2006-12-08 06:05:44 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, one easy answer is Japan. Well, we went to war with them because of Pearl Harbor, but they went to war with us over oil.
2006-12-08 06:11:39 · answer #1 · answered by Teekno 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
War is too expensive to make for such a purpose. The political, economic, and human expense outweighs the alternatives. It has been argued that the CIA along with its western counterparts have played a hand in sponsoring coups to defend national interest however (the Suez Canal comes to mind), but for the most part its far cheaper to trade for the resources in mind. This lies in the fact that no nation has an exclusive monopoly on any resource and therefore must compete for the market keeping the cost of acquiring the resource through trade cheaper than the cost of obtaining it by force. It is naive to say that the US would ever allow itself to be completely cut off from a necessary resource. At the end of the day a nation-state will do whatever is necessary to ensure its own survival. The decision to go to war with Iraq was a result of a convergence of interests: dictatorship, OIL, WMDs, geopolitical influence in the Middle East, and any one of those reasons in itself was not enough to justify the war, as many other nation states meet many of those criteria. So in this sense while oil was a deciding factor in going to war it was not the deciding factor.
2006-12-08 06:20:14 · answer #2 · answered by Brandon 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Dominican Republic, Grenada (oh the US just kicked the **** outta them because they could) Phillipines, Vietnam, Iraq, Mexico and the indigenous people of North, South and Central Americas
2006-12-08 06:13:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
None to name
Liberal myth
2006-12-08 06:08:43 · answer #4 · answered by Deport all ILLEGAL Alien INVADER 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ugh, none. America doesn't do this, you leftist.
2006-12-08 06:09:43 · answer #5 · answered by C = JD 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋