As an American myself, I’ve asked several people this question. No one seems to know why either. Is it strategic position in the world? I don’t think they have anything the US can exploit besides that really. Am I missing something? Political arguing aside what exactly is the motivation? Thanks for any explanations.

  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I call the US being able to dictate what happens to the oil as “conquest.” Of course they aren’t going to do formal annexation, there’s no reason to.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You can define things however you want, but words do have meaning. Conquest implies direct political control over a place.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Not really. There are plenty of cases in history where conquest results in establishing a tributary or proxy state. Japan conquered Manchuria in WWII, the fact that they set up a puppet government does not change that fact at all.

        The word you’re looking for is annexation. I’m not “redefining” anything.