[Political Interest]

Iraq, Libya and Syria.

There are constant arguments about how the West should respond to events developing in the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe. There is also analysis by experts about the motives and interests involved from a Western and non-Western point of view.

In 2011 the UK and France intervened in Libya to aid the rebels seeking to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Ostensibly this action was undertaken because it was in the West's interest. However, I fail to understand how any Westerner benefited from this action. For example, I did not gain any money from it and I do not recall my cost of living going down because of it.

Do Westerners benefit from these wars?

[Joka]

Research global peak oil and peak natural energy resources.

*Prepares for peak oil deniers to come into thread*

[mikema63]

*prepares in vain for the new poster to do more to support his argument than telling someone else to do all the work*

These interventions are not done for the economic benefit of the average Westerner. It's done for the profits of large companies and to maintain or extend our soft empire and turn these states into essentially our subjects.

[Political Interest]

Research global peak oil and peak natural energy resources.

*Prepares for peak oil deniers to come into thread*

But to this I ask the question of why China is not invading the Middle East? Look how much energy an industrialised country of over a billion people must require.

Yet Beijing does not invade and manages to secure its energy interests without these sorts of adventures.

If China can buy its petroleum from Iran or Saudi Arabia without needing to attack the Middle East why can the West not do so as well?

These interventions are not done for the economic benefit of the average Westerner. It's done for the profits of large companies and to maintain or extend our soft empire and turn these states into essentially our subjects.

In many ways they are against the interests of Western citizens because they divert funding away from investment in their own countries. Every bomb dropped is less money to be spent on health care, schools and roads.

[mikema63]

Sure, that's true enough. I'm not justifying it per se. I'm just pointing out that the interests of the citizens at large are not the only interests of the nation. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of debate as well as how those conflicting interests should be balanced.

I don't think we have particular interests as citizens in a handful of middle eastern conflicts but we would be adversely effected economically by pulling back from the global power structure we've created. Our economies rely on the very complex millitary and economic relationships we have in the world.

[Decky]

Iraq, Libya and Syria.

There are constant arguments about how the West should respond to events developing in the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe. There is also analysis by experts about the motives and interests involved from a Western and non-Western point of view.

In 2011 the UK and France intervened in Libya to aid the rebels seeking to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Ostensibly this action was undertaken because it was in the West's interest. However, I fail to understand how any Westerner benefited from this action. For example, I did not gain any money from it and I do not recall my cost of living going down because of it.

Do Westerners benefit from these wars?

The wars are not fought to benefit westerners, they are fought to benefit Israel. The true master of all western politicians.

[ThirdTerm]

Muammar al-Gaddafi was a close ally of the Soviet Union, thus making him a prime target for the West, after the decline of Russian influence in the region. What has been going on in recent years in the Arab world is the continuation of the Cold War, including the Western intervention in the Syrian civil war. The West cannot benefit from the military intervention in Ukraine, either, but it has been hitting at Russia's weak spots from Syria to Ukraine.

[Heisenberg]

I don't think the Libyan intervention was in British or French interests at all. Obviously, as PI says, it did not benefit the average westerner, and that goes without saying. At the same time, I don't believe creating an anarchic, jihadist-ridden failed state on the southern shore of the Mediterranean can be seen as a strategic "win" for Britain or France in any way. David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy acted out of an emotional spasm, not hard-nosed realism.

I think we should be careful not to assume too much foresight and brilliance on the part of our governments - sometimes they really are just foolish. The obvious explanation - for example, that the Libya intervention was a catastrophic mistake based on misplaced idealism - isn't necessarily incorrect. It might not be as satisfying as assuming that "they" or "the corporations" are really behind it, but that's just life.

[mikema63]

That's true as well, sometimes it's just a shit show all-round.

[Heisenberg]

You should run for president on that post, Mike. I'd vote for you.

"Mikema63 2020: Sometimes it's just a shit-show all-round!"

[mikema63]

Well, if trump can do it!

[MistyTiger]

No.

I disagree with Western intervention, especially US intervention. Every time we interfere, something bad happens to the US.

[Joka]

*prepares in vain for the new poster to do more to support his argument than telling someone else to do all the work*

These interventions are not done for the economic benefit of the average Westerner. It's done for the profits of large companies and to maintain or extend our soft empire and turn these states into essentially our subjects.

I agree except that the only thing the common person does see as an added bonus is an increase in oil or petroleum supply. (For there to be supply there must be demand in consumption. )

Technically if a person disagrees with somebody they supply the evidence for the contrary and with me being a workaholic (Seven days a week) I don't feel the need to make long winded dissertations on an online forum. I also find best speaking plainly with conversations like this as I don't have to conceal my thoughts or intentions within a wall of text.

Political Interest- But to this I ask the question of why China is not invading the Middle East? Look how much energy an industrialised country of over a billion people must require.

Yet Beijing does not invade and manages to secure its energy interests without these sorts of adventures.

If China can buy its petroleum from Iran or Saudi Arabia without needing to attack the Middle East why can the West not do so as well?

Because the west only dominates economically with the petrodollar militarily which has forced many nations to use dollar denominated trading of oil in dollars only.

(Even nations whose currencies are not the dollar. )

Without the militarily enforced petrodollar the west is toast economically.

[B0ycey]

Iraq, Libya and Syria...

...

Do Westerners benefit from these wars?

In hindsite no. But you have to be naive if you believe these wars had nothing to do with control over the Middle East. I mean, lets be frank, as bad as Saddam, Gaddafi or Assad are/were, if they were leaders in some African shit hole, do you think Bush and his poodle would intervene with war? After all, Mugabe still reigns. And Zimbabwe was once a Commonwealth nation. Yet the UK didn't intervene when he bankrupted his nation and staved his people. While the Middle East contains oil, the West will always have to protect their interests in the region. The US fracking industries recent success might have eased the need for the region to be stable recently, but while they are oil junkies, they will always have to be a Saudi lapdog. So I doubt we will see any new wars while oil is below $80 a barrel.

[Rugoz]

In hindsite no. But you have to be naive if you believe these wars had nothing to do with control over the Middle East. I mean, lets be frank, as bad as Saddam, Gaddafi or Assad are/were, if they were leaders in some African shit hole, do you think Bush and his poodle would intervene with war?

There have been plenty of interventions in Africa, by the West and the African Union.

Obviously all interventions have something to do with control.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, western factions profit from intervening in developing nations.

In fact, that is the single main driver of all interventions.

The people profiting from these conflicts are people in the government or who have ties to it and are also involved in oil and defence. The rest of us pay the price by literally paying for the war, and by becoming targets of the newly created terrorists.

US and UK oil companies are in Libya right now and expect to make huge profits by selling that oil to European consumers.

[Political Interest]

In hindsite no. But you have to be naive if you believe these wars had nothing to do with control over the Middle East. I mean, lets be frank, as bad as Saddam, Gaddafi or Assad are/were, if they were leaders in some African shit hole, do you think Bush and his poodle would intervene with war? After all, Mugabe still reigns. And Zimbabwe was once a Commonwealth nation. Yet the UK didn't intervene when he bankrupted his nation and staved his people. While the Middle East contains oil, the West will always have to protect their interests in the region. The US fracking industries recent success might have eased the need for the region to be stable recently, but while they are oil junkies, they will always have to be a Saudi lapdog. So I doubt we will see any new wars while oil is below $80 a barrel.

They are absolutely to do with strategic control of the region, I have no doubt of that. A bigger question that needs to be asked is why strategic dominance of this part of the world is desirable or even in the interests of the West.

I use the example of China once more. The Chinese have no major military presence in the region and do not invade any countries there. Their military presence in the Arab world is even less than that of Russia.

If the West withdraws from the Middle East the gap would either be filled by another major power, namely Russia or China, or by a regional actor, most likely Iran. In any case London and Washington could just buy their oil without needing to bomb, invade and constantly fiddle around in a very complex part of the world.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is because they want to control the sale of the product when they buy the product; in this case, oil. They do not want to be buying oil in a free market from a vendor who can take their business elsewhere or charge more. They want to control both sides of the transaction so that they get the best deal.

That is how international capitalism works between the west and developing countries.

[B0ycey]

They are absolutely to do with strategic control of the region, I have no doubt of that. A bigger question that needs to be asked is why strategic dominance of this part of the world is desirable or even in the interests of the West.

The short answer is if the Middle Eastern Leaders are Western allies then the ME oil contracts will go to Western oil companies and not Chinese or Russian competitors. Control over oil is very important for industrial nations and oil is very profitable too. So the West want control over this vital resource.

I use the example of China once more. The Chinese have no major military presence in the region and do not invade any countries there. Their military presence in the Arab world is even less than that of Russia.

Two reasons. China is very wealthy and have decided to have their fingers in African mineral resources instead. So they can afford to not intervene in the ME which is a very unstable region and likely to cost to protect their interests if they took such a route (so basically China are smart). The second reason, China aren't interested in world dominance as long as the world doesn't interfere in their politics. And I suppose third they will be more than happy to get their oil from Iran too.

If the West withdraws from the Middle East the gap would either be filled by another major power, namely Russia or China, or by a regional actor, most likely Iran. In any case London and Washington could just buy their oil without needing to bomb, invade and constantly fiddle around in a very complex part of the world.

Well I agree. And morally you are correct. And perhaps if the US fracking industry was as lucrative in 2001 as it is now they probably might not have even entered Iraq (Afghanistan was for revenge), but as I said earlier, the West want oil contracts to go to their oil companies. They don't want them to go to Russia or China. So I doubt the West would ever just leave the ME alone. There is a reason why the US and the UK are Saudi poodles.

[Political Interest]

Because the west only dominates economically with the petrodollar militarily which has forced many nations to use dollar denominated trading of oil in dollars only.

(Even nations whose currencies are not the dollar. )

Without the militarily enforced petrodollar the west is toast economically.

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.

Chinese living standards are going up every year. Compare the life of the average Chinese citizen now to how it was in 1979 when they introduced market reforms. There is no comparison.

A country can enjoy economic power and a high standard of living without needing to be tied to petro dollars.

That is because they want to control the sale of the product when they buy the product; in this case, oil. They do not want to be buying oil in a free market from a vendor who can take their business elsewhere or charge more. They want to control both sides of the transaction so that they get the best deal.

That is how international capitalism works between the west and developing countries.

They may want it but it may well be in their interest to stop wanting it. Afterall, the Chinese do not control the supply of energy in the Middle East but they can still exist comfortably. The vast majority of countries don't either. Its only England,the US and a few European countries that have the major oil interests in the Islamic world.

The short answer is if the Middle Eastern Leaders are Western allies then the ME oil contracts will go to Western oil companies and not Chinese or Russian competitors. Control over oil is very important for industrial nations and oil is very profitable too. So the West want control over this vital resource.

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

Two reasons. China is very wealthy and have decided to have their fingers in African mineral resources instead. So they can afford to not intervene in the ME which is a very unstable region and likely to cost to protect their interests if they took such a route (so basically China are smart). The second reason, China aren't interested in world dominance as long as the world doesn't interfere in their politics. And I suppose third they will be more than happy to get their oil from Iran too.

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

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.

Well I agree. And morally you are correct. And perhaps if the US fracking industry was as lucrative in 2001 as it is now they probably might not have even entered Iraq (Afghanistan was for revenge), but as I said earlier, the West want oil contracts to go to their oil companies. They don't want them to go to Russia or China. So I doubt the West would ever just leave the ME alone. There is a reason why the US and the UK are Saudi poodles.

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.