You can throw out all the "opinions" you want as to why the U.S. does anything. Apparently, for you, it's all about oil and Israel. That's your opinion, and probably the opinion of most countries that would love to see Israel disappear. You have previously called "humanitarian" grounds bull, so there's no sense debating that with you. I suppose we went into the Balkans for oil and to defend Israel, and the same for Somalia, and Panama. I'm sure you can tie all of those to oil and Israel. Of course we act in our national interest as do all countries.Beiruty wrote:All the gulf states, including Kuwait were in the US "bag", Iraq was growing threat (Check with 1 above) after Iraq-Iran war and had to be contained, destroyed or dispersed.G26ster wrote:If the U.S. policy is to, as you say, "destroy and disperse any enemy of the Jewish state," why did we defend Kuwait, help to liberate Iraq and Libya, defend Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern states.? How is defending them "destroying" them? Also, I don't recall any U.S. troops on the ground, or air support in the '67 war, or the later war with Egypt, or the retaliatory strikes in Lebanon. Sure, we help arm them like we help arm other allies, and like our enemies arm their allies. That's what allies do.Beiruty wrote:And as to answer your core question.
US Foreign Policy in the Middle East is as follows:
1) Protect the Jewish state of Israel at any cost. Destroy and Disperse any enemy of Jewish state is a goal, no?
2) Secure the oil fields of Middle East at any cost. Case Study: Iraq war and Libya intervention. China has the interest in the Oil, but not Russia as Russia is full of oil.
So, "The Great Britan" of US Revolution is Iran. Check with 1) above.
Any other cause or "humanitarian" cause is just Bulls.
And as for it all being about oil, the U.S imports less Iraqi oil today than it did before 9/11/01.
I believe your "at any cost" is incorrect.
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can you state what was the strategic US interest in 1991 Kuwait/Iraq war or in 2003 Iraq war? If, today, US has no interest in intervening in Syria war? Why it did in 1991 and 2003?
Hint: Check with 1) and 2) above.
If you read carefully, "oil fields" mean strategic explored and non-explored national oil reserve. KSA is #1, Iraq is #2 and Iran is #3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... l_reserves" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As for 1991 and Iraq, you can say it was for oil and Israel, and I can say we established a huge coalition of nations and did it for humanitarian reasons. Neither can be proven. You can say that the 2003 Iraq war was for oil and Israel, and I can say it was to depose a brutal dictator who we and the world believed was developing or had nuclear weapons, or for continuously violating the no fly zone, or for plotting to assassinate Bush 41, or just to finish what we should have in 1991, or all of the above. Doesn't matter. All of it is just opinion and can be debated forever.