Not quite.
Now you read and learn.
During the last 12 months, GERMANY imported about 500,000 barrels/day of petroleum from OPEC. Of this, about 100,000 barrels/day are from the Middle East. Not a lot compared to your daily imports of 2.2 million barrels per day but not exactly zero either.
Here's the data source:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t311.xls
As for Europe (OECD), the daily average imports of Middle Eastern oil were 2.734 million barrels/day during the same 12 month period. The proportion of net consumption is a bit higher, between 1/3 and 1/5 depending on the month.
Here's the data source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t39.xls
To give some perspective, United States daily average consumption of Middle East oil during the same period was 2.230 million barrel/day or 500,000 barrels/day less than OECD consumption.
Here is the data source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t37.xls
So it appears that Europe is a greater consumer of Middle Eastern oil than the United States is.
I do thank you for challenging me on this because I was misremembering some data on oil consumption and I should have checked it. The United States DOES import oil from the Middle East. The United States imports zero (0) oil from IRAN, so if its production capacity goes off line, it won't directly affect us.
Of course we have a strong interest that the situation there stays stable, since you Americans will buy as much as possible on the oilmarket in Rotterdam if the situation in the Persian Gulf gets worse. Naturally this is going to end up in exploding oil prices that we would have to pay then.
It would bother us no more than it would bother Europe, it seems. Actually, I am somewhat sorry that oil prices have been coming down recently (not that I liked them that high) because it will take pressure off of the United States to develop the alternative energy resources and technologies needed to end United States dependence on imported oil as a fuel source. My choice would be no foreign sources at all for US oil supplies.
That is a total of 10.384 European soldiers serving in Afghanistan in the moment. This number will be increased in the next months.
Like I said, about 2.5 to 3 regiments. The magnitude of the European commitment is truly underwhelming.
Besides - Of course you also can leave Europe with your millitary (we earned for sure enough money from your soldiers in Germany during the last 50 years) if you do not like us. The recent deployment wasn't that impressive anyway. Just stop to waste your money on such (really - this is no sarcasm of me - we do not need GIs here anymore due to the end of the cold war) senseless stuff like your millitary presence here. The influence you have on us because of this is minimal anyway. If we want to sell our technology or weapons to the Chicoms i.e. we will not ask you (Chirac and Schroeder suggested to do so since a long time and recently the president of Italy, Romano Prodi did). We haven't done this in the past, because -thank God- we still have some reasonable politicians who stopped those morons in the right time. But - it was for sure not America's influence that made this possible. If the decay of our relationship will continue it is not said that this policy can be prevailed by the "Atlantic" European politicians in the long term. Therefore such hateful stammering like your moronic comments is quite dangerous since it could mean for American GIs that they have to face something much more advanced in their future conflicts than that old Russian and Chinese junk of contemporary Iraq and Iran.
When NATO was formed, the commitment was that an attack on one would be considered an attack on all. For four DECADES, the United States made unstinting commitments of US manpower and treasure (you can put up one of those fancy scrolling displays to enumerate that as well) to create a credible deterrent force in Europe and around the world to keep the communists off of your back while you recovered from World War II. Or did you really think that the reason that you don't have to speak Russian and have visits from the KGB is because the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GSFG) was being held back out of quivering fear of the pitifully small Bundeswehr, Bundesmarine, and the Luftwaffe?
But when NATO's European members were finally called upon to extend themselves and assist the United States after 9/11, what do we get? Backtalk, excuses, and grudgingly given support. Some reciprocity.
BTW, how much of the support is coming from countries that were not a part of NATO during the Cold War?
As for the weapon systems you are selling to our enemies, don't over rate their impact. Yeah, they're worrisome; but we study them as well as enemy weapon systems and they can be beaten. And when all the shooting is over, we won't forget who assisted us and who assisted our enemies.
I.e. my 3 kids go into a private catholic school that ins runned by the Jesuites. Not exactly a place to indulge atheism. :-) Since I run my own business and employ people I am for sure far away to be a socialist.
Are you saying that a German catholic business person CAN'T be a liberal socialist? Could have fooled me.
Sorry, but I can not open one of those links:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t311.xls
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t39.xls
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t37.xls
Let me quote you:
As for Europe (OECD), the daily average imports of Middle Eastern oil were 2.734 million barrels/day during the same 12 month period. The proportion of net consumption is a bit higher, between 1/3 and 1/5 depending on the month.....
....To give some perspective, United States daily average consumption of Middle East oil during the same period was 2.230 million barrel/day or 500,000 barrels/day less than OECD consumption.
Maybe in this statement we can find the fundamental misunderstanding: The USA are a MEMBER of the OECD. The OECD is NOT the EU. :-)
Therefore comparisons between a true global organisation (the OECD is NO European club with Members like Australia, South Korea, Japan and the US) and one of their members are for sure completely ridicolous. You are speaking about the oil you consume by yourself.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development
That much for the learning.
Like I said, about 2.5 to 3 regiments. The magnitude of the European commitment is truly underwhelming.
What are you dreaming of? 500.000 men? Why? As I already said the effect is simply not worth the effort. Do you really think such a waste of men and material would turn out into a positive effect? You Americans i.e. are searching since 5 years (for understandable reasons) with 20.000 soldiers this camel driver Bin Laden without any success. The Russians deployed 500.000 men in Afghanistan without any measurable success during the 80ties. Maybe you heard of the Brits who lost a whole army when they tried to annex Afghanistan into their empire a long time ago. All trials to subordinate this country ended in a disaster so far. Therefore the contemporary strategy of cooperation with moderate Afghans is probably the only possible solution. To do this we do not need more soldiers in this country.
Besides of this we Europeans have small countries with limited possibilities. I.e. Germany had to rebuild a half of its country after reunification. We simply can and will not spend 4% of our GDP on defense as long as there is no direct threat from a hostile nation to our own nation or to our allies. Some crazy Islamiacs are simply not enough for us to change into a war economy like during WWII.
Nevertheless we try to be helpful where we can. In the moment Germany has 3000 men in Afghanistan and 3000 more on the shores of Lebanon to help Israel. Furthermore we engage ourselves with 3200 men (SFOR) in Kosovo and 1300 (KFOR) in Bosnia. There are many more smaller contingents all over this planet to stabilize the situations and to provide freedom.
Or did you really think that the reason that you don't have to speak Russian and have visits from the KGB is because the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GSFG) was being held back out of quivering fear of the pitifully small Bundeswehr, Bundesmarine, and the Luftwaffe?
Well my wife speaks some Russian among other languages while I am still restricted to German, French, Latin and a littlebit English. Therefore I am really thankful and of course the US presence helped us to survive this awful threat. Do not get me wrong on that. On the other hand this engagement had for sure its benefit for the US too. The biggest trade partners of the US are still in western Europe (except of Canada), if we sum up the balances of trade concerning the US of the particular EU members. Beside of this we are still closely connected through a related culture and related values.
But - as you already pointed out - if we are no friends such crap like NATO does not make any sense in the future anymore. Think about it - there are 3 solutions:
a) You continue to whine about those bad and evil Europeans like a petulant child.
b) You make a sharp cut and leave your origin behind.
c) You accept the fact that you can not dictate Europe its policy anymore (if you try the outcome will be simply awkward for you). Therefore the trans-atlantic relations have to be redefined due to the new and changed situation after the cold war. NATO should not only be a millitary alliance i.e. but also one that regards common economic interests if it wants to survive.
It is up to you.