• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Wasn't Iraq Colonized?

Why wasn't Iraq colonized?

  • Liberal humanitarians would be shocked too much at home.

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Neocons were afraid of losing European geopolitical capital.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • We were afraid of instigating Arabs.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • We were afraid of engaging Iran.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Something else.

    Votes: 27 87.1%

  • Total voters
    31
Please, enlighten me then. What am I wrong about?

The idea that it was passed from one group of people to another by people who didn't own it. The region hasn't been controlled by its inhabitants since the Jews controlled it in BCE.

So yeah, a bit more complex than colonialism or imperialism.
 
When the neocons were still in office they should have just said screw public opinion and leveraged a 50or 75 year lease with the interm government we had in place for exclusive rights to all Iraqi oil exports. Explaining that this was just the beginning of a long and prosperous alliance with the Iraqi people after liberating them. We could've at least tried to secure the oil fields that we desperately need. Yes we would've had to keep a fairly significant force there, indefinitely just as security for the oil and shipping lanes. We let them have there civil war, then whatever type government or rule they decided on, would've had great wealth and a guarantee of protection from foreign states for the life of the lease.
 
The premise is absurd. We had no right, and really no reason, to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq. We certainly had no right, have no right to colonize other nations. Why would anyone even consider the question?

We were perfectly within our right to invade Iraq. They were a threat to our security interests. And under the UN charter we have the right to defend ourselves. But thats different from then permanently aquiring it.
 
The crazy thing is our arrogance allows us to believe that we didn't colonized Iraq because we choose not to for whatever reasons. Like the Iraqis would just leave or allow us to just take there home. They're very proud and faithful people and they would never stop fighting us. So Unless we planned on killing 30M Iraqi, they would eventually win. And that's just the Iraqi people all the other mideast countries with 60 70% unemployment got plenty of young men with nothing better to do would be fighting us also.
 
The crazy thing is our arrogance allows us to believe that we didn't colonized Iraq because we choose not to for whatever reasons. Like the Iraqis would just leave or allow us to just take there home. They're very proud and faithful people and they would never stop fighting us. So Unless we planned on killing 30M Iraqi, they would eventually win. And that's just the Iraqi people all the other mideast countries with 60 70% unemployment got plenty of young men with nothing better to do would be fighting us also.

have you been to Iraq? we could easily kill 30M Iraqi...if we chose to. The point is we chose not to. If we really wanted to colonize Iraq...we could. It's just not worth it. Every single Iraqi I met that was half-way intelligent was working some angle to get out and go somewhere else. We had people on a daily basis volunteering to be interpreters in hopes that it would lead to a ticket to the US for them.
 
funny, I have been deployed to Iraq twice and not once did I ever see anyone go on a mission to secure/take over/steal an oil field. :shrug:
 
Well for that fact we could easily kill every person on earth. I just said unless we killed the entire population they would eventually win it back because they would never stop fighting us. So would it really be colonizing to move part of our population into a never ending war? Also no I haven't been to Iraq. You talk as if I insulted the Iraqis. I didn't. imagine if a foreign army invade the US to colonize our Country we would never stop fighting for our home.
 
Well for that fact we could easily kill every person on earth. I just said unless we killed the entire population they would eventually win it back because they would never stop fighting us. So would it really be colonizing to move part of our population into a never ending war? Also no I haven't been to Iraq. You talk as if I insulted the Iraqis. I didn't. imagine if a foreign army invade the US to colonize our Country we would never stop fighting for our home.

my point is, the major reason we don't/didn't/will never colonize Iraq is....where the hell would you find american "colonists" willing to live there? the place is a ****hole and even the Iraqis don't want to live there. why the hell do you think it is so easy for the terrorists to recruit suicide bombers? they'd rather be dead and give their families a little $$$$ than keep on living there.
 
Colinization is why we have problems over there to begin with.
Self-determination for the rabid Arab rabble, which is determined to destroy us, has caused the problems. Without oil, they would be no threat to us. They'll go back to their time-honored tradition of sectarian warfare and self-genocide. Colonization kept the peace. The multiculturalist transnationalists turned loose this pre-historic horror, which will echo its howling back here at home more and more from now on.
 
The ruling class controls the opposition and feeds us the wrong analyses through these Limousine Leftists. These wars are for OPEC, which was established by the Western oil companies so they could piggyback off price-gouging and blame foreigners for their own obscene profit margins. Saying that the wars are "for oil" is too simplistic and conformist and it gives the wrong impression. The American people supported the first Gulf War because they were deluded into thinking it would keep Saddam from raising prices, when by breaking solidarity with the cartel, Saddam was actually lowering prices. By looking at the gasoline prices before this OPEC-supporting interventionism, which President Reagan refused to go along with, it is undeniable that the purpose of these wars is to keep the OPEC-enabled profits of the Western oil companies high and cheat the American people at the pump.
 
have you ever been to Iraq? most of the Iraqis don't even want to live there. you might as well have asked "why wasn't a toilet bowl colonized?" why haven't we colonized the south pole? why haven't we colonized the surface of the sun?
We should colonize the South Pole. The Antarctic land mass, which is as big as the contiguous 48 United States, contains vast quantities of natural resources worth trillions of dollars. But those who own the resources on other continents want to limit the supply. The touchy-feely Zero-Growth Antarctica treaty of 1959 was really about greedhead hoarding.
 
The OPPECkers are selling their property to us for our property. The price is set freely. We dont have to buy it. They dont have to sell it. Its theirs because they possess it.
You should be well rewarded for defending the bloated pigs of the Saudi plutocracy. Keep supporting the sheeple's free-market fleece market and maybe someday you can join them.
 
Because this is not the 16th century.
It's more like the 5th Century, when Roman civilization collapsed and lost all its colonies. What followed was, for good reason, called the Dark Ages. Here we go again.
 
The idea that it was passed from one group of people to another by people who didn't own it. The region hasn't been controlled by its inhabitants since the Jews controlled it in BCE.

So yeah, a bit more complex than colonialism or imperialism.
The Palestinian Arabs, who are a collection of mutually hostile clans and not a united people anyway, never had an independent country. By not fighting for independence from Turkey, they forfeited their rights to the land. The Israelis fought against the British and the outside Arabs and deserved their independence.
 
my point is, the major reason we don't/didn't/will never colonize Iraq is....where the hell would you find american "colonists" willing to live there? the place is a ****hole and even the Iraqis don't want to live there. why the hell do you think it is so easy for the terrorists to recruit suicide bombers? they'd rather be dead and give their families a little $$$$ than keep on living there.

I know America would never colonize Iraq or ever want to. I know it's a god forsaken ****hole. You said if The USA wanted to they could colonize Iraq. I was explaining why I don't believe they could.
 
When the neocons were still in office they should have just said screw public opinion and leveraged a 50or 75 year lease with the interm government we had in place for exclusive rights to all Iraqi oil exports. Explaining that this was just the beginning of a long and prosperous alliance with the Iraqi people after liberating them. We could've at least tried to secure the oil fields that we desperately need. Yes we would've had to keep a fairly significant force there, indefinitely just as security for the oil and shipping lanes. We let them have there civil war, then whatever type government or rule they decided on, would've had great wealth and a guarantee of protection from foreign states for the life of the lease.
What is the benefit to us in having the exclusive right to be gouged on oil that cost less than $5 a barrel to produce? It's probably more like 50 cents a barrel (a penny a gallon), which someone in the industry blurted out on national TV.

What a wimpy pushover attitude we have towards property owners! We should not allow property rights to be abused like this. Of course, the real reason is that American oil companies piggyback off these outrageous prices. Treason like that is cause for nationalization, in addition to annexation of Arab rabble's unearned oil property.

Back to the Saudis in Stetsons at home, who want all the rest of us to live like Third World peasants. What if we let such greedheads own our water? So why should we let them own our other vital resources if they abuse the privilege
so much? And ownership is a privilege, not a right free from forfeiture. When will Americans get some backbone and tell these liars and cheats that they don't make the rules any more?
 
I know America would never colonize Iraq or ever want to. I know it's a god forsaken ****hole. You said if The USA wanted to they could colonize Iraq. I was explaining why I don't believe they could.

and I was explaining how we could. just because the needed measure are extreme...doesn't mean it could not be done. we could send a man to mars. he would probably die on the way or shortly after getting there...but it does not change the fact that we could "send a man to mars" :shrug:
 
Self-determination for the rabid Arab rabble, which is determined to destroy us, has caused the problems. Without oil, they would be no threat to us. They'll go back to their time-honored tradition of sectarian warfare and self-genocide. Colonization kept the peace. The multiculturalist transnationalists turned loose this pre-historic horror, which will echo its howling back here at home more and more from now on.

Your ignorance of history is quite profound. Colonization began with Napoleon you know. Then of course the English seized Exgypt leaving north Africa to the French.

And this:
Self-determination for the rabid Arab rabble, which is determined to destroy us
just discredits everything you say.
 
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).

Serious answer? Because Americans don't have the brain power to occupy more than one country at a time.
 
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).

The Iraq War was about OIL. The OIL is now in the Central Distribution Network of Western Energy companies, think Exxon/Mobil, BP, Shell, Total, etc., and being traded in USDollars. The War was initiated and driven by an Energy Corporatocracy and successful in every way. The Military/Industrial/Energy triad profitted handsomely. Remember that wars run on energy, so wars make Big Energy big money. We're on OFFENSE. There is no such thing as Military Defense. Anyone that believes that the Iraq War had any high moral ground values needs to find truthful media and begin thinking for themselves. Those automatic thoughts generated by the "Mighty Wurlitzer" are bogus.
 
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).

It wasn't invaded to be colonized, it was innvaded to oust Saddamm and take control of the Oil pipeline that runs through Iraq.

Truth is stranger than fiction.
 
Back
Top Bottom