Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartD
Oh please, 50 years ago it was about oil fields.. not about stopping terrorism. England asked the US for help because Iran wanted their land back... there was no high and mighty US mission to prevent terrorism.
|
i didn't say that one motivation is better than another. i specifically used the term national interests... which oil is certainly a part of.
as i've tried to explain with a fair degree of eloquence, that geopolitics is not about anyone's personal, subjective interpretation or moral righteousness or "fair" or "right" and "wrong" or anything else.
intervention in a nations politics is rarely about the stated intention or motivation that people are asked to buy into. its about national interests. oil is an important issue to the US and was projected to be an issue of even greater importance. if you step back and look at an understanding of the exponentially rising demand for oil at that particular point in time and consider that there were few oil producing countries at that time, its not hard to understand why these nations and their leadership are important to the west in the 1950's.
if any developed nation in the world had significant interests in Africa, it wouldn't be a continent perpetually plagued by war and famine. no one has any significant national interests in Africa... hence the genocides, constant famine, endless wars, imploding economies and so on.
you are using absolutes and idealistic views to pick apart actions without any consideration for the practical matters that existed/exist