Tom Ganks
Guest
These threads are sorta fun, but let's keep it mature here. No racism or religion wars please. Pure speculation.
This is my take on it.
This is my take on it.
Last edited:
Dorigon
Alpha and Omega
To keep the military industrial complex running, of course. Case in point: in 2014, America's defense spending roughly equaled that of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Germany, and South Korea put together. All those companies need to get paid somehow!
OP
OP
Tom Ganks
Guest
Gonna tag [MENTION=13421]Allybeboba[/MENTION] for the fun of it
Phrontistery
i was making waves u was surfing in 'em
they killed my nigga biggie
Leek
Legend
You... WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!
Allybeboba
Legend
Thanks for the invite into the conversation, although I probably would have seen it when I got to my office this morning. It is "Friday" for me BTW!!
By "we" I am going to go on the the presumption you mean the "West", which excludes Russia.
Technically, there is only seventeen Middle Eastern countries.
And the only Middle Eastern country's government that was directly attacked was attacked, and defeated quite swiftly I might add, was because it overran another Middle Eastern country. And I think we all know which country that was and what happened to it's tyrannical dictator. Thank goodness we learned from history's mistakes on that one, right?
The US does not need to "fight for oil". The US is the world's number one oil producer, by far. If you take away Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Middle Eastern countries combined are just a fraction of US oil production. They barely even combine to equal Russia's oil production. Even Canada produces more oil than Middle Eastern countries. Brazil and Mexico produce more than most. And even little ol' Norway produces more than some!
One could speculate that we, as a coalition are there to keep "peace" so that those fertile, oil rich lands do not fall into the "wrong hands". Because, as we all know oil equals money. And money equals power.
Wouldn't you rather fight a war on someone else's land rather than your own? I know I would...
You knock the terrorists out before they have a chance to even get trained. That is why they are having to change their tactics now.
Allybeboba
Legend
America's spending on anything can not be compared to any other country. We are quite unique. Thus we incomparable.
Just think, if it was not for HUGE defense budget. We would not be having this nice conversation today. Because, we all know the US government invented the Internet for defense.
Nor, would we have have the aviation industry that we have today. Nor would we have Life Flight... Etc...
Last edited by a moderator:
Yapah
Legend
The US doesn't fight for oil, the US fights to keep the US Dollar the default currency for petrol. This essentially means that the US Dollar is backed up by Petrol, so the US Dollar becomes a reserve currency (like gold).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar
Iraq wanted to get rid of the petrodollar system in the year 2000, then they switched to petroeuro in 2002. They were invaded in 2003. The whole clusterfuck in the middle east is thanks to the United States trying to keep the US Dollar as a reserve currency.
Leek
Legend
*freedom intensifies*
Flamer
2014 and 2016 Twink Cup Champion
The US and the Soviet Union were the two great powers of the international system following WWII and going into the Cold War. After the Cold War, the US was a clear hegemon. A hegemon is a preponderant state capable of dominating the conduct of international political and economic relations over the entire globe.
The Long Cycle Theory is the view that the historical pattern of rivalry between great powers is cyclical. It focuses on the rise and fall of the leading global power as the central political process of the modern world system. The long cycle theory references history and argues that over time, the weight of global engagement takes its toll on the hegemon. An example is how US involvement and spending in the middle east is draining its power. As internal problems like economic crisis increase, the US will shift its focus on these and away from world affairs, while other rising powers like BRIC will take its place and gain influence to form a multipolar system. BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India China) is a group of countries that are at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. They have broken off from the Global South and represent a shift in the global economy towards the developing world.
The long cycle theory argues that as challengers to a hegemon's power grow in strength, a global war will erupt after a long period of peace. This has occurred in every century since 1400.
The fall of the US as a hegemon and rise of countries like BRIC are setting the stage for multipolarity and the next global war. Multipolarity was in place going into WWI and II, and supports the eventual occurrence of a WWIII under a multipolarity system.
It is also important to note that due to nuclear proliferation and technological advances, non-great powers and non-state actors like terrorist groups are gaining access to nuclear and cyber weapons. These actors could potentially use these weapons due to distributional consequences or incompatible ideologies like religion or political views. Non-great powers and non-state actors have become a much larger threat compared to the 20th century.
The Long Cycle Theory is the view that the historical pattern of rivalry between great powers is cyclical. It focuses on the rise and fall of the leading global power as the central political process of the modern world system. The long cycle theory references history and argues that over time, the weight of global engagement takes its toll on the hegemon. An example is how US involvement and spending in the middle east is draining its power. As internal problems like economic crisis increase, the US will shift its focus on these and away from world affairs, while other rising powers like BRIC will take its place and gain influence to form a multipolar system. BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India China) is a group of countries that are at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. They have broken off from the Global South and represent a shift in the global economy towards the developing world.
The long cycle theory argues that as challengers to a hegemon's power grow in strength, a global war will erupt after a long period of peace. This has occurred in every century since 1400.
The fall of the US as a hegemon and rise of countries like BRIC are setting the stage for multipolarity and the next global war. Multipolarity was in place going into WWI and II, and supports the eventual occurrence of a WWIII under a multipolarity system.
It is also important to note that due to nuclear proliferation and technological advances, non-great powers and non-state actors like terrorist groups are gaining access to nuclear and cyber weapons. These actors could potentially use these weapons due to distributional consequences or incompatible ideologies like religion or political views. Non-great powers and non-state actors have become a much larger threat compared to the 20th century.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kilda
OG
Allahu Snackbar
Yapah
Legend
Allow Snackbar?
Revolution
Pandaboys
Keeping the Petrodollar, Oil, an excuse to have nuclear warheads in Europe, keeping NATO relevant... so many reasons that are all put forward by the top of the 1%. The sheeple believe we're there because of "terrorists" but unfortunately the government created them to slowly take away our rights. Merry Christmas.
Allybeboba
Legend
As I stated before, only one Middle Eastern country's government has been "invaded" by the West in modern times. And that was a result of Saddam Hussain's antics.
Iraq was invaded by coalition forces, not simply a single country's forces. It only lasted 21 days and was pretty damn one sided. Coalition loses were ~170 vs 30,000+ of the opposing belligerents.
What you are suggesting is that Syria's civil war is a direct result of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003. And that the United States is solely responsible for that. That is where you are incorrect. America is not alone in it's "fight". For, most western nations with a standing army has had conflict with, has sent troops to, or has lent non-combat support against a Middle Eastern country.
The Syrian Civil War didin't really get to rolling until March 2011 after the arrest of some children. Then a few months later the US hit Syria with sanctions and the EU followed a couple weeks later. And it just snowballed from there.