• 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
Daktoria

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
 
Daktoria said:
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question.
 
Daktoria said:
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
Click to expand...

The British had no time for that.
 
My reaction to the thread title was "oh god".

Yeah didnt disappoint.
 
What type of colonialism would you have suggested? Exploitation of manpower and resources by an elite or providing incentives for Americans to settle there?

I suppose the realists answer is that the potential for blowback is greater longterm (see European attempts at colonialism and present day resistance protracted into perpetuity), the question of who would claim the colony since it was a coalition invading and a national ethos on the part of the hypothetical coloniser that is generally anti-colonialist and democratic and thus incompatible with long term investment in a colony.
 
Daktoria said:
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
Click to expand...

Its impossible, end of thread. I like how all your poll options have to do with people being afraid or being too much of a wuss to do it.

Get real dude.
 
Ben K. said:
What type of colonialism would you have suggested? Exploitation of manpower and resources by an elite or providing incentives for Americans to settle there?

I suppose the realists answer is that the potential for blowback is greater longterm (see European attempts at colonialism and present day resistance protracted into perpetuity), the question of who would claim the colony since it was a coalition invading and a national ethos on the part of the hypothetical coloniser that is generally anti-colonialist and democratic and thus incompatible with long term investment in a colony.
Click to expand...

How about just taxing them to support social services and exporting oil?
 
Colonize Iraq? We'd need more colonies in the region to justify it. The logistics alone are a nightmare, and protecting colonists would be an indefinite 24/7 detail. The cost is greater than the gain.
 
Ben K. said:
Taxation without representation? Hmm, seems familiar....
Click to expand...

That's why it's a colony. Besides, the Iraqi people weren't represented when we liberated them from their dictator.
 
Surtr said:
Colonize Iraq? We'd need more colonies in the region to justify it. The logistics alone are a nightmare, and protecting colonists would be an indefinite 24/7 detail. The cost is greater than the gain.
Click to expand...

The invasion force was already supplied and monitoring their people. If anything's a nightmare, it was humanitarian RoE in the way.
 
Fyi, the second option makes little sense. If we were to take Wolfowitz and others seriously, many would just want hegemonic influence in return for what they see as liberation from a tyrannical government. It allows for more flexibility than a traditional empire, while still gaining some of the benefits from it, at the same time as it is seen as satisfying the need for self-government. Cheney and Rumsfeld may have only wanted removal of a threat to American interests, and to allow the freedom for investment in Iraq's economy.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Fyi, the second option makes little sense. If we were to take Wolfowitz and others seriously, many would just want hegemonic influence in return for what they see as liberation from a tyrannical government. It allows for more flexibility than a traditional empire, while still gaining some of the benefits from it, at the same time as it is seen as satisfying the need for self-government. Cheney and Rumsfeld may have only wanted removal of a threat to American interests, and to allow the freedom for investment in Iraq's economy.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely buy this.

American engagement in Iraq is a leftover from a bloated MIC following the Cold War which saved Western Europe for democracy. Furthermore, the Middle East was interpreted in globalist context throughout the Cold War in contrast to Soviet influence. Iraq was also a target of opportunity from tarnished Cold War reputation. It engaged Israel repeatedly, had history with Iran which was our ally, and afterwards invaded Kuwait.

Wolfowitz even admitted that the rapid planning after 9/11 for Iraq's invasion took place because of its history, suggesting that Cold War nostalgia for European geopolitical stature was a priority. Besides, America already struggled to gather European allies for the "Coalition of the Willing".
 
Didn't the west try that before, with Israel? Not sure how well that is working.
 
Daktoria said:
I don't entirely buy this.

American engagement in Iraq is a leftover from a bloated MIC following the Cold War which saved Western Europe for democracy. Furthermore, the Middle East was interpreted in globalist context throughout the Cold War in contrast to Soviet influence. Iraq was also a target of opportunity from tarnished Cold War reputation. It engaged Israel repeatedly, had history with Iran which was our ally, and afterwards invaded Kuwait.

Wolfowitz even admitted that the rapid planning after 9/11 for Iraq's invasion took place because of its history, suggesting that Cold War nostalgia for European geopolitical stature was a priority. Besides, America already struggled to gather European allies for the "Coalition of the Willing".
Click to expand...

American neoconservatives had argued that, but stressed their unique dual context for why invasion was necessary: removal of tyrannical government where people could not do it on their own & the need to expand American economic and political influence. If you want to take their writings of the neoconservatives seriously for what they thought, then you have to read Present Dangers. First and foremost, American colonization doesn't mesh with their world view.
 
Krhazy said:
Didn't the west try that before, with Israel? Not sure how well that is working.
Click to expand...

We didn't colonize it, we got guilted into granting the Jews sovereignty following WWII. So far, a huge mistake, as well as the majority of our endeavors in the Middle East.
 
Daktoria said:
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
Click to expand...

A general rule of thumb: If you have to clarify that it's really, truly, seriously not a troll thread...chances are you're trolling. :roll:

Even setting aside the obvious moral issues of colonizing a sovereign nation with people who don't want to be colonized, why the hell would we WANT Iraq as a colony? Under what possible set of circumstances do you imagine that to be a good idea?
 
Krhazy said:
Didn't the west try that before, with Israel? Not sure how well that is working.
Click to expand...

Antisemites may say things like that, but rational people who are not so obviously prejudiced realize that affording self determination to a persecuted ethnic group in their homeland is a far cry from colonization.
 
Basically, it's this: the age of colonies ended after WWII.

Realistically, I can't picture that anybody else in the world would have put up with the United States going in and replacing their dictator with a colonial dictator. It also wouldn't go along with Bush's narrative that we were helping Iraqis by freeing them from Saddam ("Yay, we're free....sort of.")
 
rocket88 said:
Basically, it's this: the age of colonies ended after WWII.

Realistically, I can't picture that anybody else in the world would have put up with the United States going in and replacing their dictator with a colonial dictator. It also wouldn't go along with Bush's narrative that we were helping Iraqis by freeing them from Saddam ("Yay, we're free....sort of.")
Click to expand...

You think anybody else in the world would stop the United States from doing so?
 
Daktoria said:
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
Click to expand...

Even though we have the power to do take Iraq and several other nations and keep them for ourselves. The reason we don't do that may be best described by Colin Powell:

"...Far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."
 
Moral concerns aside, you aren't going to exploit Iraq oil when the angry populace is busy sabotaging all the necessary infrastructure. If you can't get the oil, why bother going? Furthermore, if really wanted Iraqi oil, there was no point in invasion, we could have just lifted the sanctions and bought it.

You would hard pressed to find a single example of a country who actually profited from starting a war since WW2.
 
Daktoria said:
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.

That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
Click to expand...

An entrenched populace fighting a foreign invader, that's why. It's not possible to keep that population under Western control, they don't like it and we don't live there. It's only a matter of time before the foreign invader goes home. We wrote the book on this tactic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom