Contemporary liberalism and its role in Islamic anti-Americanism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


What are you on about? I was not addressing your previous post.

ok, my bad

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Setting that absurdity aside, yes, the ME's importance starts with its oil, just as its importance at other times in history revolved around other resources or its geographical position (trade hub).

-Arrian

\

Why do you always end up arguing with me? I don't think we really have a significant difference in opinion. All I'm saying is that the principle reason for US involvement in the ME is economic. Do you disagree?

[Arrian]

You don't think it's important to discuss the history of US involvement in the region? Instead you want to discuss Eastern Europe in the 1990s? I don't know how I can respond to that and continue with a reasonable debate.

You're silly.

Cort is talking about US interventionism post-Cold War. In that timeframe, neocon ideology has been a major factor (Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq... and Afganistan to a lesser extent). Discussing Kosovo is relevant, even if it happens to be Cort's pet issue ( ).

As for the "military-industrial complex" as IIRC Eisenhower called it... you're going to have to do a better job explaining how "controlling" Iraq (which is a dubious claim, btw!!) gives us any additional world-wide clout. If invading Iraq really was all about the oil, it's been a miserable failure.

You're better off looking at the no-bid reconstruction contracts.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious
\

Why do you always end up arguing with me? I don't think we really have a significant difference in opinion. All I'm saying is that the principle reason for US involvement in the ME is economic. Do you disagree?

I think it's the biggest reason, but I also think there are other significant ones that you ignore. I disagreed with you over ignoring those other reasons.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
But then, but then, we couldnt be more different from the arab world, and culturally closer to yanks than to middle easterners, here women wear few clothes, we are christian, usa evengelical pentecostals have managed to become more than 10% of the population in most latin american countries, we like american movies, watch some american tv shows, simpsons, ALF etc, so what commies preach will never work, because they forget culture which is also important.

I don't understand what you are getting at. You are culturally different so you both most be dominated by another nation?

[Arrian]

His post is not difficult to understand, Kid. Read it again.

He says that commies in his country try to create linkages between SA and various anti-USA types in the ME (such as Iran), but he doesn't think that it will work because the people in SA are culturally closer to the USA than the ME. The communists are therefore ignoring what he sees as a critical factor: culture. Which you dismissed earlier in this thread...

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


I think it's the biggest reason, but I also think there are other significant ones that you ignore. I disagreed with you over ignoring those other reasons.

-Arrian

I'm not ignoring anything. I think that one is insignificant. As I've said, I don't think the US would be involved in the Middle East except for the fact that there is oil there. Therefore it is insignificant that many people would like to see democracy there.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You don't think it's important to discuss the history of US involvement in the region? Instead you want to discuss Eastern Europe in the 1990s? I don't know how I can respond to that and continue with a reasonable debate.

No, I have no wish to discuss that, I just want you to realise that US policy, as driven by the Neo-cons is not all about oil.

[Barnabas]

"He says that commies in his country try to create linkages between SA and various anti-USA types in the ME (such as Iran), but he doesn't think that it will work because the people in SA are culturally closer to the USA than the ME. The communists are therefore ignoring what he sees as a critical factor: culture. Which you dismissed earlier in this thread..."


exactly that

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


You're silly.

Cort is talking about US interventionism post-Cold War. In that timeframe, neocon ideology has been a major factor (Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq... and Afganistan to a lesser extent). Discussing Kosovo is relevant, even if it happens to be Cort's pet issue ( ).

I give up.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


No, I have no wish to discuss that, I just want you to realise that US policy, as driven by the Neo-cons is not all about oil.

Ok

[Arrian]

As I've said, I don't think the US would be involved in the Middle East except for the fact that there is oil there.

Surely if there was no important resource, our involvement would be less. That's a very basic thing, sure, no argument there.

Our involvement would look a lot more like our involvement in sub-saharan Africa (mostly hand-wringing). Note: Somalia and its similiarities to Kosovo. The mission was humanitarian in intent - just as in Kosovo, there is no economic gain to be had in Somalia. Unlike Kosovo, we pulled out.

So, oil is a major factor in all US policy in the ME - duh. That does *not* mean that other factors cannot influence policy - possibly even at times attaining the driver's seat.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
"He says that commies in his country try to create linkages between SA and various anti-USA types in the ME (such as Iran), but he doesn't think that it will work because the people in SA are culturally closer to the USA than the ME. The communists are therefore ignoring what he sees as a critical factor: culture. Which you dismissed earlier in this thread..."


exactly that

Sorry, I got more confused.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Surely if there was no important resource, our involvement would be less. That's a very basic thing, sure, no argument there.

Our involvement would look a lot more like our involvement in sub-saharan Africa (mostly hand-wringing). Note: Somalia and its similiarities to Kosovo. The mission was humanitarian in intent - just as in Kosovo, there is no economic gain to be had in Somalia. Unlike Kosovo, we pulled out.

So, oil is a major factor in all US policy in the ME - duh. That does *not* mean that other factors cannot influence policy - possibly even at times attaining the driver's seat.

-Arrian

Whatever you want to believe. That's up to you. I'll bet you the US is still involved there after the Neocons are gone though.

[Arrian]

Of course the USA will remain "involved" in the ME as long as it has oil (or as long as oil matters, take your pick). The exact manner of that involvement (specific policies/actions), however, may or may not be "all about the oil."

For a war that was truely all about the (strategic control of) oil, Gulf War I stands out. Technically it was saving poor Kuwait from evil Saddam, but of course we only really cared about that because we didn't want Saddam gobbling up other oil-rich countries and getting too big for his britches. It wasn't about US control of Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil, not direct control anyway, but it was surely about not letting Saddam consolidate too much oil. It was also about protecting Kuwait's sovereignty, but that was clearly secondary.

2003 was something else. Sure, it has some similarities (USA vs Saddam), but the mission was fundamentally different, and driven by things other than oil.

I'll close by throwing "believe what you want" right back at ya

-Arrian