Quote:
Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 27 2004, 06:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 27 2004, 06:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon
The Middle East is not a slave to oil, their regimes are slaves to the West (through the oil/cash relationship).
|
How are they not slaves to oil? As Cow said, this is their major (some times only)export to the world. What else are they going to export on the world market? [/b][/quote]
Well, the reason I said that is because I believe that the primary beneficiaries of oil revenues right now are Middle Eastern regimes, not the countries themselves.
If most of the money is being siphoned into private pockets, then how is the Middle East a 'slave to oil'? Sure it has a lot of it, but its not like their depending on the proceeds for anything more than second-rate militaries and non-existant social services.
Oil
could be a boon to the Middle East, but right now all the benefits and profits from it are not going where they should. Hell, Saddam had the 5th largest army in the world in the early 1990's.
He was the slave to oil. His
army was the slave to oil.
The countries themselves (ie the people in them) are not. It's hard to be a slave to a commodity that you're receiving a very marginal slice of.