Was this the precursor to the war on terror?
>>546349
One of many. There's a theory that the Saudis' refusal of Bin Laden's offer of protection in favor of the West's operation Desert Shield was a major catalyst in solidifying his hatred.
If we're talking military matters, though, there's really no comparing the style of fighting in the Gulf War to the later wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so calling it a "precursor" doesn't quite click.
>>546349
The Carter Doctrine was.
Reminder that America literally goes to war for oil, which is to say that America goes to war so they can have hamburgers and air conditioning.
>>546377
/thread
>>546382
How would that even work out logistically? Besides didn't AQ dislike the Saudi royal family anyways
>>546383
>America literally goes to war so that the world economy remains stable and westerners can continue to live comfortable and safe
Monsters
>>546422
>US wars keeping the economy stable
One of the worst excuses I've heard thusfar. It's like you don't know what a free market is.
If anything US intervention and creation of puppets like the Shah or Pinochet made the economy much more unstable.
>>546422
Because American intervention in the Middle East has made the economy so much more stable and the lives of people so much safer, right?
People can still live comfortable lives with high oil prices only an iPhone would cost more so more people would have Androids, and not everyone could afford a television in every room, just one or two per house. America literally fights wars because they want the iPhone and extra televisions.
>>546382
I heard that he was most angry about "infidel" American soldiers being stationed in Saudi Arabia, which he considered sacred soil.
>>546447
>If anything US intervention and creation of puppets like the Shah or Pinochet made the economy much more unstable
Pinochet was hardly unstable. It's also a very different situation. Letting madmen and commies hold the world markets hostage is bad policy. Someday you'll grow out of your uber-moralist bullshit and stop trying to apply it to geopolitics.
>>546448
>People can still live comfortable lives with high oil prices only an iPhone would cost more so more people would have Androids, and not everyone could afford a television in every room, just one or two per house. America literally fights wars because they want the iPhone and extra televisions.
You clearly have very little understandinh of how vital oil is to the modern world. It's not about iphones. It's about being able to drive to work and heat your home. You seem like a dumbass naive yuropoor.
>>546450
>sacred soil
that's mighty shirky of him
>>546498
>It's about being able to drive to work and heat your home.
Both of which were possible and easily attainable before the Carter Doctrine.
>>546504
>yfw the kaaba is shirk
>>546543
The Carter doctrine is literally just about protecting the flow of international shipping through the Persian Gulf. It was a reaction to an Islamic revolution in Iran, who then wanted to exert control of said shipping, because it's in their backyard. It wasn't about creating something new, it was about maintaining the status quo when radicals seized power. The Persian Gulf is a crucial international trade route. The Carter doctrine is good policy. And you have a child's understanding of geopolitics.
>>546574
>The Carter doctrine is literally just about protecting the flow of international shipping through the Persian Gulf by using "military intervention" in the region
>it was about maintaining the status quo when the American-backed dictator was overthrown by a popular movement
>The Iran-Iraq war was good policy
And you have a child's understanding of geopolitics according to your mother whom I had sexual intercourse with on several occasions.
>>546600
>The Carter doctrine is literally just about protecting the flow of international shipping through the Persian Gulf by using "military intervention" in the region
If necessary, yes.
>it was about maintaining the status quo when the American-backed dictator was overthrown by a popular movement
Yup.
>The Iran-Iraq war was good policy
Checking Iranian influence in the region was good policy, yes. Geopolitics is not some magical fairy tale where everyone can just get along and you let everyone do what they want. Economic stability and international trade are important, whether you want to believe so or not. You either get fucked or do the fucking. Be mad about it all you want, but that's the way it is and always has been.
>>546447
>letting the world's second superpower get their dirty paws on Oil and America's backyard would make America's economy more stable
>Russia having control of oil flow, and thus Petrodollars would make America more stable
>having anti-American terrorists that can literally just walk into America if they really want would make America more stable
This is what lolbertarians and liberals actually believe.
>>546617
It has nothing to do with international trade and little to do with economic stablity, and everything to do with delivering "prosperity" to fat Americans so that they will vote you into office. Granted you're right about the fucking, but America let itself get into the position where it was going to have to take it in the ass. There were better alternatives to getting mired into multi-trillion dollar wars half-way across the globe and that was to gradually reduce reliance on foreign oil, instead their reliance on foreign oil rose and continued to rise for decades.
Sure is americaphobic in here,
dirty english schwein contribute nothing to this board
>>546498
>Pinochet was hardly unstable.
Every dictatorship impedes free market equilibrium. The US never intervened to stablize the markets, only to forcefully establish a monopoly. Both Iran and Chile were democracies (!) before the US intervention so no "madmen and commies" here my friend.
I am not an "uber-moralist", but a rational human being. You have uncle Sam's dick so far down your throat, you'll swallow everything it jizzes out. Have fun living a lie.
>>546655
>It has nothing to do with international trade and little to do with economic stablity, and everything to do with delivering "prosperity" to fat Americans so that they will vote you into office.
You keep saying this, and you're still wrong.
>Granted you're right about the fucking, but America let itself get into the position where it was going to have to take it in the ass.
No, we didn't. We don't have to and there's not shit anyone can do about it except to cry like petulant children.
>There were better alternatives to getting mired into multi-trillion dollar wars half-way across the globe
The Carter doctrine has little to do with the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, (two seperate conflicts fought for different reasons.) Unless you believe that people should somehow have the foresight to predict every possible consequence of every possible action, which is unrealistic and assinine. It was solid international policy.
>that was to gradually reduce reliance on foreign oil, instead their reliance on foreign oil rose and continued to rise for decades.
This is only valid if you consider that we shouldn't be interested in the prosperity and stability of our allies. We don't actually have a dependence on foreign oil. We could go full isolationist and power our own economy for the foreseeable future, but that leaves all of that power up for grabs and would put us in a vulnerable spot should the wrong nation choose to grab it.
>>546382
Maybe the occupation of Iraq. The invasion was conventional war, although one sided since Iraq was basically out of money at that point from sanctions.
>>546725
>Every dictatorship impedes free market equilibrium. The US never intervened to stablize the markets, only to forcefully establish a monopoly.
Pinochet wasn't put into power for anything having to do with oil. It was about keeping the other global superpower from gaining footholds in your backyard. Iran, as explained above, became a theocracy that threatened international trade across the Persian Gulf.
>Both Iran and Chile were democracies (!) before the US intervention so no "madmen and commies" here my friend.
Are you implying that madmen and commies can't be elected? Or that an elected government is never a crazy or foolish one? Or that the U.S. should give two shits about the legitimacy of foreign elections when they threaten American interests? I assure you you would be wrong on every account.
>I am not an "uber-moralist", but a rational human being. You have uncle Sam's dick so far down your throat, you'll swallow everything it jizzes out. Have fun living a lie.
No, I see the world and geopolitical struggles for what they are, rather than what I think they ought to be. You're attempting to apply a level of foresight and morality to the geopolitical decisions of the United States that's unrealistic and of which I doubt you would bother to apply to most other global powers throughout history.
>>546450
Nah, he was pissed about the world trade organization making deals that he deemed favorable for only the United States.
Osama bin Laden was a more redeemable person than many jihadists. It was discovered after his death that he condemned bombings in the middle east and begged his countrymen to do it in the united states instead, and asked for more surgical strikes as opposed to general terror, which was often just raiding and theft.
That being said he was damned from his initial fatwa, and died without accomplishing anything.
>>546447
If it really was our puppet, then they would trade with us. We very much liked the cheap labor other countries could supply us with.
>>546349
it started with the soviet afghan war
>Tfw this whole fiasco lead to Europe's demise with the migrant crisis
can't make this shit up senpai
>>546349
>Was this the precursor to the war on terror?
No, this was
>>546447
>Praise be to the Free Market most holy!
colonialism and the founding of Israel seems to be more of a cause
>>546349
war on poverty
>>546772
>Or that the U.S. should give two shits about the legitimacy of foreign elections when they threaten American interests?
That sums up your position pretty well. And it's corrupt and inhumane.
>>546653
>being a decent country that does not inspire hate from 80% of the world
This would make the USA most stable.
>>546383
>Reminder that people blame Carter for the Iranian Hostage Crisis
>Reminder that the negotiations were completed nearly a week before he left office
>Reminder they waited till Reagan was in office to make sure Carter was hated
>>550007
Poor Carter gets a bad rap while Reagan one of if not our worst president is treated like a god and has people masturbating of 'muh gipper'
Yes.
>>546349
terror
>>546498
>It's about being able to drive to work and heat your home
None of this would be a problem if we just moved full scale to nuclear energy. Too bad people are too gullible to fear mongering so it'll never happen.
