Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
I didn't think it needed explanation...
Securing global security by fomenting insecurity in other areas?
That's fancy talk for continuing to oppress those already oppressed, robbing them of their resources and jitterbugging on down the road.
When you refer to 'Global' stability, you mean western stability, which accounts for about 1/5th of the 'globe'.
|
No, I really do mean global. Although South America and Africa have their own issues, certainly, and likely would be the only places left after a world war. It's not about oppressing anyone, countries manage to do that on their own. It's about ensuring there is no escalation of war into nuclear or just large scale warfare.
I'm by no means advocating what the US is
actually doing in Iraq. Clearly, they have their own agenda, and that agenda does include robbing the area of their resources. Previous actions to destabilize the area would include supplying all sides with weapons to kill each other off, etc.
As the man in red underwear so eloquently stated, with or without the US in the area, they'd still fight. They've proven that time and again. The US has previously facilitated such infighting, and in this case, they're joining in on it. If you allow them to do nothing but amass money and power, where do they spend that money? Clearly, they haven't been spending that money on things like health care and education... all their money goes into the military. What do you suppose they'd do with that military if we left it alone long enough? Continue to just kill each other? And if we sit by and watch that, does that make it any better?