It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iraq: A 'colony' of the U.S. Empire

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:16 PM

Iraq: A 'colony' of the U.S. Empire

A recent report in the New York Times outlines new U.S. demands being made on Iraq. The article states, in part, the following: "the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law." So much for Mr. Bush's vision of a democratic Iraq.

That one phrase contains two alarming concepts that should send up red flags in the halls of Congress, the United Nations and throughout the Arab world, although it is probably only the latter that will react. A look at each concept, and the expected reaction from those potentially impacted, is somewhat frightening.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:16 PM
Wow, so not only is Dubya circumventing and bypassing the laws of his own nation, but now wants the power to do so (or continue to do so) with foreign nations he has conquered. There is no limit to this guys insanity...

Story continues:

The U.S., says Mr. Bush, must have 'broad authority to conduct combat operations.' In 2003 Mr. Bush sought that authority and, with the willing acquiescence of a Republican-controlled Congress, easily gained it. Since then, Republicans and Democrats alike have extended his 'authority' to 'conduct combat operations' at whatever level he chooses. It appears unlikely that he will be denied this ability anytime during the final year of his reign of terror.

What is the likely reaction of the United Nations? With the U.S. having veto power, there is little that body will be able to do to stop Mr. Bush's imperial destruction of Iraq, already well underway. Yet member nations will not quite so easily embrace these new U.S. demands on Iraq, demands that the U.S., disdaining international law and public opinion, can enforce through congress and the military.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:33 PM
Excellent post. Thanks!

I think the Times article hit a home run when it cast a shadow of inevitability over the actions of the Bush administration. Who can stop it from doing what it wants in the region? The United Nations barks but doesn't bite (although its recent actions concerning global warming treaties was a welcome relief and a slap in the face to US policy-makers).

The US has a history of working to undermine foreign leaders or administrations, only for the replacement regime to be more problematic than the original. Afghanistan is a recent example. Either that, or history has shown that a friend in foreign places can too easily be deposed. Iran is an example of a friend quickly becoming an enemy after the ousting of the Shah.

I suspect the President's policy in Iraq will be to guarantee that no matter what happens politically in the country after the 'war', the US will always have an ally in the region.

The War on Terror in the Middle East does smack of empire-building, similar to that of the Romans and Greeks. Iraq may become little more than a garrison for US forces in the region, there to ward against unrest and protect oil resources.

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:35 PM
I do not care if it is Bush, Clinton, or Mccain, none of them should have these Imperial powers.

The USA is at her best when she embraces her greatness as a Republic that is an empire of liberty within and has no dream of empire without.

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:04 PM
Dime, what did you expect, America will use Iraq as a spring board to attack, Iran, Syria, Korea, China and anyone else it feels like, but more to the point what do you think it means for the future of America bearing in mind history as we know it.

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 03:01 PM
The US tried this in Iran when they installed the Shah - but this back fired when the people had enough and threw the shah out. Hence we have the massive distrust between teh 2 countries since then

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 03:45 AM
Iraq is a member of the UN and a independent sovereign nation thus not making it a colony.

Britain still has 14 colonies left, none are which UN members or recognised as independent sovereign nations. We control their defence, foreign affairs and the British Crown is head of state.

Iraq is far from a colony.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 04:49 AM

Originally posted by infinite
Iraq is far from a colony.

But not so far.

A colony differs from a puppet state or satellite state.

Iraq today definetly is a puppet state of the U.S. government.

Without presence of the Coalition Iraq would fall apart.

Therefore, Iraq is a colony.

But another question is, if United States indeed are an Empire.

From Wikipedia

An empire is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power. Scholars still debate about what exactly constitutes an empire, and other definitions may emphasize economic or political factors.

If you think about it like this, America definetly is an Empire.

Empire of Consumerism which spreads across the borders to almost every corner of this world - where you can see Coca-Cola and McDonalds signs.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 04:58 AM
Iraq is nothing but another Israel.

Iraq will never be approved by arab nations, because it will forever be a 'western-infected' nation.

No one trusts the Israeli government, because they are practically a right hand of the US system, and Israel will be the same.

And announcements of a ' democratically elected arab government ' are nothing but smoke screens.

We 'the west' control Iraq, and all its resources.
People say we need a draft to fight Iran, I say BS.
We have a whole country full of willing employee's... we've made the situation so bad, they put their hands up for an AK And a map towards Iran, so long as their family got food and funds.

Before 2003, the arab world was wrong when they said America was the great satan.

But Now? Youve definately turned into the most dangerous, and wreckless tyrannical nation on Earth.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:10 AM

Originally posted by AJ Lavender

Iraq may become little more than a garrison for US forces in the region, there to ward against unrest and protect oil resources.

Fore Sure ! Especially with the Permanent Bases for U.S. armed forces

that are still being built. And the presidental signing statement which
provides that all these permanent bases are locked-in, even if the next elected president seeks to cut the funding for these bases in Iraq,

Let's not forget the Vatican sized "Embassy' (or i'd say Fortress) the U.S.
is basically Annexing from the Iraqi nation...

if Iraq is technically a Colony is an academic exercise,
if Iraq is under Occupation by the west is a matter of spin,
i know what i Feel
is different that what i'm told to think about the US presence in Iraq & the WoT

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 05:20 AM
Come on now, you mean to say you didn't see it comin
.I mean what did you think, that the US was in Iraq merely to remove Saddam and go. I thought by now most people knew better than that, espcially if you are on ATS. It was quite obvious this would happen, there aint no way they could waste so much just to kill one man and leave. It was the oil, and they aint lettin it go for s*it. i mean there are many bad presidents and governments around but the US doesn't get involved, well because there aint nothin in it for them.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:58 AM
Wow, no suprises there from Bush. Puppet state???...these puppets are fighting to the death from all reports.....what is the body count now???.....its a puppet theatre of war and it has always been a horror...regardless of who is pulling the strings. I think its quite obvious the arab neighbours of Iraq will keep the insurgence mans puppet is another mans freedom fighter. When are all the Che t-shirts going to be reprinted with an iraqi on it.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by Souljah

A puppet state is not a colony though. I do not disagree with you on that, Iraq is a puppet state until the coalition stops the occupation.

The head of state for Iraq is not the US President though.

Australia, New Zealand and Canada have the British monarch as head of state, but the British Crown and Parliament has no control over their affairs.

The United States does not dictate Iraqi foreign affairs, even though President Bush is frustrated with Iraq's growing relationship wit Iran.

Thus, Iraq is not a colony.

Whatever your opinion is of the United States, it's far from an empire. Foreign policy is not imperialistic.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by infinite]

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:22 AM
I've had my thoughts about the possibilty of something like this, here's a couple of posts I've made in the past.

"You know if the US does attack Iran and still stays in Iraq, this may show us that The USA is taking over countries right in front of our eyes, new empire? a sort of sly hitler, but instead they make it appear it's about something else.

They are possibly taking over these countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, if its Iran next? then they are taking over the whole middle east, if they set up bases, they basically have all surrounding countries by hostage, thats possibly why they are still in Iraq.

Just a theory, don't attack me lol. "

"Im not saying with 100% that your taking over, I'm just thinking of the theory of the possibility of something MORE than you may be lead to believe.

Is there something more to all this, is there another reason that the US is still in Afghanistan and Iraq, are they setting up bases there for a reason, and if they DO attack Iran and stay there too, arent they going to be almost in control of the middle east, watching over all the countries.

Basically, are they taking over these countries permanently/temporarily so they can control the whole area? and gain benifits from it, like money and power, but instead of telling us straight up they give us other reasons like saddam, or nuclear weapons as excuses, almost like a secret new empire.

Just a theory. "

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:26 AM
Argue the semantics all you like, we will still pay for Bush's buffoonery for generations to come.

Not only has he emptied the money coffers of the US, but he has thoroughly depleted any good will capital we might have had left in the international world.

I can only hope that the next President (whoever that is) will have an opportunity to place us back on path...


[edit on 4-2-2008 by loam]

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by loam

Absolutely my friend, absolutely, this president acquired Iraq for his corporate friends, served in a silver platter for them.

It is difficult to know where Bush has accomplished the most destruction, the Iraqi economy or the U.S. economy

He is making somebody filthy rich and is not the Iraqis or the American people.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by infinite

Your right Iraq is not a colony, however that does not mean that American foreign policy isnt imperial. Iraq is what David Chandler refers to as a "Phantom State", its institutions, flag, UN membership and basic state structure have been rubber stamped by the sovereign state of Iraq. If you dig a little deeper it is not hard to see American influence, with state department officials inserted into every area of Iraqi civil (not to mention military) society, dictating all of its policies. The counter claim is that Iraq is too weak to survive without this help, but this does not cancel out the fact that America has influence over every area of Iraqi life through the hollow institutions that structure the Iraqi state. America is imperial, it is an Empire in Denial.

Perhaps the best way to describe Iraq is Paul Rogers description, that of a "client regime".

[edit on 4-2-2008 by tarichar]

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:25 PM
If someone in the know could explain one thing I'd be grateful:

The article states that the past demand of 'broad authority to conduct combat operations' was allowed by congress... Is this new demand also something aimed at the US congress for their approval or towards the Iraqi goverment itself?

I mean, cant the Iraqi goverment just say no? I'm sure Bush would be f**kin pissed off, but as an independant nation I fail to see why they would have to agree to this... coalition presence or not.

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 12:32 PM
I'm surprised we are not trying to make them the 51 state. I know I do not see a price difference at the gas pump.

Let's invade a country, destroy things and pay to rebuild them. Hmmmmmm....

posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by loam

Agreed. The only problem is Dubya is trying to furiously institute laws so that whoever his special-interest serving successor is, they will have to keep things 'as is' for a lengthy amount of time, if not indefinitely. The states are beginning to resemble more and more the Roman Empire in terms of imposing their presence on anyone who doesn't kow-tow down to them. And just like the Roman Empire, the infrastructure is being hollowed out with all of these occupations and skirmishing.

It's sad that humans can't seem to learn a damn thing from History. Greed and lust for power blind them.


top topics

<<   2 >>

log in