You need to study international politics and IR theory a little more. Our support of Israel is also hugely a consequence of our need for oil. Just like our bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea and our alliances with Britain and France are means of preventing great power war in Europe and Asia, our alliance with Israel and bases on the Persian Gulf are means of preventing war in the Middle East. Just the threat that Israel poses as a nuclear power in the Middle East are enough to keep a certain measure of stability and protect our interest (oil) from being denied or becoming prohibitively expensive. This is why we don't want Iran to get nukes - then Israel's nuclear threat becomes less credible and Iran can credibly get in the way our interests in the Middle East.
No. If the US's only interest in the ME was oil, they wouldn't support Israel and would instead spend more resources bolstering the Arab regimes instead of giving billions to the enemy of those regimes. It's why there always has been an inherent distrust in Arab society of the Americans and in Arab leadership. There support for Israel highlights a humanitarian cause not one for oil. An alliance with the ARABS would have been just as effective as preventing a war, even more so. Had this have happened from day one the Israeli's wouldn't even
have nuclear weaponry. Even if that wasn't the case they would remain a deterrent for any war especially if the US made it clear that they would support no such hostility even if Israel wasn't an ally.
You continue to prove that you know nothing about American interests and how we secure them. As far as I'm concerned, even though my circumstantial evidence is the weakest of my arguments, it is enough. Before the Iraq War, four of the biggest providers of oil to the U.S. and its allies had minimal access to Saddam Hussein's oil, afterwards, they had all the access they wanted and in turn, one of the U.S. main interests in the Middle East was secured. Oil and democratization are our main interests in the Middle East. Private companies are the ones who get the oil for us.
Your making a statement that the primary reason for the invasion was oil with very little evidence. As i said, bringing into account fluctuating oil prices, huge US funded rebuilding schemes, aid programmes and not to mention the money and resources required to sustain the war effort, your argument comes across as pretty flawed. The US will not get much return from this for years. It will take decades to make a net gain from oil imports from Iraq, or to remake the $720 million that is being spent there each day, by which time governments will be under huge pressure to actively employ alternate energy sources. Your basing your argument on what makes sense to you. In reality, invading Iraq for some sort of
economical gain makes little sense, and i believe it was obvious at the time too.
I'm not saying the US doesnt base some of its policies or actions in the ME for reasons other than humanitarian in nature, i just dont believe the sole motivation for this war was oil.
It's not better "safe than sorry". North Korea claims they have WMDs all the time, they even test some of them, but we don't invade their country. Why? Because they don't hold any of our primary interests. Iran denies having WMDs but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that if they don't have them already, they are working towards them. And yet, the United States has not invaded Iran. Why? Iran has not yet become an a huge impediment to getting oil or for any of our actions it the ME (it just yells at Israel) - it may if they get nukes.
Now your just being naive. The chances that Iraq had WMD's far outweighed that of NK, since it is well known they could not possibly obtain the money, scientific knowledge or resources to do so. There just big bluffers. They cant even afford to feed there own people, there army sucks up most of the budget.
There is also huge geopolitical differences between NK and Libya. First of all, any invasion of NK would need international consensus. China would very likely veto any UN resolution permitting an intervention and would probably seek to play a role in the war that wasnt on our side. There is far too much at stake in NK. The geopolitical situation in Libya is far easier for the US.
Iran hasn't been invaded because there hasn't been a case of country-wide and systematic extermination
to the degree we see in Libya, because Iran is a much bigger country, because a war in Iran would destabilize everything the US has worked to build in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the military force needed to invade Iran would be huge.
You're right, the removal of Saddam was in the U.S. interests because he was a block to US influence and stability. Why does the U.S. want influence and stability? Because without influence and stability, the United States can't get any oil (at least at a decent price).
No relevance whatsoever. The US enjoyed cheaper oil prices during Saddams regime if anything.
As far as Saddam's atrocities - remember Rwanda, Darfur? The U.S. is a government, not a charity. It follows its interests, not its love of humanity. Helping Saddam Hussein's people was a side effect.
Kosovo, Korea?
