SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lou Weed who wrote (124755)2/17/2004 12:57:19 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Our OWN special (monetary) interests are always the driving factor, not humanitarian ones.

I don't believe they have to be mutually exclusive..

In fact, as we have seen in cases such as Ruwanda and Cambodia, UNLESS there is an economic interest, MOST NATIONS (including the US) won't get involved.

The question is whether US interests in creating positive socio-economic change in Iraq (as well as creating stability and opportunity in the oil markets) equates to how France and Russia attempted TO PERPETUATE THE EXISTING MISERY AND BRUTALITY in favor of their OWN SELFISH ECONOMIC INTEReSTS.

Futhermore, I'd probably be LESS INCLINED to see American military power used if there WERE NO VITAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS at stake..

As it stands, the world economy is heavily dependent upon oil, and will be for the foreseeable future. The Middle East is the primarily supplier of that commodity. It is a region that is highly unstable and under tremendous demographic, political, and economic stress. Thus, anything the US (and the rest of the world) can do to alleviate and alter that reality is in the vital interests of the United States.

Now were we discussing Bosnia/Kosovo, we'd have to ask ourselves where US vital interests were at stake.

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext