There are plenty of places to "liberate" in the world but I guess only a few places have oil
2006-10-30 17:00:01 · 10 answers · asked by #15mwu 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's what the US said as well when they came to the Philippines back in the 40's. They said they wanted to teach us how to rule ourselves but we already had a government that time. An area for military bases are what they were really after not to mention raw materials
2006-10-30 17:02:43 · update #1
Thats not true at all. We give Billions to Countries like Africa (What do they give us?). We also spend Billions on finding cures for things like cancer and HIV/ADIS wich no other Country is doing.
2006-10-30 17:09:35 · answer #1 · answered by hdchackz 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why does the US get accused of being the world's police on the one hand and accused of not solving the world's problems on the other--and by the same people?
And using your own logic, if we are to be the helpers of the world, how can we do this without oil?
Using the liberal logic, if we are to spread our wealth the country and the world over, why would it benefit the world for small, rogue, totalitarian regimes to control the oil?
That said, oil is not our interest in Iraq.
The UN is driving the Darfur crisis, and is also claiming to solve it.
2006-10-31 01:22:59 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ever since the US has been a leading economy in the world, it has contributed to the well fare of others all over the world. In areas such as Africa, for example, the US has contributed far more than all the other countries combined. Your misguided opinion doesn't take in to account that when ever there is a major
disaster some place on the planet, it is always the US that is first there to help, but when we suffered the Katrina hurricane, who came here to help us?
2006-10-31 01:09:35 · answer #3 · answered by Dusty 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because the US is for who the name suggests "US." The US is looking for it's best interests, and really could care less about spreading democracy and freeing people. When I say US I am referring to the people in power.
Well, if they really care about Africa, why are they allowing Africans to be exploited for their natural resources? The blood diamond problem still exists. Yes, there is money going to help Africans, but a lot of that is misused by corrupt leaders. And if I know that, why aren't they making sure that all the money is being used properly. Don't take anything at face value. If I'm aware of the problem, then something is wrong. As you said, the US can't take care of its own, so do you really think they are helping others out of "care."
2006-10-31 01:04:02 · answer #4 · answered by SickThaScholar 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How much oil is under Korea? Or Viet Nam? Or Somallia? What did we get back from all the lives we lost and all the billions and billions we spent helping them out? Oh, yeah - we got a well deserved reputation for being genuinely concerned with human rights, which eventually led to us becoming the ONLY REMAINING SUPERPOWER IN THE FREAKIN' UNIVERSE. Deal with it.
2006-10-31 01:35:43 · answer #5 · answered by wuxxler 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have to disagree with that. I don't think we sit down and only decide to go to war because we want something in return; just read your history. What did we want in return from the Japanese? I think it's the other way around because the Japanese own pretty darn much around here and this is the place they attacked! Explain that!
2006-10-31 03:37:59 · answer #6 · answered by Nancy D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please try and explain how your question applies to Viet Nam, Korea, ElSalvadore, Somalia, etc....etc........There is no oil in these countries, only repressed people.
Ask yourself: If oil were our objective,
Why did we not just keep Kuwait after we drove the Iraqis out?
Why did we not invade the OPEC nations in 1974 when they almost crippled our economy with an oil embargo?
Why have we made them so filthy rich by paying for their oil for all of these years?
It is obviously in our best interest to keep the oil supplies in this country at sufficient levels to meet our energy needs, but there is not one single piece of valid and verifiable evidence that we have ever gone to war to assure our supplies - not one.
2006-10-31 01:12:49 · answer #7 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush Attacks the countires to help Himslef.Once he attacked at the near end of his period n got the seat again n then attacked Iraq for oil. come on!! he is not at all interested in helping others.he only thinks of his own .he is a selfish person.
2006-10-31 03:11:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a matter of economy. If you give away all of your pennies to other people for no returen then soon your children will go hungry and have no shoes or medical attention.
That's the truth.
2006-10-31 01:02:10 · answer #9 · answered by Cattlemanbob 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
the real question is why does the U.S. help all other countries but not it's own....
2006-10-31 01:04:51 · answer #10 · answered by glduke2003 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋