The US has supported Hamid Karzi’s campaign for election as Prime Minister of Afghanistan. Karzi suppports US intentions to build a pipeline running from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, through Afghanistan. The Bush Administration claimed to have dropped such negotiations, but progress in the pipeline has been made. The concern is that US troops have will shift their focus from fighting the Taliban to protecting the pipeline, creating an even more controversal image of American intensions in the Middle East.
To read more about Karzi’s relations with the US Government, see http://prorev.com/2009/10/karzai-story-media-doesnt-tell-you.html .
Do you feel that US diplomatic intentions are skewed by the economic needs of our country?
Aren't they always? What would the point of spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives on warring with and rebuilding a country if it did not have some inherent benefit for the American Republic? In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq the benefits are 1) removing violent and unstable regimes from power, 2) having friends in the Middle East, and 3) securing the Western world’s energy supply. Is it imperialistic? Yes, a little, though at least America isn't making the Middle East a giant mismanaged playground like some pervious superpowers have (cough, cough, the British Empire...at least we didn’t rename Afghanistan Cheneysia) . Is it immoral? No, not really, we are removing heinous regimes and bettering the lives of the people living in those counties, aren’t we? Are diplomatic intentions skewed by economic needs? If we lived in a world where the West still had a spine, the question we would be asking is "are our economic needs ever sacrificed for the sake of diplomacy?” That is much more alarming than the visa versa.
ReplyDeleteYes I do believe that the US diplomatic intentions are skewed by the economic needs of our country. For example Iran has huge oil fields, and the US is determined to profit from that. If it wasn't for the fact that middle eastern countries could provide resources for the US economy, I don't believe America would be involved over there.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYes, the fact that both Bush and Cheney were funded by large corporations shows that here must be some greed involved. Though I don't believe that it is our whole intention, I do believe it is what is really driving us in the Middle East. Such things as the oil fields in Iran and this gas line make us look bad, even though most countries are corrupt in basically the same ways, this still make us looks bad. It is outright saying that our intentions are crocked.
ReplyDeleteI think that in a war where already so much is unknown about our true intentions, doing anything that relates to oil makes the US look bad. Even if our intentions in invading Afghanistan were not dominated by our economic needs, any effort on America's part to get oil or protect oil will change the image of the war. On the other hand, America going into Afghanistan and Iraq for the sole purpose of ridding them of corrupt governments is a little shifty. How about all the other corrupt governments in the world? We leave them alone, because we make no profit by overthrowing them, unlike in the Middle East. Although no one really wants to admit that we are losing American lives over something as materialistic as oil, it is a reality, and I think that America's involvement in these countries is definitely affected by their access to oil.
ReplyDeleteI believe that US Diplomatic intentions are definitely skewed by the economic needs of this country. I think that the Bush Administration has many reasons for creating this situation, but I don't think they will ever admit that this could be for our profit, (even though they know it is). Oil is an economic need in this country, but I don't think it's worth fighting a war over.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Bri that our involvement in the war is a little questionable. We claim to be trying to help out a corrupted government in need, but how convenient that the one we decide to help out is the one that will benefit us. The stated purpose for our involvement is certainly shifty, and personally i feel that at the very least that purpose should be clarified
ReplyDeleteCapitalism is the American way. Screw everyone else that doesn't agree, they are all Muslim loving freedom haters. Yay Capitalism.
ReplyDeleteyeah, our diplomatic intentions are definitely sewed by our economic needs.....they have oil, which we need, so obviously our government being what it is will do whatever it takes to secure that. I don't know to what extent I agree with their methods, but there is an economic motivation behind it for sure.
ReplyDeleteU.S. Diplomatic Intentions seem to be able to be compared to little kids playing soccer. Magnet ball is the name of the game and we seem to flock to where ever there is the prospect of oil that we can benefit from while also being able to reform and entire country. It will be interesting to see what we do when controversy arises between bordering countries and the path of the pipeline.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think that the diplomatic intentions of the US are skewed by our economic needs, and in more than just the sense of oil money. Our country often overlooks the overall good of our people and the world itself to artificially better our country with wealth and not-needed material possessions.
ReplyDeleteReviews revealed an increased risk of heart failure with the use of NSAIDS and potential heart-related side effects. Hemp CBD-infused products are a CBD oil great all natural alternative for pain management and effective supplements to optimize your lifestyle.
ReplyDelete