BF2S Forums Iraq: 51st State?

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, before announcing our plans to make it a state, we'd need to concentrate a good portion of our troops near the oil infrastructure.  We already do this to a degree.

Yeah, it still only takes a guy to dig a hole and put an IED in, go off to his house and watch the road. That's how insurgency's work.

True, but it's not like we don't have any experience dealing with it.  I'd say we're pretty acclimated to it by now.  We might as well take it to the next level, because in the end, we'll have a lot more resources to work with.  Conquest just takes a lot of bloodshed in the short run, but it's certainly not without rewards.

The rewards don't interest me. Killing thousands more for the sake of Oil.

It would be Political suicide for any politician, and real suicide for any officer and his men tasked to defend the Oil.

Might as well take South Ossetia off the Georgians hands and use them resources as well while your at it. And then Canada, you know, revive imperialism.

m3thod wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

I seriously doubt that more than 5 percent of Iraq would want to become a part of the USA.

Unless you're saying you will kick them out/kill them like we did with the native Americans?

Economically it makes sense, maybe, but really now, politically we'd be fucked and we'd create thousands if not millions of terrorists worldwide.  Not to mention the country back home would fall apart anyway.

You have no idea how this man has got it right.  This sentance holy fuck made me piss anger.

"Yet, if we did add them to our union and nationalize their oil for our own government"

I'm sure it would anger a shitload of people, but in the long run, we'd just be moving toward what is likely to happen anyway.  Which would be better: letting Iraq become a dictatorship or theocracy (which is likely with Iran's influence next door), or going through with a ton of bloodshed in the short run but having a democracy by the end of all of it?

I was against the Iraq War, but I'm not against finishing what we've started.

Turquoise wrote:

They're not worth keeping as allies.

How many countries would use that sentence talking about America I wonder.

Turquoise wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

I seriously doubt that more than 5 percent of Iraq would want to become a part of the USA.

Unless you're saying you will kick them out/kill them like we did with the native Americans?

Economically it makes sense, maybe, but really now, politically we'd be fucked and we'd create thousands if not millions of terrorists worldwide.  Not to mention the country back home would fall apart anyway.

You have no idea how this man has got it right.  This sentance holy fuck made me piss anger.

"Yet, if we did add them to our union and nationalize their oil for our own government"

I'm sure it would anger a shitload of people, but in the long run, we'd just be moving toward what is likely to happen anyway.  Which would be better: letting Iraq become a dictatorship or theocracy (which is likely with Iran's influence next door), or going through with a ton of bloodshed in the short run but having a democracy by the end of all of it?

I was against the Iraq War, but I'm not against finishing what we've started.

Finishing what??  You just said the end result would be the same.  I think just leaving and letting the Iraqi government deal with their problems would be a lot cheaper than annexation.  Not to mention, the idea is insane, they would never vote for it.  You'd have to kill or deport like half the country.

.Sup wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Economic policies would be a nightmare.

Such as?

A sudden acquisition of that magnitude would make the economy go haywire. Thousands of people looking to directly capitalize on it, thousands more looking to invest in it, people moving out of the lower 48 for job opportunities, companies in bioengineering and other alternative energy related industries go down the tubes, interstate trade completely imbalanced, and money generally moving out of the continental U.S. In the long term it has potential nothing more nothing less, but an opportunity for 1000% growth overnight is just as bad as a slow decline.

Alaska.

Is a completely different case. I'm not sure how this is an appropriate response to my economic concerns. At the time of purchase Alaska was a completely unimpressive chunk of land from a capitalistic viewpoint. Iraq has new market written all over it, it would be like the gold rush with modern transportation.

Home wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Home wrote:

Politically, a terrible idea. People think that recognizing Kosovo's independence set a dangerous precedence? This would set the precedence that you invade, you can annex. It would (hopefully) spark global outrage, threaten the sovereignty of every nation, and make a mockery of every time we try to play ourselves off as having humanitarian intentions in foreign policy.

It would only work if it was voted on by Iraqis speaking for Iraq, and since we're living in fairyland anyways I get to assume that. If there was a referendum and it passed, how could the world disagree?

Because we would have shot first and asked questions later. Even if they did want to become a 51st state (which they wouldn't) it would make our intentions even more questionable in any invasion we do in the future.

Becoming a part of the U.S. would be more immediately beneficial to the Iraqis who chose to embrace it (which would have to encompass at least 50%) than to the U.S. Even in the future Iraq's value would be in question, but those who think the physical supply of oil is our biggest problem right now is either too short sighted or ignorant to find an opinion worth holding.

Any student of history would plainly see that Iraq's addition to the U.S. would have been one that came out of ironic coincidence, and those that believe otherwise already hate us more than the devil himself for the original invasion or are conspiracy nuts.

Spearhead wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

m3thod wrote:

You have no idea how this man has got it right.  This sentance holy fuck made me piss anger.

"Yet, if we did add them to our union and nationalize their oil for our own government"

I'm sure it would anger a shitload of people, but in the long run, we'd just be moving toward what is likely to happen anyway.  Which would be better: letting Iraq become a dictatorship or theocracy (which is likely with Iran's influence next door), or going through with a ton of bloodshed in the short run but having a democracy by the end of all of it?

I was against the Iraq War, but I'm not against finishing what we've started.

Finishing what??  You just said the end result would be the same.  I think just leaving and letting the Iraqi government deal with their problems would be a lot cheaper than annexation.  Not to mention, the idea is insane, they would never vote for it.  You'd have to kill or deport like half the country.

There'd be plenty of killing, no doubt.

I just feel like we've been ripped off by spending so much on Iraq, only to "leave", which still entails running bases there afterwards.  It's like...  why not go all the way?  Half-assing it just doesn't make sense to me.

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm sure it would anger a shitload of people, but in the long run, we'd just be moving toward what is likely to happen anyway.  Which would be better: letting Iraq become a dictatorship or theocracy (which is likely with Iran's influence next door), or going through with a ton of bloodshed in the short run but having a democracy by the end of all of it?

I was against the Iraq War, but I'm not against finishing what we've started.

Finishing what??  You just said the end result would be the same.  I think just leaving and letting the Iraqi government deal with their problems would be a lot cheaper than annexation.  Not to mention, the idea is insane, they would never vote for it.  You'd have to kill or deport like half the country.

There'd be plenty of killing, no doubt.

I just feel like we've been ripped off by spending so much on Iraq, only to "leave", which still entails running bases there afterwards.  It's like...  why not go all the way?  Half-assing it just doesn't make sense to me.

Why not go all the way?  Because its immoral and wrong???

There's too much else going on right now.  What about China?

jord wrote:

Have the balls to do what, go to war with you? No.

no you silly nanny, not trade or do business with.

jord wrote:

usmarine wrote:

jord wrote:

Have the balls to do what, go to war with you? No.

no you silly nanny, not trade or do business with.

If this thread did become reality, the US would just be on par with China. May as well shift the business to China really. Probably make more actually, those guys will work for scraps.

You've gone from blind patriotism sense to none at all.

Turquoise wrote:

jord wrote:

I really can't see it and I'm not all that sure if you're serious. Fuck greed. I'm glad countries don't think like this anymore on this scale.

Turquoise wrote:

Conquest just takes a lot of bloodshed in the short run, but it's certainly not without rewards.

Once again, are you serious?

For the most part, yeah.  One day, I'll think in these terms, and another day, I'll take the opposite position or something totally unrelated.

Whatever the case, today, I'm in more of an imperialist mood.

I don't know if I'd seriously advocate this sort of thing if I was in the position of power to do so, but it never hurts to consider it.

For example, would annexing Iraq at this point be any worse than letting it be run by Islamists?  What's the point of invading and conquering a country if you don't bother to redesign it according to your own whims?  When a country is left vulnerable after your withdrawal (and even during an occupation) outside forces will manipulate it just as you have, so if we choose to manipulate it on a grander scale, is that really any worse?

Are there 51 stars in your avatar?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Home wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It would only work if it was voted on by Iraqis speaking for Iraq, and since we're living in fairyland anyways I get to assume that. If there was a referendum and it passed, how could the world disagree?

Because we would have shot first and asked questions later. Even if they did want to become a 51st state (which they wouldn't) it would make our intentions even more questionable in any invasion we do in the future.

Becoming a part of the U.S. would be more immediately beneficial to the Iraqis who chose to embrace it (which would have to encompass at least 50%) than to the U.S. Even in the future Iraq's value would be in question, but those who think the physical supply of oil is our biggest problem right now is either too short sighted or ignorant to find an opinion worth holding.

Any student of history would plainly see that Iraq's addition to the U.S. would have been one that came out of ironic coincidence, and those that believe otherwise already hate us more than the devil himself for the original invasion or are conspiracy nuts.

It doesn't matter who it benefits. To most people in the world, this would be a return to the barbaric imperialist practices of a hundred years ago. It would be incredibly hypocritical to our self-promoted image of being a highly civilized, developed, and diplomatic nation.

And it wouldn't take a "conspiracy nut" to see something odd in us invading a nation, destroying it's infrastructure, rebuilding it in our own fashion, and then coincidentally annexing it.

.Sup wrote:

Are there 51 stars in your avatar?

Yes... yes there are...