You have a strange idea of hostage situations, but anyway.- It has successfully controlled Middle-Eastern oil to such an extent that it allowed the US to take the world economy hostage via the petro-dollar. — Tzeentch
This is the typical anti-American rant, that doesn't at all grasp the reality of how expensive wars are ...especially when you end up losing them, just like Vietnam or Afghanistan.You, and many others, are operating under an assumption that the 'forever wars' had some envisioned endpoint of permanent victory. They did not. Talk of 'spreading democracy', etc. was just the figleaf.
Causing chaos and destruction was the whole point - except in those countries that willfully kowtowed before Washington and basically assigned themselves voluntarily to vassal status. — Tzeentch
You have a strange idea of hostage situations, but anyway.
Very typical to totally forget and sideline here the House of Saud, which is very crucial to the whole thing. The House of Saud, once a British protectorate, then made good relations with the rising Superpower and finally made Saudi-Aramco purely Saudi owned, without a clash with the West as had happened with Iran. That the Saudis went with the dollar when Nixon got out of the gold standard was very crucial for the US. Even if there is hostility towards the US in the country (starting famously with Osama bin Laden), the partnership that hasn't any ideological or cultural ties has continued as a real example of realpolitik. — ssu
If this would be such an incredibly successful foreign policy towards a region, then wouldn't it then be better according to you that the US would have to bomb or occupy West European countries in order to "prevent regional powers from rising through classic 'divide & rule' strategies, and by destroying any West European country that started showing signs of prosperity and a sense of independence".
Oh, the US would be so better then...
Yet on the contrary, the US was OK with European integration and an EU to rise. Forget the Marshall Plan? Why was this so good according to your "divide & rule"? And this makes the US far different from classic imperialist countries like Russia.
In truth in the long run "divide & rule" is a constant uphill battle and a perpetual drain on the economy and resources of any country/empire. Thus after exhausting the prosperity in these quite mindless wars, then empires falter. — ssu
Europe willingly subjugated itself to the US (it didn't have a huge amount of options post-WII) — Tzeentch
and when a part of the world willingly throws itself in your lap that is of course a geopolitical wet dream. — Tzeentch
That's a unique situation and not something that is easily replicated - especially not in the Middle-East. — Tzeentch
In terms of wars being "expensive", this entirely depends on the ways in which the war is profitable. — Tzeentch
The US successfully created failed states all over the world to deny resources, bloc power and trade corridors — Tzeentch
Europeans and the US should serve Russia's wet dreams, right? — neomac
So in a philosophy forum like this one it would be more suitable... to take a philosophical approach about political debates, take a step back and resist the temptation to... reason in terms of what is right or wrong...but in terms of what one wants and what on can get in a way that equally applies to ALL ideological conflicting views at hand — neomac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.