[B0ycey]

But is it really worth the trouble? Personally I cannot be bothered.

No! It isn't worth the trouble. And I think The West wouldn't have intervened in hindsite. But the dollar marks were in Bush's eyes before the war. I suppose he saw the potential profit but didn't consider the overall cost.

So why don't we also get our oil from Iran?

The West get most of their ME oil from Saudi Arabia. But during early 21st century Iran has sanctions placed on them.

And the Chinese do not invade those African countries. They just set up outposts where they send their businessmen and labourers. In fact Chinese investment has been relatively positive for African countries.

They don't invade because they have control without needing to. But I doubt China would go to war if African nations became hostile towards them nonetheless. But the West wouldn't have needed to go to war with Iraq or Libya if Saddam or Gadaffi were friendly. It was because they weren't that they decided to invade on a bogus claim.

Essentially I think we Westerners are stupid! Its all based on ego and a tremendous will to power. We could live comfortably without needing to do any of this.

The idea that we would all suddenly turn into paupers if we stopped ruining an Arab country every five years has no basis in fact or reality.

Well I agree. But these wars are not about benefiting the general public but the big corporate oil giants and keeping the price of oil sustainable.

[Clangeddin]

Nice "other" option there, I wonder what's the usefulness in a poll such as this one, no wonder it got 0 votes so far.
I'll give it one vote just to start the momentum. Join the "I'm an alternative contrarian" train.

[Thunderhawk]

Something of interest:
http://energyfuse.org/europes-oil-import-dilemma/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... dependence


When it comes to oil, the North part of the Western world gets a majority from the global south, but not a large majority. And several of the oil suppliers in the global south are part of the West or are allies/friends of the West. Seems like Western intervention into oil producing countries (and other countries) isn't about resource control per se, but about making sure enemies/hostile people are not leading countries who could then oppose the West individually or en mass.

[LehmanB]

Do Westerners Benefit from Intervention in the Global South?
Yes.
Do Westerners benefit from these wars?
emm, not really.
Intervention =/=these 3 wars.

[LehmanB]

Something of interest:
http://energyfuse.org/europes-oil-import-dilemma/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... dependence


When it comes to oil, the North part of the Western world gets a majority from the global south, but not a large majority. And several of the oil suppliers in the global south are part of the West or are allies/friends of the West. Seems like Western intervention into oil producing countries (and other countries) isn't about resource control per se, but about making sure enemies/hostile people are not leading countries who could then oppose the West individually or en mass.

EU imports mainly from Russia, its strategic rival;
USA imports from Venezuela and Saudia???
Funny how things evolves

[Victoribus Spolia]

Westerners benefit by the defense of the petro-dollar.

I wrote on this elsewhere as to my reasoning.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=171373

[Atlantis]

There are many non-Western countries that are major economic powers. Japan is the third largest economy in the world and it is not a Western power. Japan also has a very sensible foreign policy with respect to the Middle East. You could argue that because the Japanese are part of the Anglo-American world order they are in a sense a Western power, but that is only because they are in an alliance with the United States.

As an US ally, the Japanese are part of the pax-Americana. Like Germany, they don't have major oil companies, that's why the incentive to go to war is less. They are also bound by their pacifist constitution, which prevents substantial military deployments abroad. But they will likely change the constitution, in part to respond to US pressure and in part because of domestic nationalist pressure. We will soon see more Japanese military deployments abroad.

Afterall, the Chinese do not control the supply of energy in the Middle East but they can still exist comfortably.

Like Germany, China is primarily a manufacturing country. Countries like the UK depend much more on resources exploitation (oil, mining, etc.) abroad, international trade and finances, etc., which they inherited from colonial times. However, China is gradually strengthening its global trade network, which, in time, will be complemented by a military component. Some of the ports in their "string of pearls" reaching from Shanghai all the way to Europe have dual civilian and military use. The Chinese have global ambitions. There can be no doubt about it.

Geo-strategic aims aren't only about oil exploration. It's much broader. Multinational US corporations depend on the political support from the White House or the State Department (or the Pentagon) to defend their international assets. Trump is a hypocrite when he pretends that the US is being robbed. By some estimates, US multinationals own about 50% of the world's corporate wealth. If Wall Street or the City are afloat with money, it's not because Anglo bankers are particularly brilliant, it's because they control much of the World's wealth. Even if much of the international earnings of US multinationals end up in tax havens (10 to 20 trillions by some estimates), that money still benefits the US because it is controlled by Wall Street even if it doesn't show in the trade statistics. For example, Trump tower in New York would be worth far less if Wall Street didn't attract wealth from across the globe. Like in imperial Britain, the earnings from abroad spread across the whole of the economy.

Trump couldn't disengage the US from the world even if he wanted to because too much of America's wealth depends on US corporate earnings abroad. And since he is going to increase the defense budget by 10% while cutting all other budgets, there is no hope that the US will disengage militarily.

Since the US has hollowed out its manufacturing base, it can only survive by making other countries accept its global franchises. The State Department is constantly pressuring governments around the world to accept trade rules that benefit its multinationals.

So yes, Americans and Brits benefit economically from the global presence of their respective country even if the average Joe isn't aware of it.

PS: I just can't get over the fact that people swallow Trump's idea that US corporate earnings will flow from the tax havens into the US economy if he lowers corporate taxes. The money isn't physically in the tax havens. It is already reinvested in the US via shell companies, for example, to buy US treasury bonds.

[skinster]

Yes and no. POD pretty much covered it.

Gaddafi did warn of the migrant crisis that would explode if Libya fell. I think it did. Lots of people here complained about it.

There is a reason why the US and the UK are Saudi poodles.

I think this is the wrong way around.