[hnnsj]

I'm pretty sure the point made wasn't that the west benefits from the instability in that region, but that western policies have caused, or at least made worse, that instability. Which one may or may not agree with, but I think one should address the actual argument being made.

[repsilat]

It's hard to link American foreign policy to American economic policy, though. Iraq wasn't about oil (this time at least, I don't know anything about the Gulf War) and neither were Libya or Syria. Perhaps the argument is that rich countries can afford to go on overseas adventures, though? That perhaps if America were poorer she'd spend more time cleaning her house and less time making a mess of other people's?

I don't buy it. American intervention is down from it's glory days :/ of the '60s and '70s, violent deaths are down worldwide, and other countries are getting rich along with the US.

(Now that I reread the above comments, I guess it's more likely the point was just that "We should also mention a negative thing about America for balance," in which case this is all just argument for argument's sake.)

[AnAfrican]

THe quote is :

>the west got better at the expense of the rest of the world

"At the expense" means that there's a link.