Stupid question... [Iraq]

Bartholomew · Dec 11, 2006

...but one I fail to understand, all the same. Pardon what I'm sure will betray a VAST amount of ignorance on my part.

Why, if we're invading Iraq, do we not simply keep Iraq?

We have other territories which are not states. If we want a republican form of government in Iraq, wouldn't it be better to make the place a satellite country, and have it adhere to our own constitution?

WackAMole · Dec 11, 2006

scarletpeaches · Dec 11, 2006

I've got a ten foot pole but nope, I ain't gonna use it to touch this thread. See ya!

Haggis · Dec 11, 2006

I don't think we should keep it, but maybe we should give it to Billy and Clary.

WackAMole · Dec 11, 2006

Haggis said:
I don't think we should keep it, but maybe we should give it to Billy and Clary.

LOL agreed

robeiae · Dec 11, 2006

Because keeping it would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, unless a majority of the Iraqi people asked to become part of the United States.

Unique · Dec 11, 2006

Haggis said:
I don't think we should keep it, but maybe we should give it to Billy and Clary.

As distasteful as it sounds, the idea has merit.
A good way to get rid of it.

Should we sell it or pay them to take it?

WildScribe · Dec 11, 2006

They should at least have to pay a token amount...

billythrilly7th · Dec 11, 2006

Give me a million man army loyal to me as well and I'll have that place settled down within a month and construction on BaghDisney underway by springtime.

Unique · Dec 11, 2006

A million dollars is easier to find than a million loyal men.

billythrilly7th · Dec 11, 2006

Then I have no desire to acquire this country.

Bartholomew · Dec 11, 2006

Its a bad idea, yes, everyone seems to agree on that.

I'm asking *why?*

Rob said:
Because keeping it would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, unless a majority of the Iraqi people asked to become part of the United States.

Invading Iraq in the first place was contrary to the spirit of our constitution.

Iraqis trying to fight away our invading army, however, is perfectly in line with the spirit of the Declaration of Independance.

If we're going to invade a country, why don't we keep it? Serious question.

Well, semi-serious.

Unique · Dec 11, 2006

If we kept it, we'd have to keep the people, too. Theoretically.

Bartholomew · Dec 11, 2006

Unique said:
If we kept it, we'd have to keep the people, too. Theoretically.

Yeah?

WildScribe · Dec 11, 2006

Unique said:
If we kept it, we'd have to keep the people, too. Theoretically.

What??? We can't ship them all back where they came from????

dclary · Dec 11, 2006

Haggis said:
I don't think we should keep it, but maybe we should give it to Billy and Clary.

That would rock.

LloydBrown · Dec 11, 2006

robeiae said:
Because keeping it would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution,

It is? So manifest destiny in the 19th century, the land we beat out of Mexico and Spain, and all the worldwide territories our armed forces occupy and most of the 223 years since the Constitution was ratified was within the spirit of the Constitution, but annexing Iraq is Not What We Do Here?

I think it's more likely that the world community would consider the move too aggressive and would (rightly, in my opinion) all join together to beat us down. Or try, anyway.

robeiae · Dec 11, 2006

LloydBrown said:
It is? So manifest destiny in the 19th century, the land we beat out of Mexico and Spain, and all the worldwide territories our armed forces occupy and most of the 223 years since the Constitution was ratified was within the spirit of the Constitution, but annexing Iraq is Not What We Do Here?

Correct, more or less.

I think it's more likely that the world community would consider the move too aggressive and would (rightly, in my opinion) all join together to beat us down. Or try, anyway.

Just like they did to the Soviets?

robeiae · Dec 11, 2006

Bartholomew said:
Invading Iraq in the first place was contrary to the spirit of our constitution.

No it wasn't. Read it again.

Iraqis trying to fight away our invading army, however, is perfectly in line with the spirit of the Declaration of Independance.

Not when they're trying to toss us out to re-establish a tyrannical government.

If we're going to invade a country, why don't we keep it? Serious question.

I have given you a serious answer.

dclary · Dec 11, 2006

Bartholomew said:
...but one I fail to understand, all the same. Pardon what I'm sure will betray a VAST amount of ignorance on my part.

Why, if we're invading Iraq, do we not simply keep Iraq?

We have other territories which are not states. If we want a republican form of government in Iraq, wouldn't it be better to make the place a satellite country, and have it adhere to our own constitution?

The easiest, simplest answer (and, amazingly, the most accurate) is because the United States did not enter this war for imperialistic (land-grab) gain.

Bartholomew · Dec 11, 2006

robeiae said:
No it wasn't. Read it again.

Yes it is. You read it again. Subjugating a country is most CERTAINLY against the spirit of our constitution.

robeiae said:
Not when they're trying to toss us out to re-establish a tyrannical government.

The Iraqis don't know what they want one way or the other. We've already removed the government they had in place--Saddam may have been doing a poor job running the country, but it was most certainly better than the abject anarchy the people of Iraq are facing now.

Their fighting away an invading army is very much in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which as I recall, was basically the founding fathers giving England the middle finger.

We've already trampled all over these people's rights. What's going to end up happening is that we'll install another dummy government for them to topple so that a new Dictator can step in.

But if Iraq were set up as a satelite of the US, this would be a bit harder to do.

We're already occupying their hand and oppressing them. Why not call it "Ours" and force laws we know work into the land?

I'm not saying I agree with this--I'm saying it makes sense to me, and I want someone to show me what is wrong with the idea, whether it be in terms of ideology or practicality.

Bartholomew · Dec 11, 2006

dclary said:
The easiest, simplest answer (and, amazingly, the most accurate) is because the United States did not enter this war for imperialistic (land-grab) gain.

Why did we enter this war?

dclary · Dec 11, 2006

Bartholomew said:
Why did we enter this war?

There are a number of reasons. At least there were. The surest, most agreed-upon answer seems to be "Bush Jr. wanted to finish what his father didn't, come hell or high water" -- and that was to eliminate Saddam Hussein as a regional influence.

Many of the other reasons are still valid, but remain as points of contention. I'm sure you've heard them all.

robeiae · Dec 11, 2006

Bartholomew said:
Yes it is. You read it again. Subjugating a country is most CERTAINLY against the spirit of our constitution.

Umm...the goal isn't subjugation. If it was, you wouldn't be asking the question that started this thread, would you?

The Iraqis don't know what they want one way or the other. We've already removed the government they had in place--Saddam may have been doing a poor job running the country, but it was most certainly better than the abject anarchy the people of Iraq are facing now.

Don't presume you can speak for the Iraqis, with regard to what they want or don't want. You can't. As to the current situation, I'm not happy about it one bit. It stinks for the Iraqis. Of course, I also disagree with the methodology followed to prosecute this war.

Their fighting away an invading army is very much in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which as I recall, was basically the founding fathers giving England the middle finger.

Giving them the finger for what, exactly? It's pretty clear; the reasons are listed. Read this one again, too.

We've already trampled all over these people's rights.

They didn't have any rights to trample before Saddam fell.

What's going to end up happening is that we'll install another dummy government for them to topple so that a new Dictator can step in.

Perhaps. And that would stink.

But if Iraq were set up as a satelite of the US, this would be a bit harder to do.

We're not the Soviet Empire.

We're already occupying their hand and oppressing them. Why not call it "Ours" and force laws we know work into the land?

You're pretty wide-open with your generalizations. But my position has always been that we need to sit on them hard until a democratic form of government is firmly established. Think Germany, post WWII. Or Japan. Of course, we achieved complete victory in both instances before we started "nation-building." And neither of these nations became a satellite of the U.S.

greglondon · Dec 11, 2006

The US has occupied nations before,
against the people's will,
and not made them into a state.

See US occupation of Philipines 1900.

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1117-11.htm

During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890's, US Commodore George Dewey descended upon the shores of the Philippines and destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. Americans had a number of goals for occupying the Philippines. One was to create a military presence to then access the markets of China. The second was to utilize the Philippine raw materials for US industry. US President William McKinley described the third. After praying to "Almighty God", McKinley said that a message came to him that Americans were in the Philippines to "uplift and civilize and christianize" Filipinos. He was obviously not aware of the fact that the Filipinos had been "christianized" for 400 years by Spanish colonizers, against whom they had consistently rebelled.

It was because Iraq was behind 9/11. No? It was because Iraq had WMD's. No? It was because we're spreading democracy. Yeah. That's it.

Initially, Filipinos thought that the Americans were there to help them kick out the Spanish and end 400 years of repression. After fruitless attempts to negotiate, however, the reality of the US intention became clear. The Filipinos were forced to acknowledge that the Americans intended to replace the Spanish as the colonial rulers.

We will be welcomed as liberators.

The American reaction was swift and the slaughter by US forces is legendary. Philippine scholar Luziminda Francisco refers to that brutal imperial American war that launched the 20th century as the "first Vietnam War" in which estimates of from 600,000 to a million Filipinos died.

Hundreds of thousand of Iraqi civilians have been killed under three years of US occupation.

Stupid question... [Iraq]

Comic guy

WTF?!?!

Evil, undead Chihuahua

WTF?!?!

Touch and go

Agent of Doom

Slave to the Wordcount

Agent of Doom

Comic guy

Agent of Doom

Comic guy

Slave to the Wordcount

Unabashed Mercenary

Touch and go

Touch and go

Unabashed Mercenary

Comic guy

Comic guy

Unabashed Mercenary

Touch and go

Planet Wookie techno geek