• 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
In Saudi Arabia, assassinate the sheiks who have control over the nuclear boobytrap on the oilfields.

Who would booby trap their own country with nukes? Does that make any sense to you?
 
Care to provide a citation backing up your claim that the US got oil or oil drilling, processing or transport contracts in Iraq?

Fortunately, COMMON SENSE, doesn't require a link.

Good day:2wave:
 
Have special forces secretly take the place of the oilfield workers. In Saudi Arabia, assassinate the sheiks who have control over the nuclear boobytrap on the oilfields. Let Russia take the Iranian side of the Persian Gulf and India occupy the Straits of Hormuz. China can take Indonesia and Brunei's oil. NATO gets North Africa's oilfields. Brazil gets Nigeria's. Partition, partitition, partition.

a plan perhaps?
 
Good question, this is a lousy idea.
Colonization implies that one is greater/more advanced than the other.......and of course, Iraq is not buying this crap.
And, Its good that most here do not buy into colonization...
IMO, NO-ONE should have been colonized, ever...
 
Good question, this is a lousy idea.
Colonization implies that one is greater/more advanced than the other.......and of course, Iraq is not buying this crap.
And, Its good that most here do not buy into colonization...
IMO, NO-ONE should have been colonized, ever...


tbh, if America wanted to colonize Iraq, we could do it tomoorow and not a damn thing the Iraqis can do about it. Don't ever underestimate the Big Dog on the block.

Starbucks anyone?
 
Have special forces secretly take the place of the oilfield workers. In Saudi Arabia, assassinate the sheiks who have control over the nuclear boobytrap on the oilfields. Let Russia take the Iranian side of the Persian Gulf and India occupy the Straits of Hormuz. China can take Indonesia and Brunei's oil. NATO gets North Africa's oilfields. Brazil gets Nigeria's. Partition, partitition, partition.
There should be a "dislike" option.
This is a lousy but effective recipe for WW3.
 
tbh, if America wanted to colonize Iraq, we could do it tomoorow and not a damn thing the Iraqis can do about it. Don't ever underestimate the Big Dog on the block.

Starbucks anyone?
Well, we did "colonize" Iraq , in a way...and we are trying the same stupid thing in Afghanistan.
 
Well, we did "colonize" Iraq , in a way...and we are trying the same stupid thing in Afghanistan.

nation building is a bad idea...unless you are planning on sticking around. How many billions of $$$$ did we spend in Iraq rebuilding infrastructure that we did not destroy? As a logistics officer, I saw countless $$$$$ spent in southern Iraq rebuilding **** that had been blown to crap during the Iran/Iraq war back in the 80s. I personally managed the repair of two Iraqi bases that were being used by US forces and then with the stroke of a pen, signed them over to the Iraqi govt. as we drew down our presence there. within weeks both places had been gutted and were in as bad, if not worse, shape than when we got there. waste of money that could have been used for much better purposes.
 
Well, we did "colonize" Iraq , in a way...and we are trying the same stupid thing in Afghanistan.

Until you see a Starbucks, a McDonalds, and a Porn shop, Iraq is not Colonized yet..lol
 
Who would booby trap their own country with nukes? Does that make any sense to you?
Before they realized what wusses our leaders are, the Saudis couldn't believe they could get away with charging us dozens of times over their oil-production costs. Not believing they could get away with price-gouging for long, they mined the oilfields to discourage a retaliatory takeover. If they can't have the oil gift and are powerless militarily from preventing us from taking it back, they have nothing to lose from making it unusable. The reason their boobytrapping the oilfields is not well known is that our Big Oil occupied regime doesn't want the American people to even think about taking charge of foreign oil again and bringing back reasonable prices.
 
a plan perhaps?
We did the same thing to the resources of America, "owned" but completely undeveloped by the Indians, who never would have developed them. Is the world better off than it was in 1492? Partitioning of backward tribes' natural resources is the reason we are all better off.
 
Until you see a Starbucks, a McDonalds, and a Porn shop, Iraq is not Colonized yet..lol

they have a taco bell, burger king, KFC and an Anthony's pizza in Baghdad. ;)
 
they mined the oilfields to discourage a retaliatory takeover. If they can't have the oil gift and are powerless militarily from preventing us from taking it back, they have nothing to lose from making it unusable.

I would like to see a citation of some kind verifying that Saudi Arabia boobytrapped its fields with nukes.


The reason their boobytrapping the oilfields is not well known is that our Big Oil occupied regime doesn't want the American people to even think about taking charge of foreign oil again and bringing back reasonable prices.

I'm pretty sure you made that up.
 
they have a taco bell, burger king, KFC and an Anthony's pizza in Baghdad. ;)

Really? Still no McDonald's.

Did you know that a country that has a McDonald's had never gone to war with another country that has a McDonald's up until 2008 (South Ossetia war)
 
Oops, apparently there is a Baghdad McDonald's. Opened in 2006.
 
Oops, apparently there is a Baghdad McDonald's. Opened in 2006.

smeg...I was there in '09-'10. wonder how I missed it? too busy eating tacos I guess
 
We did the same thing to the resources of America, "owned" but completely undeveloped by the Indians, who never would have developed them. Is the world better off than it was in 1492? Partitioning of backward tribes' natural resources is the reason we are all better off.

Backwards tribes? hahaha....the Pilgrims didn't even know how to grow corn when they landed on Plymouth Rock the Tribes of Gad, Simeon and Ruben had to teach them. ...talk about backwards....hahahaha

And the arrow is a marvel of weaponry. silent, stealthy and deadly. Accurately can kill up to 10-15 Buffalo before the herd is spooked, unlike a gun. yet the Pale face didn't create it. who did?..oh yeah, the backwards tribes in the land at the time did.

You're dismissed.
 
they have a taco bell, burger king, KFC and an Anthony's pizza in Baghdad. ;)

When the Porn shops and smoke shops hit, THEN consider Badhdad colonized.
 
I think part of it was because people didn't understand that wars generally don't end in a month, and after a year people were complaining that too many soldiers were dying and it was a lost cause, and that there were other political motives for the war. In short, the people who didn't understand (which I'm sorry to say is most of the country) wanted the troops home. I think the government realized that it would be PR nightmare and bad for getting re-elected if they went against the already resonant thrum of people shouting for their troops to come home.
 
Back
Top Bottom