^and this all is why i aim to going to Canada for collage instead of staying in the USA because like skywhale said i want to focus on doing the word good with my science studies. i don't want to go into some half developed country and start shooting at em claiming "THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!!!" and then just leaving them to rot while we move on to another country, bomb, shoot, rinse and repeat.
"I don't need a safety word because my mother didn't raise no quitter." ~BaraYaoi - BDSM Expert
Originally Posted by ilikepie56
^and this all is why i aim to going to Canada for collage instead of staying in the USA because like skywhale said i want to focus on doing the word good with my science studies. i don't want to go into some half developed country and start shooting at em claiming "THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!!!" and then just leaving them to rot while we move on to another country, bomb, shoot, rinse and repeat.
So if you study science in the US you will be forced to go into some half developed country and start shooting at em claiming "THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!!!" and then just leaving them to rot while we move on to another country, bomb, shoot, rinse and repeat?
Your logic does not compute.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
Not to support the invasions, but uuuugh, this is such a played out insinuation. Which invasion? Kuwait? Iraq? Afghanistan? What oil related interests have the U.S. secured, seized, or controlled in any of them? The closest you get is development, but not ownership of, Iraqi oil sands, but ultimately America is far more reliant on Saudi Arabia, Canada, and South America for its oil consumption in addition to domestic, so economic incentives were effectively limited to stopping Saddam from manipulating the price of oil, which wasn't a particularly immediate threat, either.
When people talk of Iraq and other Middle-Eastern wars being motivated by oil you have to realise that the US isn't literally storming oil sites, manning the equipment and sending the oil home. It's about preserving the dynamic that allows for the oil to keep flowing. Regional instablity in the Middle East = economic (and energy) instability for the US.
I made a post in the thread on ISIS that talks about this.
Originally Posted by Ele
The good thing about history is that it teaches us how things work. It's able to do this because there's two things that stay constant throughout, more or less - human nature and the nature of states. On the nature of states for example, take a Rome, take a Prussia, take a US - the way they approach politics and diplomacy is all the same. You can call it power politics, realpolitik or 'national security', the concept it the same. To ensure the state's security and survival, the state will do anything to protect its vital interests, because, without protecting its vital interests, its existence is threatened (explains why they're called 'vital'). The reason the US is involved in the Middle East is because it's protecting two of its vital interests, economic security and the security of energy resources. Disruptions in the area cause regional instability, which messes with the oil trade. A messed up oil trade is both a threat to economic and energy security.
I don't like how the USA attacks Middle Eastern countries, and tells their own people this is for protecting them from terrorism, so it's ok. Only a small portion of Americans know, that organisations like Al Qaida and Isis were originally funded by USA, and were projects blowing up in their own hands. I thought leaving self-made terrorist-organisations to a country that isn't theirs would be bad enough, but then they realized there's some riches, such as oil, they could take advantage of.
