Quote:
Originally Posted by aegyptos  I'm not sure that the American financial interest in East Timor is great enough to require us to take military action when East Timor is in peril. Businessmen must accept the risk that they may lose everything when they make investments in unstable regions. They shouldn't expect that the nation is going to bail them out at the cost of lives and huge expense to the treasury. That's why I say we have to define national interest narrowly. For me that means we have to defend our region of the world, and not attempt to control all of the world.
I define our region as North America, Central America the Caribbean basin and the Pacific approaches. This is where I would concentrate. That doesn't mean that American business or tourists can't go everywhere else only the the US Navy won't be going with them or come to their rescue. |
I wasnt saying that the U.S should have sent troops into east timor [though incidently that wouldnt have been a bad idea] i was saying the the U.S's *backing* of the invasion of and democide in east timor was an example of the U.S persueing its own economic interests.
Ergo if your going to say that U.S policy should be defined by economic interests, then you must except that wars of a agression, as well cooperation with implmentation of and support for murderous dictators are the result of this mindset.
For example [as you mention central america] it was in americas economic interest that Jacob Arbenz Guzman was overthrown by Colonel Carlos Castillo.
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
