Why do the USA only show themselves "altruist" about wars and dictators in countries with petrol in the soil?

Question

...And don't care at all about all those african countries that have been in war for many years?

Huh, I did not mention any Bush... I said the USA.. Although since when Bush is there the world is preparing for world war III.

Answer 1

Great question...but its rhetorical, right?

After his excuse of WMD blew up in his face, Bush needed another excuse for why he invaded Iraq. This time, he said it was to free the people from a tyrannical dictator. And I'm all for that...but why was Iraq chosen instead of, say, Darfur? I think the US has and has accepted an international responsibility as a defender of democracy and freedom...but why only certain countries? Agreed, they cannot be everywhere...so why Iraq? You decide.

The other hypocracy, of course, is the whole issue of these countries having WMD. The US has them, but I guess thats okay. Cause they're the good guys. So only the good guys can have 'em...and the bad guys cannot. HMMMMMM.

Answer 2

I believe the question was intended to be a hypothetical as opposed to getting into finger pointing, why do we not examine the entire issue.

You had a mass genocide in east Timor that continued for years until what few people were left in east timor are living in exile. There was no intervention.

Darfur. Among other Genocides in Africa such as the one that occurred in Rwanda.

You have nations such as Uzbekistan where the government actually passed legislation banning opposition, thus nobody can legally run against the reigning government in elections. Over 1,000 people were killed protesting that. The USA has a military base there.

Not to mention the many countless Communist countries the USA continues to support.

Haiti.

The fundamental issue is that if you are going to invade a country under the guise of altruism you should be willing to apply that standard unilaterally, thus acting on behalf of all oppressed people and willing to lend support regardless of economic benefit.

Answer 3

Well, the problem with your question is its premise..what about Bosnia and Kosovo..or our 'altruism' in World War II. There are lots of countries with no petroleum that the U.S. was invaded, supported or been involved with. other examples..Japan korea Vietnam. You should be careful not to mix up USA and Bush cause you will piss a lot of liberals off.

Still, your if question is about humanitarianism and interventions and why we are more 'altruistic'? First there's something called the national interests, (see poli sci 101) every country has them, and maybe it wasnt important enough for us to get involved separating the hutsis and tutus..thats why we have a UN and if it doesnt function I dont think we can say its only the US' fault.

Answer 4

Because we're tired of cleaning up Europe's messes. All the problems in Africa are from European colonialism. Of course, the same is true of the Middle East, but Africa has no ability to cause any global problems.

Actually, many of us DO care, and have been astounded at how the UN continues to fail to act about Darfur, as it failed to act in Rwanda. We see Europe having to spend so much on their socialist welfare states, that they are unable or unwilling to clean up their own messes.

Also, perhaps you recall, that the reason we'd been there in Iraq the first place, under the auspices of the UN, was because Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Yes, the Persian Gulf is important because of oil, but most of that oil goes other places than the US. It goes to Europe and Asia mostly. There is a valid reason for preventing any single person or country from having control over such a strategic resource.

But it is also about the people, and the fact that Iraq was supporting terrorists, with funding and training camps, and was in violation of UN Resolutions regarding WMD.

So, most of the African countries in turmoil have no strategic resources and carry no national interest concerns for most countries. It is also difficult for an uninterested 3rd party to jump into the middle of civil wars, especially if uninvited.

There are a lot of logical reasons for the lack of action in Africa, but to say it is just about oil is a shallow argument.

Answer 5

Funny how liberals want the USA to be the policeman of the world, but when a Republican administration is in office suddenly any humanitarian military action is all about oil.

Did you forget that Clinton was the one who started the policy to get Saddam out of power? Where were you idiots then? I didn't hear one of you brainwashed retards claiming Clinton was implementing policy based on oil considerations.

Grow up.

Answer 6

ask your self this question. all those nations have a few things in common. 1) desolate landscape
2) full of Muslims
3) run by dictators
4) hate freedom

now what separate them from the country's we have and will attack?
oil?

YES! you correct, but....

now here is where you have stopped thinking. what has the oil done for these country's in the past?

ah ha! it has provided them with money, ALOT of money. but again the dictators are the benefactors. not the people. following me? good.

these "nations" if you will, posses the means to wage war on us because of the money that they get from oil and use to buy technology, scientists and Russian weapons, they can find ways to harm us.

therefor. those African nations who hate us and have nothing can only hate us, not harm us.

we aren't fighting these places for the oil, we are fighting them because they are capable of harming us.

Answer 7

Because those who run the USA aren't really AMERICANS!!! Duh!!!!

And as for Clinton...at least he was trying to do it in a diplomatic fashion...to bad he never got to complete his mission! The oil hungry lot moved in for the kill.

Answer 8

like somalia?

Where is your beloved UN?

why is it the countries that love to insult the USA want the USA to "keep their nose out of business", unless it suits their specific needs?