Why, is being number one all that important? As it stands the US is in good sted with NATO/UN, so it's not like if you drifted down to 3rd or 4th you'd be at risk of attack.Turquoise wrote:
We need a few more resources to keep up in a world rapidly changing with these 2 nations rising.
I don't doubt that.... but we would still win. There would just be a lot fewer people alive of certain groups afterwards.m3thod wrote:
Dude you would a tidal wave of terrorists oblierating the place. You thought 2003-2207 was bad? Holy shit even moderates would be picking up AK's and nike sneakers and turning the place into a bloodbath.
I can gurantee people i know here in the UK would be going to 'Pakistan - to see the family'.
We do need other countries... but they need us too. If other countries left the coalition, America would probably need to institute a draft. The disintegration of the coalition is a good point to bring up though.jord wrote:
Have the balls to do what, go to war with you? No.usmarine wrote:
none that have the balls to go thru with it. so your answer is none because words dont mean shit.jord wrote:
How many countries would use that sentence talking about America I wonder.
Believe it or not the US needs other countries. Otherwise you can just be isolationist fucks like N.Korea.
If the US is all that awesome why can't they handle Iraq/Afghanistan now? Because bet you're ass the rest of the coalition would be pulling out.
To much of a long term investment to restore the infrastructure. Also declaring Iraq as part of the US would restart the insurgencey.
It very much matters who benefits. Why would we invade a country to absorb it into our own, with no immediate and possibly no future benefit to ourselves? Make no mistake, and I don't think the U.S. has the problem of this being misconceived on the international stage, the U.S. is out for personal gain, but accepting Iraq into the fold would be closer to an apologetic concession than a brash imperialistic expansion. If Iraq wants it, I don't see how accepting them would come off as undiplomatic. We don't have huge brainwashing dishes that can force an entire population to vote the way we want them to.Home wrote:
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.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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.Home wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Seriously, I don't see why anyone would see taking on Iraq as an advantage to us.
All very good points.... but... Consider how it didn't look so legitimate to the world community at first. With time, the world comes to accept certain things.jord wrote:
Islamists? The country will be run democratically, well that's the aim anyway. I can't predict the future, but once the Iraqi security can handle themselves it might just be a functioning country. Wasn't that the whole point?
You have already redesigned it, it's democratic now and a dictator has been removed. The operation looks legitimate to the international community as it stands now for the most part. Why ruin that?
You think over 50% of Iraqi's would be perfectly happy to see their country become a US state? Fucking LOL!Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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..Sup wrote:
Alaska.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
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..Sup wrote:
Such as?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Economic policies would be a nightmare.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.Home wrote:
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.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?
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.
Getting Iraq to want it would be the tough part. It's really the one thing keeping us from doing it (aside from the costs as you said).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It very much matters who benefits. Why would we invade a country to absorb it into our own, with no immediate and possibly no future benefit to ourselves? Make no mistake, and I don't think the U.S. has the problem of this being misconceived on the international stage, the U.S. is out for personal gain, but accepting Iraq into the fold would be closer to an apologetic concession than a brash imperialistic expansion. If Iraq wants it, I don't see how accepting them would come off as undiplomatic. We don't have huge brainwashing dishes that can force an entire population to vote the way we want them to.
Seriously, I don't see why anyone would see taking on Iraq as an advantage to us.
Of course not, as I said we're in fairyland. I'm not an idiot.ghettoperson wrote:
You think over 50% of Iraqi's would be perfectly happy to see their country become a US state? Fucking LOL!
He meant that it would take at least 50% to accept it.ghettoperson wrote:
You think over 50% of Iraqi's would be perfectly happy to see their country become a US state? Fucking LOL!
My bad.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I'm not an idiot.ghettoperson wrote:
You think over 50% of Iraqi's would be perfectly happy to see their country become a US state? Fucking LOL!
Iraq joining the US. that would be a disaster. Look what happened in the UK when the Brits declared that anyone in the commonwealth could move to Britain.... within 15 years they had riots. that was a disaster for Britain.
I had a professor once who told a story about a conversation with a CIA guy. the professor asked the CIA guy "what is the greatest danger to national security and the CIA guy replied "feminism" and that wasn't a joke answer either.
If you really want to change a country like Iraq what you need to do is
1. give them porn
2. give them alcohol
3. give their women equal rights and the vote.
then when they get drunk and horny and knock up their women and get married the guys won't be thinking about suicide bombing, instead they will be driving to the local home depot with a honey-do list and then to the 7-11 to get a six pack. Ahhh.... the smell of freedom...... gotta love it.
In all seriousness, we should follow the example of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and now the Russians in Georgia and split Iraq into three regions.
1. give the Kurds their own country, sign a treaty and build some huge military bases and stay there for the next 500 years
2. split of the Shiite region and horse trade them to Iran
3. take the Sunni region and give them to Saudi Arabia
If the US had split Iraq into three regions and did that we would have been out of there in six months with a permanent foot hold in the region and with access to lots of oil and our economy won't be in the tank for over spending on this stupid war.
I had a professor once who told a story about a conversation with a CIA guy. the professor asked the CIA guy "what is the greatest danger to national security and the CIA guy replied "feminism" and that wasn't a joke answer either.
If you really want to change a country like Iraq what you need to do is
1. give them porn
2. give them alcohol
3. give their women equal rights and the vote.
then when they get drunk and horny and knock up their women and get married the guys won't be thinking about suicide bombing, instead they will be driving to the local home depot with a honey-do list and then to the 7-11 to get a six pack. Ahhh.... the smell of freedom...... gotta love it.
In all seriousness, we should follow the example of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and now the Russians in Georgia and split Iraq into three regions.
1. give the Kurds their own country, sign a treaty and build some huge military bases and stay there for the next 500 years
2. split of the Shiite region and horse trade them to Iran
3. take the Sunni region and give them to Saudi Arabia
If the US had split Iraq into three regions and did that we would have been out of there in six months with a permanent foot hold in the region and with access to lots of oil and our economy won't be in the tank for over spending on this stupid war.
Interesting ideas, Diesel... Can't we split Iraq into 3 American states instead and give them those 3 things while being part of us though?
we could but out of the three I think the Kurds might be worth taking, and they would probably like to join the US- perhaps make them a territory or possession like Puerto Rico. The Sunnis and the Shiites I don't think would go for it. I would let them join other countries. The main point is that the integrity of state borders is over rated and in some circumstances it should give way to permit ethnic cohesion.
Because outside influences forcing religious borders has worked so well in the past.
It would work better than the colonial borders that were imposed on countries around the world. That's what Rwanda showed us. even look at Canada where french quebec is always aggitating to seperate. Czechslovakia had the right idea when they split. why fight, just seperate. The only reason for foreign countries to force people to stay together who hate each other is to introduce voilitility to a region and save the excuse for later military intervention.
In Iraq these religious factions are fighting, split them up, seperate them into ethnically homogeneous regions.
Take the Kurds under our wing, they have lots of oil and cut the rest loose.
In Iraq these religious factions are fighting, split them up, seperate them into ethnically homogeneous regions.
Take the Kurds under our wing, they have lots of oil and cut the rest loose.
That is quite the view on foreign policy you have, a lot to swallow.
I agree with peaceful separations when possible, but an imposed border will always generate conflict. Especially when you are blatantly biased towards one party.
I agree with peaceful separations when possible, but an imposed border will always generate conflict. Especially when you are blatantly biased towards one party.
too many of you would start complaining about arabs taking over iraq and flooding local communites and taking jobs.
what if we let the iraqis vote on becoming a part of the union, kind of like how its always been done?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.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It doesn't make economic or defensive sense. Politically not such a bad idea.
Agreed... I'll go with that then. Kurdistan = State 51Diesel_dyk wrote:
we could but out of the three I think the Kurds might be worth taking, and they would probably like to join the US- perhaps make them a territory or possession like Puerto Rico. The Sunnis and the Shiites I don't think would go for it. I would let them join other countries. The main point is that the integrity of state borders is over rated and in some circumstances it should give way to permit ethnic cohesion.
i would bet that also. kurds went from living in tents to building shopping malls.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... I'll go with that then. Kurdistan = State 51Diesel_dyk wrote:
we could but out of the three I think the Kurds might be worth taking, and they would probably like to join the US- perhaps make them a territory or possession like Puerto Rico. The Sunnis and the Shiites I don't think would go for it. I would let them join other countries. The main point is that the integrity of state borders is over rated and in some circumstances it should give way to permit ethnic cohesion.
Turkey would hate us for making Kurdistan a U.S. state, but fuck them. Hell, we could offer Armenia statehood just to give Turkey the finger.... lolusmarine wrote:
i would bet that also. kurds went from living in tents to building shopping malls.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... I'll go with that then. Kurdistan = State 51Diesel_dyk wrote:
we could but out of the three I think the Kurds might be worth taking, and they would probably like to join the US- perhaps make them a territory or possession like Puerto Rico. The Sunnis and the Shiites I don't think would go for it. I would let them join other countries. The main point is that the integrity of state borders is over rated and in some circumstances it should give way to permit ethnic cohesion.
one thing i learned from iraq. most of iraq cannot behave without a dictator. the kurds never bought into that so they were oppressed. now they prosper. i say good on them and welcome them as a state.
But then we would be back over their to stop those separate countries from attacking each other lol. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
You can't deny that even if we did that it wouldn't look good. Let's look at the simple facts:Ender2309 wrote:
what if we let the iraqis vote on becoming a part of the union, kind of like how its always been done?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.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It doesn't make economic or defensive sense. Politically not such a bad idea.
America invades Iraq.
America topples Iraqi government and infrastructure.
America rebuilds as it sees fit.
America annexes Iraq.
And all amidst allegations of being there for oil, being corrupt, etc. It would not be beneficial to us in the long run.