This graph says it all

[Schrödinger's Cat]

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-trends/a-sick-graph-2/

[PigmerikanMao]

<texan accent> Yeha- gotta get that oil gon&#39;t we cowboy?&#33; </texan accent>

Yes, It is quite angering when looking at the ways that money could be invested, rather than just spent to kill people.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:34 pm
<texan accent> Yeha- gotta get that oil gon&#39;t we cowboy?&#33; </texan accent>
Note that most of the proletariat in the US resides in the south.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Keep in mind that the term "bible belt" is used quite frequently in regard to certain portions of the southern part of the United States, and though it has nothing to do with class it does say a bit in regard to the region and politics. Regardless of class, it is a region which undeniably has a prevalence of religious right wing political views, this is exactly what the bourgeois state feeds off of, its a tool, do you see, "religion is the opium of the people" because it gives people the idea that the conditions they live under will eventually change, which basically occurs as a result of religion giving false hope especially in regards to the working class, it also eliminates the possibility for class consciousness because it distracts from movement in regards to the entire working class because proletarians see themselves as being part of different religious sects rather than as part of the proletariat as a whole- ultimately it alienates workers from each other. If you see where I am going with this, it seems evident that it is a tool used by the bourgeois state so that it continues to serve in the interests of its ruling class- which ultimately controls the state apparatus in the first place. That is why when you get a president like Bush at first many people of that region don&#39;t have anything to say against it- their own consciousness to the conditions existent has diminished already especially through the existence of distractions preventing the unity of the proletariat (the existence of different religious sects within it, etc.) These are the types of things which alienate workers from each other and ultimately that is why it is easy for the bourgeois state to take advantage of this especially when there is a figure like President Bush who at first may seem to uphold many of these "standards" which the religious right stands by- but their consciousness in regards to the conditions has already diminished so greatly that class consciousness is not possible as it would be if they weren&#39;t distracted from the conditions in the first place and the causes of the such conditions. workers become separated in what they believe is in their interest do to small factors which distracts them so greatly they are not aware of the conditions existent under the society, and the bourgeois state ultimately takes advantage of this. I don&#39;t necessarily think all southern people would agree with the war and President Bush but for the most part these are the conditions already existent preventing them from seeing outside of the realm of the bourgeois state. I don&#39;t necessarily think it is the people but the impact religion has on the people and the way it is regarded within and outside of the bourgeois state apparatus.

[ComradeR]

Well this is no surprise, after all the reason for the currently vast military spending is due to the US&#39;s wars in the mid-east which are it&#39;s attempt to gain a controlling influence via installing friendly (puppet) regimes in the region that is going to become one of the last and most vital sources of oil in the next few decades. This would allow the US to maintain it&#39;s global imperialist dominance and keep it&#39;s emerging rivals (e.g. China) in check. Of course it&#39;s having the opposite effect and the US is gradually losing control over the region.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:08 am
Well this is no surprise, after all the reason for the currently vast military spending is due to the US&#39;s wars in the mid-east which are it&#39;s attempt to gain a controlling influence via installing friendly (puppet) regimes in the region that is going to become one of the last and most vital sources of oil in the next few decades. This would allow the US to maintain it&#39;s global imperialist dominance and keep it&#39;s emerging rivals (e.g. China) in check. Of course it&#39;s having the opposite effect and the US is gradually losing control over the region.
I had an interesting conversation in regards to this the other day, especially in regard to Iran and how if the U.S. was to instigate war, Iran would ultimately have the advantage- especially considering the U.S. military and how far it is stretched and how that in itself impacts the U.S. as a world power, and ultimately, if anything is to weaken its control in that regard it will be war with a force of significant ability to weaken it- and Iran would definitely have the advantage in that regard- especially if the U.S. made an attack and instigated it that way.

[RedAnarchist]

I was scrolling down for about half a minute&#33; That is just sickening.

[Tower of Bebel]

This one is to be rembered as the finest example of capitalism. For eternity&#33;

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 11, 2007 06:22 pm
I had an interesting conversation in regards to this the other day, especially in regard to Iran and how if the U.S. was to instigate war, Iran would ultimately have the advantage- especially considering the U.S. military and how far it is stretched and how that in itself impacts the U.S. as a world power, and ultimately, if anything is to weaken its control in that regard it will be war with a force of significant ability to weaken it- and Iran would definitely have the advantage in that regard- especially if the U.S. made an attack and instigated it that way.
Yes it seems the US is now between a "rock and a hard place " so to speak. If it is to maintain it&#39;s dominance in the near future it needs to in one way or another control the flow of oil out of the mid-east, in particular Iraq and Iran. The only way it can at this point is to install regimes friendly to it&#39;s interests and it seems the only way it can is through military action. However it&#39;s wars as you pointed out have stretched it&#39;s military thin and the instability these wars have wrought is threatening to destroy what control it still has.