23 Mar 06
Much of the debate about America's involvement in the middle east naturally surrounds the topic of oil. This is only natural - the West would scarcely think about the region were it not for its natural resources. Whether or not the Iraq war and all the rest of it was inspired by the American desire to secure oil supplies is a question that has been well argued, but a less explored question is whether this interest is in fact legitimate. Any of you who have read my previous posts will realise that I am as critical of American foreign policy as any Jihadi, but I am not entirely convinced that America doesn't have a right to make efforts to secure supplies.
- Does America have the right to use political, economic or military force to secure oil supplies from the middle east? To what extent?
- If it does have this right, to what extent does this point undermine traditional arguments against America's Arab wars?
23 Mar 06
Originally posted by Villagerwhat governing body are you presupposing in talking about "rights?" are you talking about god-given right? or about rights that are granted from an international body? how can america have a right to invade another country for resources? what about the invaded country's right to remain uninvaded? i think that using the term 'right' confuses the issue. maybe the question should be rephrased "is it ever morally permisable for america to make war or use economic leverage to secure oil from the middle east?"
- Does America have the right to use political, economic or military force to secure oil supplies from the middle east? To what extent?
- If it does have this right, to what extent does this point undermine traditional arguments against America's Arab wars?
23 Mar 06
Originally posted by nomindI agree, the issue of 'rights' is a non-issue here. America and puppy-dog Britain have no 'rights' to invade a foreign country for oil.
what governing body are you presupposing in talking about "rights?" are you talking about god-given right? or about rights that are granted from an international body? how can america have a right to invade another country for resources? what about the invaded country's right to remain uninvaded? i think that using the term 'right' confuses the issue. m ...[text shortened]... ble for america to make war or use economic leverage to secure oil from the middle east?"
As for morally permissable, it could be argued that it would be morally permissable to use economic pressure, as the oil itself is an economic resource. We use economic pressure to secure economic resources all the time. It is almost a given in a capitalist society.
The question of whether it is permissable to use political pressure is a bit more vague in this instance, but can still be argued legitimately.
However, there is no excusing using military might to secure oil that belongs to another country. Yes, we have been doing it for centuries. Yes, most other countries have also done it in the past. This is a fact, but it does not make it right.
We lost any pretence at the moral highground when we invaded a foreign country for financial gain.
The thing is, I believe it was morally right to remove Saddam from power, as he was obviously an 'ethically challenged' individual. Unfortunately, to follow this through to it's logical conclusion, we should be invading half the world! (and each other, judging by our recent actions). To only remove Saddam throws a huge question mark over this as a legitimate reason for invasion, never mind the whole sorry fiasco of awarding billion-dollar contracts to so many firms who are politically and financially intertwined with the American government.
23 Mar 06
Originally posted by tojoright. saddam was an easy scapegoat. who would complain about removing a brutal dictator from power? - never mind that he had our full support when he was gassing iranians or kurds. finding weapons of mass destruction was the pretense to go to war, but removing saddam became the retroactive justification for having gone to war. how can the public debate about whether or not invading iraq was morally permissable when the administration has never been at all honest about their motivations? whether economic, political or military leverage, i believe what really matters is the motivation behind the action. why did we do what we did? it is only after we settle on an answer to this that debate about the morality of the action seems possible.
I agree, the issue of 'rights' is a non-issue here. America and puppy-dog Britain have no 'rights' to invade a foreign country for oil.
As for morally permissable, it could be argued that it would be morally permissable to use economic pressure, as the oil itself is an economic resource. We use economic pressure to secure economic resources all the time. It ...[text shortened]... many firms who are politically and financially intertwined with the American government.
24 Mar 06
Originally posted by VillagerI personally dont think that oil was the only reason for the iraq war though it is involved.
- Does America have the right to use political, economic or military force to secure oil supplies from the middle east? To what extent?
- If it does have this right, to what extent does this point undermine traditional arguments against America's Arab wars?
This is my approximate theory on the various forces:
There is a financial and possible political benefit to top US politicians for going to war in general. So if you are going to go to war then obviously you want to choose the most beneficial location. You want
A. the most viable financially. Here oil clearly helps.
B. Minimum military resistance (dont go attacking rusia for example)
C. the least political resistance both localy and abroad, here it helps to have:
1. A generaly different religion or culture on the recieving end.
2. 'moral' excuses. Eg a dictator that deserves to be removed.
3. removal of a threat to Israel (politically beneficial)
4. removal of a (percieved or generated) threat to the US (history of war/threats helps a lot here, so does the posiblity of suggesting links to terrorism or other threats)
5. A country with a generally negative image worldwide.
6. A country with little political clout in the US (dont attack Saudi Arabia)
7. Again access to oil supplies does make americans feel more secure. The price of oil is also very important politically but here it is just important to have someone to blame on high prices.
In the past, small potentialy communist countries fit most of these criteria and thus were targets. Nowadays Iran fits extremely well.
24 Mar 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with most of the reasons given here, and feel you have hit the political zeitgeist on the head.
I personally dont think that oil was the only reason for the iraq war though it is involved.
This is my approximate theory on the various forces:
There is a financial and possible political benefit to top US politicians for going to war in general. So if you are going to go to war then obviously you want to choose the most beneficial location. You want ...[text shortened]... countries fit most of these criteria and thus were targets. Nowadays Iran fits extremely well.
However, i would argue with one of the points.
C. the least political resistance both localy and abroad, here it helps to have:
1. A generaly different religion or culture on the recieving end.
Whilst this is true for least local political resistance, and maybe even in the western world, I think it's fair to say that it has created an immense amount of political resistance outside of America and Europe.
24 Mar 06
Originally posted by tojoThis particular strategy requires future growth potential, so you cant actually afford to please everyone.
I agree with most of the reasons given here, and feel you have hit the political zeitgeist on the head.
However, i would argue with one of the points.
[b]C. the least political resistance both localy and abroad, here it helps to have:
1. A generaly different religion or culture on the recieving end.
Whilst this is true for least local political re ...[text shortened]... ay that it has created an immense amount of political resistance outside of America and Europe.[/b]
MÅ¥HÅRM
25 Mar 06
I apologise, for I considered 'right' to equate to 'moral acceptability'.
I'm not suggesting that the US seriously has the right to use force here, but on the spectrum of coercion it is an extreme that has been used. Is economic pressure/warfare legitimate to gain oil supplies which, after all, are more or less necessary? What about non-violent support of opposition groups in hostile oil-seated countries? Or no more than diplomatic effort?
I'm leaning towards the last of those options, but I'm sure some of you will try to persuade me otherwise.
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by VillagerUnless you claim that all world resources are some how equally owned by all countries then no there is no 'right' here. Yes I am sure that many americans would like the rest of the worlds resources and feel that if they can take them by force then why not, but there is cirtainly no moral justification available unless plain old selfishness is considered good morals.
I apologise, for I considered 'right' to equate to 'moral acceptability'.
I'm not suggesting that the US seriously has the right to use force here, but on the spectrum of coercion it is an extreme that has been used. Is economic pressure/warfare legitimate to gain oil supplies which, after all, are more or less necessary? What about non-violent support ...[text shortened]... ds the last of those options, but I'm sure some of you will try to persuade me otherwise.
Support of opposition groups, though a popular CIA tactic is clear evidence that the US government (and possible people) dont actually believe in democracy.