2007-12-01 05:22:07 · 20 answers · asked by Delay 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
If Saudi Arabia exported onions and not oil, nobody would be able to find it on a map.
2007-12-01 05:36:22 · answer #1 · answered by t S 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I admit, the US would be less involved with these countries if they could not provide a product we want.
Still, we have gone into other countries for purely humanitarian reasons. We are prosperous enough to be generous. The US spends more than anybody in disaster relief, but still can't keep up with Mother Nature! Nevertheless, we naturally spend more where we have some interest and involvement already.
But oil is not the biggest issue in the Middle East. It's a great source of oil, but not the only great source.
Religion is once again becoming the big issue.
Religion is not really an issue within the US, since our Constitution was founded on free practice of religion. But it is a huge issue in the Middle East, and this issue is spreading all over the world.
So
2007-12-01 13:33:16 · answer #2 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Probably not- Look at what's happening in Darfur. They have no oil or anything that is in interest to us, so the government isn't doing jack. They try to justify what they are doing in the middle east, but we were there for the reasons that they justified- then why the middle east, why not Darfur?
2007-12-01 13:26:51 · answer #3 · answered by yo. 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, it appears everyone is basically of the same opinion. However, I have to take a different position (why not). I think we would care about these folks because sooner or later the folks from south of the border are gonna' get tired of doing the jobs us Americans don't want to do and whose gonna' take their place?
2007-12-01 13:52:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not all all. There are problems going on in other parts of the world and you don't see American troops occupying those countries. Some people have pointed out the example of Darfur but another one is Myanamar (formerly Burma). I don't see troops being sent there to "liberate" the people in that country.
2007-12-01 14:08:30 · answer #5 · answered by RoVale 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
"we" who care about ending the abuse of women would care about the violent atrocities in middle east
"we" who care about animals would care about the violent atrocities committed against them in the middle east
"we", the bush's, cheney's, "self-annointed so-called leaders of the free world" etc wouldnt give a **** about the middle east.
2007-12-01 13:29:33 · answer #6 · answered by offeradifferentangle 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not...I'm assuming by "We" you mean the Washington beltway politicians that make Foreign Policy.
2007-12-01 13:39:03 · answer #7 · answered by Richard V 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep. There would be some other strategic or economic reason why we had to either make them our best pals or our worst enemies.
2007-12-01 13:35:37 · answer #8 · answered by Chico 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well. i think the truth is, no-one will want to care.. but all these world power countries are so greedy and they just cant get their hands off these poor countries because of the oil industry.
2007-12-01 13:25:07 · answer #9 · answered by Etoile 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Of course not. Do we care about the genocide in Africa, are we bringing them democracy?
2007-12-01 13:36:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋