We don't want Iraq. It would be bad for all involved. Nations fall when they overexert themselves. The Iraqis would hate it, the majority of the US would hate it and the rest of the world would hate it. Really, Turquoise, WTF were you smoking when you considered this idea? There are so many reasons not do do it and this is just so far out there. This is the kind idea that I would expect members like Rammunition to suggest, but not you.Turquoise wrote:
I'm a non-interventionist when we're not already in the country in question.Spearhead wrote:
Turq wtf? I thought you were a non-interventionist. This seems kind of imperialistic dont you think?
If we've bothered to invade a country and topple its government, I don't have a problem with annexing it.
Flaming found a concise way of helping to explain my methods in another thread. He pretty much put it in a way that I intended it to be but, at the time, I didn't really know how to put it to words.
The purpose of this thread was to "go there." This is a crazy direction, I know, but I felt it necessary to look at Iraq from an expense side of things. The question in my mind was "why put all this money, lives, and effort into a country you're just going to let go?" It just didn't seem very logical to me.
With the direction the current plan is going in, we're never going to see a payback from this occupation, and we'll continue to throw money at Iraq because we'll be operating bases out of it. As Sup mentioned earlier, we already basically run the country as it is. Why not get some tax revenue out of it?
The purpose of this thread was to "go there." This is a crazy direction, I know, but I felt it necessary to look at Iraq from an expense side of things. The question in my mind was "why put all this money, lives, and effort into a country you're just going to let go?" It just didn't seem very logical to me.
With the direction the current plan is going in, we're never going to see a payback from this occupation, and we'll continue to throw money at Iraq because we'll be operating bases out of it. As Sup mentioned earlier, we already basically run the country as it is. Why not get some tax revenue out of it?
Forget McCain or Obama. Borg is the way to go.Turquoise wrote:
http://www.our51ststate.com/
The above link is obviously satirical, but I was thinking about it, and actually... It might not be such a bad idea.
Consider how we've spent about half a trillion on Iraq so far with no payback in sight. Even after the supposed "withdrawal," we're going to be operating a bunch of bases there, which just means more money down the hole. Yet, if we did add them to our union and nationalize their oil for our own government, Iraq would become a reasonable investment.
Now, I know this would likely result in another insurgency and protests from all over the world, but we'd eventually overcome all of it. We did it the first time around, right?
It would make a mockery of any pretense America ever had of spreading 'democracy' and 'freedom' around the world and would probably be viewed as a Hitleresque annexation by nations like Russia, not to mention the rest of the Middle East (bar Israel). I personally believe it would result in a terror campaign the likes of which we have never seen before and would ultimately end with a lot of tears, ill will and bloodshed. I also don't believe you would be able to overcome the eventual rising...unless a nation is completely decimated or ethnically cleansed it will rise up eventually.Turquoise wrote:
http://www.our51ststate.com/
The above link is obviously satirical, but I was thinking about it, and actually... It might not be such a bad idea.
Consider how we've spent about half a trillion on Iraq so far with no payback in sight. Even after the supposed "withdrawal," we're going to be operating a bunch of bases there, which just means more money down the hole. Yet, if we did add them to our union and nationalize their oil for our own government, Iraq would become a reasonable investment.
Now, I know this would likely result in another insurgency and protests from all over the world, but we'd eventually overcome all of it. We did it the first time around, right?
It would make much more sense and would be a lot less stressful to just have Iraq as a de facto 51st State, which they are basically trying to make it into at the moment anyway.
Make it the 50th state. Drop Texas. Take Iraq. Give Texas back to Mexico.
Could you move the Israelis to Texas about a week beforehand?Make it the 50th state. Drop Texas. Take Iraq. Give Texas back to Mexico.
Fuck Israel
I thought the 'payback' was spreading freedom and democracy, and supposedly safeguarding America by clearing up WMD which obviously never existed.Consider how we've spent about half a trillion on Iraq so far with no payback in sight.
Fuck Israel
Yeah, what happened to that plan? Aren't the US the good guys who do things out of the goodness of their hearts?Dilbert_X wrote:
I thought the 'payback' was spreading freedom and democracy, and supposedly safeguarding America by clearing up WMD which obviously never existed.Consider how we've spent about half a trillion on Iraq so far with no payback in sight.
...I'll stop there before usmarine has another coniption over me 'yankee-bashing'!
"After all, what every Allah-fearing Muslim really wants is Mickey Mouse, Ronald McDonald and Coca Cola, right?"
Am I the only one that doesn't understand that sentence?
Am I the only one that doesn't understand that sentence?
I'll second braddock's statement, i mean come on you went there to get rid of a dicator and weapons off mass distruction knowing that it would be expensive and you wouldnt get anything back from it. Personally i think the answer is give bush a gun and all the equipment the soldiers get and let him have a go out there. I'm sorry if it seems like i'm yankee bashing but i know alot of americans share the same view as me.
Ow ye and give blair a whole load off ammo so he can carry on being his bitch.
Ow ye and give blair a whole load off ammo so he can carry on being his bitch.
Last edited by Slinky84 (2008-08-28 04:57:07)
yeahNoobpatty wrote:
"After all, what every Allah-fearing Muslim really wants is Mickey Mouse, Ronald McDonald and Coca Cola, right?"
Am I the only one that doesn't understand that sentence?
I think that we should be getting some of the oil revenue back for what we put in infrastructure wise. Not to pay for the cost of keeping our soldiers there, or keeping them fed, but at least for the cost of things that they are the ones reaping the benefits of.
However they must offer that money to us, or it would look really bad.
Oh...my...god. Are you for fucking real!!!??!?!? Imperialism pure and simple. No Iraqi worth his salt would stand for it and USA would rightly be branded as evil and scum for such an act. You tried this in the Phillipines before remember? And they fucking kicked your asses out of there. Fucking hell, what is the world coming to.Turquoise wrote:
http://www.our51ststate.com/
The above link is obviously satirical, but I was thinking about it, and actually... It might not be such a bad idea.
Consider how we've spent about half a trillion on Iraq so far with no payback in sight. Even after the supposed "withdrawal," we're going to be operating a bunch of bases there, which just means more money down the hole. Yet, if we did add them to our union and nationalize their oil for our own government, Iraq would become a reasonable investment.
Now, I know this would likely result in another insurgency and protests from all over the world, but we'd eventually overcome all of it. We did it the first time around, right?
What you guys need to do is get the fuck out of other sovereign nations territory, sit at home, mind your fucking borders and mind your own fucking business! Sheesh.
Overcome the insurgency? You'd be no better than Stalin's Russia!
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-28 06:25:19)
I'd like to see it purely for the fact that the 51 state circle flag looks awesome, although if the US was to gain a 51st state it would probably look more like this.
this is A VALID POINT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.Slinky84 wrote:
I'll second braddock's statement, i mean come on you went there to get rid of a dicator and weapons off mass distruction knowing that it would be expensive and you wouldnt get anything back from it. Personally i think the answer is give bush a gun and all the equipment the soldiers get and let him have a go out there. I'm sorry if it seems like i'm yankee bashing but i know alot of americans share the same view as me.
Ow ye and give blair a whole load off ammo so he can carry on being his bitch.
A++ WOULD READ AGAIN.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella