george bush was far worse of an Earth-rapist than saddam hussein. But, given that there was not the remotest prospect that the world community would have denied itself the use of this oil to prevent further ecological damage to the Earth, then it has to be accepted that torching kuwait's oil wells was a positive ecological act. The Earth suffered less ecological damage because saddam blew up kuwait’s oil wells. He was doing the Earth a big favour. It was extremely pleasing to see the oil wells on fire and those who care about the environment should wish him their heartiest congratulations. It's a great pity though that he didn't appreciate the true nature of what he was doing. If he had, he would also have torched his own country’s oil wells. He’d have been even more of an ecological hero.

The widespread outrage amongst livestock consumers was the result of their naivety about their own contribution to ecological devastation. This naivety has been carefully cultivated by the ruling elites who attempt to cover-up, or dismiss, any information about ecological destruction. But, at the same time, it also has to be admitted that livestock oomans are not in the slightest bit interested in what is happening in their name because they want the good times to keep rolling on. During the war, some radical environmentalists hoped that the ecological disasters would wake up the livestock to the damage that they were inflicting on the Earth and thus prevent them from "sleepwalking" not merely into war (hugo young) but into the destruction of the Earth’s life support system. Unfortunately, since the war there has been a considerable loss of interest in green issues, as manifested by the decline in votes for virtually every Green party in the over-industrialized world, which seems to indicate that northern consumers prefer somnamubulance to reality. Whatever it is that is going to wake up factory pharm oomans to the destruction of the Planet’s life support system it isn’t going to be the destruction of the Planet’s life support system. Perhaps ecological destruction needs to be portrayed in comic, fantasy, or pornographic terms before they realize they are rushing headlong into ecocidal oblivion. Consumers in the Carbon-debtor nations may find it somewhat revolting to praise saddam hussein as an environmental hero. And yet, any analysis of the comparative ecological costs of, on the one hand, destroying oil and, on the other hand, selling it for profit within the capitalist system, will inevitably conclude that less ecological damage is caused by the former than by the latter.

Virtually everyone around the world who has a television set has seen footage of the hellish oil well fires created by the iraqi army. Vast clouds of black smoke billowed into the atmosphere blocking out the sunlight over a large area of land. The oil fires raged for months before they were put out. A huge amount of Carbon pollution was released by these fires, "The estimated total release of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide from oil well fires in Kuwait during 1991 was 0.065 GtC (or 65 million tonnes of Carbon) about 1% of total anthropogenic emissions."[8] The amount of Carbon pollution released by great brutland has been calculated as follows, "CO₂ emission estimates are derived from energy consumption data. UK CO₂ emissions in 1990 totalled 160 million tonnes of carbon (MtC)."[9] In other words, great brutland releases, annually, two and a half times the amount of atmospheric pollution as iraq did when it liberated kuwaiti oil.[10] Given that motorists are responsible for about a third of brutland’s Carbon emissions then the amount of pollution released by saddam, that damned, evil monstrous polluter, was roughly equal to the amount of pollution which brutish motorists release each year, year after year. Thus, if brutish motorists want a graphic illustration of the vast amounts of pollution they are currently releasing into the atmosphere each year then they could hardly do better than to watch news footage of kuwait’s burning oil wells. This is just the pollution released by motorists in their cars - not the vast amounts of pollution they cause by eating meat and enjoying their domestic bliss. The fact is that Northern consumers are far more odious, obnoxious and revolting than saddam hussein.

This refusal to face up to reality means that friends of the Earth, greenpeace and the green party are deliberately covering up the fact that the world is heading for a global ecological collapse and, thereby condoning the perpetrators of this disaster. These environmental organizations, which to one extent or another, are probably full of infiltrators from multi-national corporations, are too busy preserving their popularity amongst the consumer Earth-rapists to appreciate that they are selling the Earth down the drain.

This judgement is ultimately a practical one, whether an oil spill causes more or less ecological damage than if the oil was used in commercial operations. It should be possible to measure these two possibilities with a reasonable degree of accuracy to determine which would cause the most atmospheric pollution and ecological devastation. There are two main factors to be taken into consideration. Firstly, the point at which the oil spill occurs in the oil exploitation process i.e. during the extraction, transport, refining, retailing, use and, finally, disposal of waste oil. As a rule of thumb, the closer an oil spill occurs to the point of extraction, the greater the ecological damage which will be averted whilst, conversely, the closer to the point of disposal the less ecological damage has been averted. Imagine two similar oil spills one at each end of the oil exploitation process i.e. one at the point of extraction and the other at the point of disposal. In the first case, the oil comes out of the ground and poisons the surrounding ecology. In the second case, the oil passes through the capitalist system, boosting economic growth which triggers off an economic multiplier effect causing even more ecological damage. The further that the oil passes through the capitalist, oil exploitation, system before it is spilt the greater, the ecological damage it will tend to cause.

The second main consideration is the location of the oil spill. An oil spill in a pristine Wilderness area will cause far more ecological damage than in an urbanized area or a city centre. Thus even if an oil spill occurs close to the point of extraction it may cause more ecological damage than it would by passing through the capitalist system e.g. if the area polluted is in a pristine ecological condition such as a tropical Rainforest or tundra.

These are the two main considerations when trying to roughly assess the ecological damage caused by oil spills. Only careful measurement will ascertain the exact damage.

Although these oil spills are happening close to the point of extraction they are nevertheless causing extensive ecological damage because of the prstine ecological nature of the siberian tundra.

It might be argued that such a conclusion is inhumane. But, is it any worse than the theory of gross domestic product which records car accidents as a boost to economic growth? Is it worse than successive governments which boost car sales to protect jobs, and which oppose policies to prevent motorists from speeding since this might make cars a less attractive purchase? People enjoy speed. They buy cars for speed not access. The government knows that fast cars will cause a loss of life, but condones speeding because of the economic benefits.

Geocentrism is not an opportunity for a spot of green tinged racism. As has been stated above, the atmospheric pollution and ecological destruction caused by cars in Carbon surplus nations (mainly the disintegrating/industrializing countries) is not critical whereas that caused by cars in the Carbon-debtor nations (mainly the over-industrialized countries) is critical - so critical that in the worst Carbon debtor countries the car should be banned. Thus whilst the death of motorists in Carbon-debtor countries is to be welcomed, the death of motorists in Carbon surplus countries cannot be greeted in the same way - although there are motorists in the latter countries who, as members of the ruling elite, are Earth rapists and their deaths would be worthy of celebration.[13]

In Carbon-debtor countries, the worse the eco-nazis, the greater should be the celebration over their death. The greater the number of eco-nazis killed in car accidents the greater the celebration.[14] Given that the Earth-rapists are pushing the Earth toward a geophysiological collapse, it is better that Earth-wreckers die in their ecocidal machines than it is for them to survive. It is their deaths that will help save the Planet, not their lives. The death of motorized, Earth wreckers provides some much needed relief from the traumas generated by the car's war against the Earth's life support system. The only good thing about cars is that they are helping to rid the Earth of large numbers of Earth rapists. It is the height of ecological blindness to condemn cars for the only ecologically sound consequence they have. Of course, if humans were Earth protectors then the exact opposite would apply - but this is not the case.

There is sweet justice in the car’s slaughter of motorists. Many of the cars involved in car accidents have been manufactured using iron ore and aluminium from the Amazon. The mining and smelting of these metals in the Amazon has destroyed even more huge areas of Rainforest. It is almost as if the Amazon is exacting its revenge on those who are destroying the Rainforest and its vast Biodiversity.

Of course, oomanists would retort that such an attitude is abhorrent. They spend much of their intellectual life desperately trying to play down oomans’ capacity for slaughtering anything that moves (whether this might be other oomans, Wildlife and the Earth itself) in order to preserve their self-awarded status as members of the most important species on Earth. They would contend that all motorists are potentially the Earth’s allies and therefore ought to be loved, cherished and offered compassion because one day they might see the ecological errors of their ways - and give up their Earth-wrecking machines. Such wishful thinking is little more than a biblical throwback to the fantasy about saul's spiritual transformation on the road to damascus. It can be suspected that if saul wandered down the same road two thousand years later he'd probably have been flattened long before his revelation. Anyone who hopes that motorists will undergo the equivalent of a religious conversion and demand curbs on cars to save the Planet is seriously deluding themselves. The number of people who have given up their cars to save the Planet is microscopic in comparison to the vast numbers of young people who are all too eager to get into their first car - and there are many people who often argue that it is young people who are going to save the Earth! The best chance of avoiding a global warming disaster is if motorists massacre themselves in a colossal 'road to baghdad' pile up - only their bodies shouldn't be frantically shovelled into makeshift mass graves and covered up before the arrival of the mass media, but should be left to provide some meat for the few remaining Wildlife species left on Earth as a belated act of homage to the creatures oomans have massacred throughout their sometimes brilliant but usually utterly gory history.