Current Events

TOPICS:

5/12/08
5/7/08

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

 ... 428

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

khoos

khoos

HOPEFUL

Ottawa, ON

MAY 12, 2008 02:48 PM

Portrait of an Oil-Addicted Former Superpower
How Rising Oil Prices Are Obliterating America's Superpower Status
By Michael T. Klare


I received this article in an email today. I decided to condense it here for your reading pleasure.

Less than a month ago, the United States similarly lost its claim to superpower status when a barrel [of] crude oil roared past $110 on the international market, gasoline prices crossed the $3.50 threshold at American pumps, and diesel fuel topped $4.00. As was true of the USSR following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the USA will no doubt continue to stumble on like the superpower it once was; but as the nation's economy continues to be eviscerated to pay for its daily oil fix, it, too, will be seen by increasing numbers of savvy observers as an ex-superpower-in-the-making.



First, the article examines some of the reasons the US became the superpower that it is today.

Oil was the basis for the rise of [the] first giant multinational corporations in the U.S., notably John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company (now reconstituted as Exxon Mobil, the world's wealthiest publicly-traded corporation). Abundant, exceedingly affordable petroleum was also responsible for the emergence of the American automotive and trucking industries, the flourishing of the domestic airline industry, the development of the petrochemical and plastics industries, the suburbanization of America, and the mechanization of its agriculture. Without cheap and abundant oil, the United States would never have experienced the historic economic expansion of the post-World War II era.



Now onto the more dreary bits.
The cost of fuel has risen dramatically as the US relies more and more on imported fuel sources.

As long as most of [their] oil came from domestic sources and the price remained reasonably low, the American economy thrived and the annual cost of deploying vast armies abroad was relatively manageable. But that sea has been shrinking since the 1950s. Domestic oil production reached a peak in 1970 and has been in decline ever since -- with a growing dependency on imported oil as the result. When it came to reliance on imports, the United States crossed the 50% threshold in 1998 and now has passed 65%.


It is evident that the rising cost of fuel is having a large impact on the economy - on a personal level but what about on a national scale? What if we examined the spending habits, as pertaining to oil, of the US Military.

...the U.S. Department of Defense is the world's single biggest consumer of petroleum, using more of it every day than the entire nation of Sweden.


Wow that's alot, but lets look at some numbers.

Every day, the average G.I. in Iraq uses approximately 27 gallons of petroleum-based fuels. With some 160,000 American troops in Iraq, that amounts to 4.37 million gallons in daily oil usage, including gasoline for vans and light vehicles, diesel for trucks and armored vehicles, and aviation fuel for helicopters, drones, and fixed-wing aircraft. With U.S. forces paying, as of late April, an average of $3.23 per gallon for these fuels, the Pentagon is already spending approximately $14 million per day on oil ($98 million per week, $5.1 billion per year) to stay in Iraq.


$14 MILLION per day? Just on oil... Well, good thing we're in the middle east, and get a discount from our Iraqi allies right?

Meanwhile, our Iraqi allies, who are expected to receive a windfall of $70 billion this year from the rising price of their oil exports, charge their citizens $1.36 per gallon for gasoline.


Oh. Snap.
Why?

When questioned about why Iraqis are paying almost a third less for oil than American forces in their country, senior Iraqi government officials scoff at any suggestion of impropriety. "America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq," said Abdul Basit, the head of Iraq's Supreme Board of Audit, an independent body that oversees Iraqi governmental expenditures. "This is an immoral request because we didn't ask them to come to Iraq, and before they came in 2003 we didn't have all these needs."


Well doesn't the Military NEED to use that much oil?

The average G.I in Iraq now uses about seven times as much oil per day as G.I.s did in the first the Gulf War less than two decades ago.


Unfortunately the trend looks to be continuing.

Under the military "transformation" initiated by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2001, the future U.S. war machine will rely less on "boots on the ground" and ever more on technology. But technology entails an ever-greater requirement for oil, as the newer weapons sought by Rumsfeld (and now Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) all consume many times more fuel than those they will replace.


Leaving the reader wondering how much longer the US can support this trend.

The article concludes:

As a result of our addiction to increasingly costly imported oil, we have become a different country, weaker and less prosperous. Whether we know it or not, the energy Berlin Wall has already fallen and the United States is an ex-superpower-in-the-making.




note: the article goes on in more detail about the comparison between the US and Russia losing their superpower status. It argues further that Russia has regained it's power.

coyotemike

coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

MAY 12, 2008 03:14 PM

If we're no longer a superpower, does that mean we can get rid of our nukes and focus on fixing our own problems instead of fucking up the rest of the world?

khoos

khoos

HOPEFUL

Ottawa, ON

MAY 12, 2008 03:19 PM

coyotemike said:
... focus on fixing our own problems instead of fucking up the rest of the world?



Oh Pretty Pretty Please...

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA
January 2006

MAY 12, 2008 03:19 PM

khoos said:

coyotemike said:
... focus on fixing our own problems instead of fucking up the rest of the world?



Oh Pretty Pretty Please...



But... that would actually make sense!

bald_eagle

bald_eagle

Indianapolis, IN
November 2006

MAY 12, 2008 03:29 PM

I suspect that Klare is just trying to sell books.

I doubt that most historians would agree that petroleum was the only (or even main) reason the U.S. developed into a superpower. It had more to do with industrialization and abundant resources, only one of which was oil.

We've been here before. We had 30 years to get off our dependence of oil and failed to do so. Now we'll have to try again.

khoos

khoos

HOPEFUL

Ottawa, ON

MAY 12, 2008 03:30 PM

bald_eagle said:
It had more to do with industrialization



Doesn't Oil play a HUGE role in that?

coyotemike

coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

MAY 12, 2008 03:33 PM

RudieCantFail said:

khoos said:

coyotemike said:
... focus on fixing our own problems instead of fucking up the rest of the world?



Oh Pretty Pretty Please...



But... that would actually make sense!



We can still mess with Canada tongue

khoos

khoos

HOPEFUL

Ottawa, ON

MAY 12, 2008 03:35 PM

coyotemike said:
We can still mess with Canada tongue



You can take away our oil, But you'll never take away our Tim Hortons!

coyotemike

coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

MAY 12, 2008 03:38 PM

khoos said:

coyotemike said:
We can still mess with Canada tongue



You can take away our oil, But you'll never take away our Tim Hortons!



No, we just make fun of you for creating Geddy Lee.

_Margot_

_Margot_

Santa Monica, CA
December 2007

MAY 12, 2008 03:43 PM

coyotemike said:

khoos said:

coyotemike said:
We can still mess with Canada tongue



You can take away our oil, But you'll never take away our Tim Hortons!



No, we just make fun of you for creating Geddy Lee.



You leave Geddy Lee out of this.

hk85

hk85

Guerneville, CA
October 2007

MAY 12, 2008 03:50 PM

****neil pert drum solo.

jermhawk

jermhawk

Tidioute, PA
December 2004

MAY 12, 2008 03:53 PM

Its not because of oil, its because of crappy leadership!

_Margot_

_Margot_

Santa Monica, CA
December 2007

MAY 12, 2008 03:54 PM

hookipa said:
****neil pert drum solo.



hk85

hk85

Guerneville, CA
October 2007

MAY 12, 2008 04:01 PM

_Margot_ said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

hookipa said:
****neil pert drum solo.





Go Sharks!

oh wait.....

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:03 PM

khoos said:

bald_eagle said:
It had more to do with industrialization



Doesn't Oil play a HUGE role in that?



Oil, and coal. And iron ore.

Personally I suspect that having an undeveloped continent to exploit had a lot to do with it. Only the Americas had that, and South America was used as a slave plantation by its owners for hundreds of years.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:05 PM

Looking at the original article, one might conclude that America stopped being a superpower in the 1950s, and turned into an empire. Hmm.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:06 PM

hookipa said:
****neil pert drum solo.



Peart, dude. Peart.

hk85

hk85

Guerneville, CA
October 2007

MAY 12, 2008 04:11 PM

SockPuppet said:

hookipa said:
****neil pert drum solo.



Peart, dude. Peart.



may i burn in rush elevator music hell for all eternity.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:13 PM

hookipa said:

SockPuppet said:

hookipa said:
****neil pert drum solo.



Peart, dude. Peart.



may i burn in rush elevator music hell for all eternity.



I think you may be overstating your case here.

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA
January 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:15 PM

_Margot_ said:

coyotemike said:

khoos said:

coyotemike said:
We can still mess with Canada tongue



You can take away our oil, But you'll never take away our Tim Hortons!



No, we just make fun of you for creating Geddy Lee.



You leave Geddy Lee out of this.



livertarian

livertarian

Fairfax, VA
February 2008

MAY 12, 2008 04:24 PM

coyotemike said:
If we're no longer a superpower, does that mean we can get rid of our nukes and focus on fixing our own problems instead of fucking up the rest of the world?



I like the cut of your jib, though I don't see how getting rid of our nuclear weapons is going to help us much. We are in the Nuclear Age, and so far, deterrence has worked.

But as for our foreign policy, hell yes, let's get out of other people's business.

Of course, regardless whether you vote (D) or (R) this year, we will remain status quo on our UN involvement, which means we will most definitely continue mucking around in other countries' affairs. Sad.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:35 PM

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:
If we're no longer a superpower, does that mean we can get rid of our nukes and focus on fixing our own problems instead of fucking up the rest of the world?



I like the cut of your jib, though I don't see how getting rid of our nuclear weapons is going to help us much. We are in the Nuclear Age, and so far, deterrence has worked.



How many warheads do you think are needed for deterrence?

And given that the USA went after Iraq despite its claim to have WMD, does deterrence really work?


But as for our foreign policy, hell yes, let's get out of other people's business.

Of course, regardless whether you vote (D) or (R) this year, we will remain status quo on our UN involvement, which means we will most definitely continue mucking around in other countries' affairs. Sad.



UN involvement is a complete red herring. I'd much rather talk about Mr Cheney's 2001 description of Al-Qaeda having cells in 130-odd countries, and his assumption that that was a licence to spy on everyone.

coyotemike

coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:36 PM

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Baton Rouge, LA
January 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:46 PM

SockPuppet said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:
If we're no longer a superpower, does that mean we can get rid of our nukes and focus on fixing our own problems instead of fucking up the rest of the world?



I like the cut of your jib, though I don't see how getting rid of our nuclear weapons is going to help us much. We are in the Nuclear Age, and so far, deterrence has worked.



How many warheads do you think are needed for deterrence?



Nuclear arms statistics at a glance.

We have enough nukes to blow up the entire planet, a hundred times over.

Fucking ridiculous, innit?

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

MAY 12, 2008 04:51 PM

RudieCantFail said:

SockPuppet said:

livertarian said:

coyotemike said:
If we're no longer a superpower, does that mean we can get rid of our nukes and focus on fixing our own problems instead of fucking up the rest of the world?



I like the cut of your jib, though I don't see how getting rid of our nuclear weapons is going to help us much. We are in the Nuclear Age, and so far, deterrence has worked.



How many warheads do you think are needed for deterrence?



Nuclear arms statistics at a glance.

We have enough nukes to blow up the entire planet, a hundred times over.

Fucking ridiculous, innit?



I dispute the idea that the nukes we have are enough to remove life from this planet. I don't think they'd even kill all the humans.

But yeah; utterly stupid.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next