Moderator: Moderators
I do take your point about Zimbabwe. I think Rwanda was the classic example of the world standing by and doing nothing. The Balkans, of course - next to nothing. My point about oil is simply that the supply from Libya didn't need securing, though it was undoubtedly the only thing that enabled the wolf to get into sheep's clothing.jhopgood wrote:I have always been under the impression that the underlying cause of most wars is to gain economic advantage. Securing supply of a necessary commodity, oil, would fall into that category.
If the desire to protect populations from harm was the criteria, then surely places like Zimbabwe would have received belligerent help a long time ago, but then Zimbabwe is of little economic consequence to the major western powers.
I may be cynical but no-one spends billions of euros helping someone else for purely altruistic purposes. There must be an underlying reason, and the most obvious one is to ensure the oil supply.
As one who was stuck in Panama when the US invaded and got some pretty interesting video from the first minutes until I got out on a German military flight, getting Noriega was the manifest reason for the invasion. However, many believe that it was a combination of the Monroe Doctrine (viz Grenada and others), the thought that "uncontrolled" Panamanians (Noriega) could not run the Panama Canal as the US would like, and trouble in the US backyard (Central America), that persuaded Bush to send in the Marines.sejintenej wrote: The US invasion of Panama; economic advantage? I think not; they simply wanted to stop drug running and get Noriega.