well...let's start from a known fact...the USA has gone to war just to contain the spread of communism.
now are you asking me why is it necessary to contain communism?
And you are still avoiding the question.
I agree the USSR had also stuck to intervening and meddling in other country's affairs to seek the spread of communism...afghanistan being a classic case.
tell me why is the middle-east of such high importance to the USA?
Usually not but this is one of those times when the answer to a question is appropriately...another question...Why was Afghanistan of such high importance for the Soviets?
Territorial gains are not the only stimuli to a war...oil is an indispensable resource...the endangering of the American oil interests in Kuwait was a reason to engage with Iraq.
Territorial gains is of the highest imperative in every conflict known to mankind so far, no matter how briefly a territory may be under one's possession. As for American oil interests in the ME...I have some very sad news for your arguments...
Vehicle Technologies Program: Fact #246: December 9, 2002 U.S. Oil Imports - Top 10 Countries of Origin
Fact #246: December 9, 2002
U.S. Oil Imports - Top 10 Countries of Origin
The 8-month average for 2002 shows that the United States has imported less oil from OPEC nations (shown in red type on the graph) than in the previous 2 years. The "Top 10" account for nearly 80% of all oil imports in each year shown.
As you can see, the US import
MOST of our oil from non-ME sources. Yes, it is true that the chart was for 2002, but it was to illustrate a point with Iraq in that we import Iraqi oil, not because we really needed Iraqi oil, but because we wanted to inject a stimulus into the Iraqi economy. During the sanction years, the US was Iraq's largest singular oil buyer under the Oil-For-Food program. The money went into an escrow account administered by the UN, not US. We did bought Iraqi oil at a favorable discount, but Saddam Hussein made even more money from black market oil deals with Russia, China, France, Germany and assort minor players, than with US. The program was so corrupted that it tainted the Office of the UN Secretary General itself.
The fact is that the US have consistently bought more oil from non-ME sources than from ME sources. If Saddam Hussein was allowed to conquer Kuwait with no repercussions, there would have been even greater uncertainties in the region as to who will be Saddam's next victim. Uncertainty about the region equal to unstable global oil prices. Europe and Asia are far more dependent upon ME oil than we are. If their economies falters because of fear of Iraq, the
GLOBAL economy suffers.
EurActiv.com - Geopolitics of EU energy supply | EU - European Information on Energy Supply
The EU currently imports around 40% of its oil from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
I do not need to present to you or the readership the ME oil import figure for Asia. You can verify it for yourself but it is no secret that the EU and Asia are more dependent on ME sources than we are. The Asians and Europeans have no means and no gumption to take on Saddam Hussein. That left Uncle Sam, baby...The US helped Europe in WW I, saved them WW II and we did it again in Desert Storm. When Saudi Arabia back in the mid-1970s cut a mere %5 in production to punish US for supporting Israel, it really did not harm US in anyway. We had queues to buy gasoline but that was more the result of hoarding by US suppliers out of fear than from any shortages. The Saudis ended up getting hurt by their own 'embargo' than we did.
So the truth is that we removed the Saddam Hussein for the benefit of all to make money peacefully. The US, the EU and Asia pay for our oil whatever the market demand and the producers, OPEC and non-OPEC, charges whatever they want. OPEC is a cartel whose existence would be illegal in any Western country that value free market competition, but since OPEC is largely a collection of immature children masquerading as adults outside of our legal jurisdictions, we have no choice but to bite the bullet and put up with their childishness. Have you ever been around mothers who 'baby talk' gobbledy-gook to their infants? That is US, the EU and Asia to the ME.
and did America listen to Indira Gandhi when she pressed for American intervention in the east Pakistani atrocities?
Why? So we can give people like you more ammunition to distort history on why the US is involved in such and such a place? I have already shown the truth about the lie that we invaded Iraq 'for oil'. Does anyone really care? No. As long as there is US involvement somewhere, that involvement will be misrepresented according to his negative opinions of US.
like it or not...America fights for it's interests...and their is nothing wrong in that...but your saying that it's the pursuit of democracy and a free world is something that is arguable...your admitting the American support for friendly despots obviously goes against the claim of being there for democracy.
First and foremost is independence, next is order (not law) and which implied stability, then hopefully reforms to our perspective on democracy and capitalism. Despots, minor or major, value independence than anything else. The best way to support any principle, such as democracy and/or capitalism, is to show that it works inside one's own borders. Let the people wonders why does the principle works for some but not for others. The US is a stable functional democracy. The EU is a collection of disparate cultures and ethnicities that have been at wars against each other for hundreds of years, but now it is a collection of stable and functional democracies. So why does the ME filled with despots? Let me guess...Because of the CIA and the Mossad...blah...blah...blah...Right?
well people who kill people for whatsoever reasons are labeled murderers except when trying to protect themselves....you actually have summarized a lot of what I have posted previously...if you apply the same concept to the American wars against the spread of communism...you'd see that the 'evil' has rubbed on to you...it's like a witch hunt.
Yes...It is unfortunate that in defending democracy, some of our methods and certainly behaviors have not always been in accordance of our beliefs. But what you missed is the
FACT that at least we have a set of ideals that are contrarian to some of those behaviors that you can use to hold US accountable. Who is easier to criticize and condemn, the man who tries hard to be good and often fail or the man who is utterly immoral?
as far as communism being evil is concerned...have you noticed that the people who strive for communism are basically from the lower most strata of the fabric of the society?
the classic american hatred of communism has baffled me!
Why is that so difficult to understand? Just because the communist mob is comprised of those who are ignorant and poor that the evil called communism should not be challenged?
your country has arguably the smoothest running models of capitalism(some of the recent economic trends suggest otherwise...but it's a phase that'll pass)
there are other countries which had tremendous corruption and a very large population where the implementation of capitalism caused more problems than it solved...the capitalists will make money and even with govt. business guidelines and governing supervisory bodies...the corruption and large population result in the last man being over-burdened...in short there were these poor and very old third-world countries that needed socialism...which you went against...what was the reason to prevent the spread of communism to the "rest of the world"?
What is corruption? It is the disregard for the rule of law by lawmakers. How could it happen? Enforcement, or lack thereof. Why is there a lack of enforcement? No respect for the laws and the concept of the rule of law. This chain can exist regardless of the political foundation of the society. Capitalism and the democratic process are not immune from corrupt lawmakers. It is not confined to governments but can also exist in the corporate world. If a CEO and his deputies pilfer the company's coffers and no other corporate officers do anything about it, then corrpution exist. So keep in mind that corruption is primarily about
LAWMAKERS.
If anything, communist countries are the most corrupt of all because the lawmakers can suppress any dissensions through violent means and sweep it under the cliches 'antirevolutionary', 'enemy of the people', 'decadent bourgeoisie', and so on...Communism and communists offer the people, often the already poor and ignorant because of previous regime, a quick emotional fix in redirecting the people's frustration at the previous regime. But then show me a single communist country that has proven to be economically prosperous, the society inventive in the sciences and arts, and lasted for as long as functional democratic ones. Once in power, communists ended up even more corrupt and despotic than the previous regimes, be they monarchic or supposedly democratic. People are afraid to criticize communists because they are afraid to be associated with the previous and hated regime. The tactic works more often than not. I have been to East Berlin when it existed and the differences between the two Berlins were like day and night or like food and feces.
The reason why during the Cold War the US seeked involvement in many small countries is because those countries are favorable grounds for the Soviets to introduce their brand of socialism, which would lead to communism. Those who accused US of supporting assorted petty despots missed the irony that to be an ally of US is to be free and independent, even to be an undemocratic despot, while to be an ally of the Soviets is to be a vassal to the Kremlin in everyway. Your country's natural resources will be exploited and shipped to Russia or to other Soviet satellites as the Kremlin feel appropriate. In the communist empire, only China managed to be independent of Soviet control and manipulation.
Today, we do not worry about Chavez and the possibility of a 'communist' Venezuela. Heck...We laugh at the Castro brothers in Cuba. It is only a matter of time that Cuba will be our vacation destination and the US will have another 'last laugh' at communism. Chavez is a buffoon and his neighbors will take care of him. Russia is too far away and can offer only token rhetorical support. Without a militarily sponsor like the Soviet Union, today's aspiring communists can only annoy, not threaten, US.
no.Gambit...I guess I haven't been clear enough...
take for example the Indian intervention in east-pakistan...now we had a reason(the exodus of refugees was eating our limited resources and straining the very fragile economy...) and our cause was just(the atrocities were proven without doubt)
and the result was very favorable to the Bangladeshis...
yet we have mistrust...which you can even judge on this forum.
Howsoever 'just' and righteous be your cause...if the target country doesn't rise from the ashes on it's own and strive for economic growth like most modern nations...it would curse the 'invaders'.
Vietnam and Germany are the examples of countries doing good.
The correct examples should be
SOUTH Viet Nam and
WEST Germany. For both sides, even though South Viet Nam was no paragon of democratic virtues, they were economically successful and the South Vietnamese had more freedoms and basic human rights respected than our Northern brothers. The goal for the US/SVN alliance was not to unite Viet Nam but to be like the two Germanys -- partitioned and independent. At least independence for West Germany anyway. The cause is independence and that cause is 'just'. Once Viet Nam was reunified the Vietnamese realized there was no one left to blame for their miseries and backwardness. They supposedly have independence and autonomy but then Soviet warships began to dock and the Vietnamese found their country's natural resources left in Soviet tankers escorted by Soviet warships. So once the US was involved with South Viet Nam, SVN became more economically successful than the North, its currency respected on the international trading market, SVN began to attract foreign investors like Renault of France. North Viet Nam had to relied on China and the Soviets for basic foodstuffs. Who was the true loser here?
I am actually not against America...it's just that I did not like your notion that America starts wars for the greater good...and for the protection of democracy...all wars have vested interests...and if the end-result garners democracy to the country in question...all's good....but saying that you have no vested interests and it's just the golden goal of shedding American blood to pull xyz country out of it's misery is not true.
Yes...All wars have interests injected by the participants, but all wars also have an overriding interest that eclipsed other interests. Against the Soviets, territorial denial was the overriding interest. All else, even the intention to apply democratic principles, must be relegated to secondary importance. Territorial denial to the enemy is pragmatism.
All of the Afghans would not have wanted 9/11.
It is the few who plot.
had Mullah Omar's Afghanistan handed OBL and his troupe to America..would bush have still invaded Afghanistan?
My opinion -- No. The acquisition of Osama bin Laden predated B43 and remember that Clinton served two terms -- 8 years. So had the US came to possession of Osama bin Laden under B43, it would be extremely difficult for him to justify any other actions regarding Afghanistan.
yes, religion to blame partly...but had the Germans,the Vietnamese and the others doing bad...they'd have surely caught your attention.
But why have they not? That is the question those who would like to blame US for all the ills of the world consistently avoided. For Germany and Japan, at one time we and our allies bombed them nearly back to the Stone Age. For Japan, it ended with two nuclear weapons. For Viet Nam, there are no shortages of rhetorics about Agent Orange, the My Lai murders, how much bombs in tonnage delivered, and how corrupt was the South Vietnamese government. But for the ME, other than recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, the muslims had their own countries ruled by despots from their own tribes and to set oil at cartel prices. So if 'involvement' justified violent response by muslims, then do explain why there are no Vietnamese terrorist groups bent on their own version of 'jihad' on US?
The argument of US 'support' for these despots is not valid. If Iranian religious extremists managed to overthrow the Shah, someone who the US 'supported', then the Saudi religious extremists can do the same. Why not? You do not like the current regime, then forget about the Jews and organize an army to overthrow the current regime. The Iranians did. But what happened in the ME is so typical: The muslims were bought off on oil wealth, the current regimes bought off enough imams to legitimize their rule, secret police intimidate the people, and when convenient, have the state medias run a few broadcasts about the evil Jews to distract the masses, and voila...A few more years in power. But hey...We, the muslims, are sooooo helpless because of American 'support' for these despots.
Ask the UN. You will find the IAEA's definition of the initials 'WMD' will be quite different from yours.
Saddam was a stupid fukc...he killed them Kurds...why didn't you punish him in 1991?
Because, wrongly or rightly, we did not remove him then for certain political reasons. Remember that the US and allies were within one hundred miles of Baghdad before we called off the military.
your goal wasn't to aid the mid-easterners in both the gulf wars...american interests were to be catered and then whadeva was left was to be managed so that no future Saddam or OBL takes power...i don't see anything wrong with this approach.
Right...So now you play the victim on behalf of the muslims. Congratulations on being such a useful stooge. The despots in the ME came from the muslims themselves. Like all petty despots, they are more fearful of each other, being so immediate to each other, than of any potential threats outside the neighborhood. The Jews are not a threat to them, only a convenient scapegoat. Their overriding interest, just so happened to coincide with the rest of the world, is regional stability, so they can continue to sponge off the planet with their oil. The ME for the last one hundred years, begin with the Industrial Revolution, contributed
NOTHING of value to global civilization. No art or sciences. Just oil. As political entities goes, they are truly independent to make their own decisions. So please lay off the 'american interests' nonsense.
