edit: spelling

  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m just saying the alignment of the lobby funding and the broader american imperial interests is an important reason why this particular issue hasn’t moved much in 80 years.

    No disagreement that politicians are far too eager to take campaign contributions.

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      What would you say are the broad american imperial interests? Maintaining regional military control for the sake of oil – thats the obvious one – but anything else?

      Genuine question here, I haven’t thought or read much about it, whereas I have thought/read more about the incentives for politicians to continue pushing the ever bloating “defense” budget.

      Edit: Here’s not a bad article about it that I just read. Basically: the new cold war with china.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Most of the geopolitics of the region revolves around oil, that much is certainly true.

        A lot of the rest of it flows downstream from that; oil pipelines and supply from various places and through the red sea, the relative military strength of adversaries in the region (derived from the wealth of their oil supplies), ect. Most of the modern geopolitical relations in the area can be tied to the struggle over oil in some way.