[chaostheory]

> However, which of these African interventions has improved the access of USA interests to natural resources? I can't identify any?

It didn’t happen because China beat us to it with their One Belt Road. Despite bad strategy and poor foresight, it doesn’t weaken my argument that US intervention is mainly about getting access to natural resources.

In certain cases like Libya, it was to protect US strategic interests like maintaining USD as the global reserve currency. It was rumored that Libya was willing to deal with euros instead of dollars for oil.

Nothing you wrote backs up the nonsensical conspiracy theory that the US intervention is primarily for sowing chaos and disorder, or selling weapons. We can’t even compete price wise with modern manufacturers of weapons like the AK47 in Eastern Europe or Asia. Of the few countries in Africa that the US sell arms to, they tend to be more stable than other countries in the continent.

[jessaustin]

You keep typing the phrase "conspiracy theory", but that shibboleth is only potent for weak minds. Adults understand that temporarily coinciding interests are sufficient to coordinate action. We don't have to locate any particular smoke-filled backroom. We observe actions and results, and attribute repeated results to the actions that typically precede them.

We spend a trillion dollars a year on our military, without even considering military "aid" or the spending of allies. Unlike the AK47 you cite, American military weapons are mostly not fit for the purpose of "winning" wars: we haven't "won" a war since 1945. Since our armaments manufacturers don't have to worry about value or functionality, a great deal of money sloshes about in search of media producers, pundits, think tanks, retired officers, and politicians to influence. USA itself is completely safe from "conventional" military threats (of course all humanity lives in the shadow of nuclear annihilation), so talk of "security" is just more marketing. In the first half of the twentieth century, resource firms like United Fruit did control policy in the way you describe. Since then, because they must spend most of their money actually extracting resources, they've been outbid by the armaments manufacturers.

"Belt and Road" is investment plus a clumsy marketing campaign. American firms are certainly capable of that. Why haven't they chosen to invest in these areas? One possible reason would be the ongoing violence; perhaps they had a better idea of the schedule than the Chinese had. I've seen no evidence that China has reaped huge profits from this project, particularly in Africa.

Suppose you're right, though. Suppose that none of the carnage is for its own sake. Your preferred justification then is colonial resource extraction? What kind of justification is that? Why should the average American care about Chevron's profits? Why should we care what currency Libya accepts in exchange for its own oil? (Do you suggest that Russia's preference for rubles or even renminbi is a justification for the current mess?) Why should we kill and bleed and toil and pay, for that?

[ericmay]

> Why haven't they chosen to invest in these areas? One possible reason would be the ongoing violence; perhaps they had a better idea of the schedule than the Chinese had.

I think from an investment standpoint it's probably not worth it. American/European/Western firms are occupying higher margin/revenue deals in safer countries. They have limited capacity so they have to choose investments. Likely ROI for investing in African countries is quite low. China on the other hand due to its self-imposed handicap is likely looking to invest in African countries to mine resources to bring back to China to make iPhones for everyone else. They just occupy a lower margin space. Otherwise, to your point, Americans could be doing what the Chinese are doing.

But also, there are so many things at play here I doubt any of us have much insight except speculation. Which is fun. But let's be clear about that.

> Unlike the AK47 you cite, American military weapons are mostly not fit for the purpose of "winning" wars: we haven't "won" a war since 1945.

People like to repeat this, but if you're talking about militarily (since you're talking about equipment) we've actually won quite a few wars. I'm sympathetic to your point that we haven't won any wars (Korea actually may be one we've "won", how do we classify Yugoslavia and Desert Storm?) but you have to be clear about it. If you want to criticize military equipment, I don't think you're correct and the numbers bear that out. If you want to say overall because we lose political will, then yea I think there are a number of wars that we've "lost".

[chaostheory]

There’s a lot of great non-sequiturs that veer far away from the original conspiracy theory that you can’t support.

> we haven't "won" a war since 1945

To my knowledge, the government that we installed in Iraq is still around and it’s still friendly

> Since then, because they must spend most of their money actually extracting resources, they've been outbid by the armaments manufacturers.

You still haven’t been able to prove this assertion. There are only five countries in Africa that buy our arms. Those countries are also some of the most stable nations in Africa.

> "Belt and Road" is investment plus a clumsy marketing campaign. American firms are certainly capable of that.

This veers from the original topic of the conspiracy theory that the US is sowing chaos in Africa to “keep them down”, but the Belt road initiative works because it’s just a slightly different copy of our IMF strategy… both end goals are to secure natural resources and cooperation by keeping those nations forever indebted. Chaos is counter productive because it can’t be controlled like a puppet

> Your preferred justification then is colonial resource extraction?

I am describing both history and current events. Let’s not confuse this for being a proponent of these initiatives.

> Why should the average American care about Chevron's profits?

Because it keeps gas prices down and anything related to gas cheap as well

> Why should we care what currency Libya accepts in exchange for its own oil?

Because it allows the US to keep spending with a deficit. Many American entitlements such as federal student loans, welfare, mortgage tax credits, and social security depend on the US being able to carry a deficit. One of the primary benefits of being the global reserve currency holder is that we can print money for longer before we have a hyperinflation situation like wehrmacht Germany

> Do you suggest that Russia's preference for rubles or even renminbi is a justification for the current mess

No. They prefer rubles because they are locked out of the global financial system. They also prefer it so they don’t have to pay conversion fees. This was also after the fact. Ukraine is Russia’s buffer zone, similar to NOrth Korea being China’s buffer zone. Before climate change melts the Artic, Russia’s main access to the seas is Crimea. They always want access to it.

I highly suggest that you do a lot more reading. It didn’t take much to debunk your unfounded and highly illogical conspiracy theory