We're in it for the Oil

Posted: Dec 07, 2012 12:01 AM

Based upon the past behavior of the United States regarding foreign policy, it became almost commonplace for us to covertly apply our influence in order to affect changes in government.  We’ve all seen enough CIA movies to know that the U.S. just doesn’t come clean and announce its intentions in regards to a conflict; we work in very clandestine ways. 

But lately, it seems the times have dramatically changed. 

In this day and age, it appears the U.S. picks a side, justifies it under humanitarian reasons which sounds a lot better than saying “we’re in it for the oil” and then exerts maximum effort in order to bring about regime change. 

TIME magazine’s most recent article about Syria included the following “Western and Arab backers of the rebellion hope that the new opposition leadership will finally become the foundation of a credible, inclusive alternative to the Assad regime.” 

Needless to say, this TIME quote definitely makes me think that not only are we in the business of picking out the winners and losers in corporate America (AIG, GM, etc.), but also choosing the winners and losers currently engaged in internal civil wars. 

In fact, it would appear that much of the world is in favor of that approach, a practice that looks to be completely acceptable. 

However, what if the tables were turned and the same actions that America was taking against other countries were implemented against us? 

Would that be acceptable, at least to other parts of the world? 

On the premise that the U.S. government’s policies were not only abusive but were also life-threatening, what if the so-called rebel patriots of Texas and Arizona took drastic action with secession truly in their sights? 

Yet, what if it was more than secession, but like the Syrian “freedom fighters” it was replacement of the elected or appointed current regime?  Would China, Russia, Venezuela, and several others be justified in not only recognizing the rebels as the “sole legitimate representative of the American people” (TIME magazine), but also provide surface-to-air and anti-tank weapons for their use? 

Imagine the BRIC countries publicly stating what we freely say, “U.S. officials (Chinese and Russian officials) reportedly made it clear in Qatar that Syrian rebels (Texas and Arizona rebels) should not expect weapons from Washington, D.C. (Beijing and Moscow) until the coalition has proven itself capable of exerting real authority over the rebels, then it will anoint it as the government in waiting to replace Assad (Obama.)” 

Will the world consider it acceptable even when it has turned its back on itself?