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 should mark the start of an official American Empire

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:52 AM
At the moment the Ira war is going down the tubes.

The insurgents cant be stopped, the politicians cant agree and the innocent are dying. What infrastructure was left has been crushed and the whole place is in freefall.

This situation has been faced before by the British Empire. The Empire was able to defeat the insurgency they faced and establish a stable Iraq. The USA needs to look at what was done there and start this project from scratch.

The purpose of an Empire is to provide the home nation with raw materials and markets to export to. In the past however Empires simply extracted resources without leaving vast improvements on the lives of the inhabitants. The USA has the potential to take the oil she needs while improving the lives of Iraqis with the vast revenue it will generate, a truley liberal Empire could be started in Iraq.

However before that can be done the USA needs to accept that the Iraq project will take at least a decade and probalby a great deal longer. Therefore long terms plans should be made. These plans should consist of scrapping the squabbling government currently in place and replacing it with a joint US/UK team who are to assess exactly what the country needs. This team shall control the money and decide where it is to be spent and what is to be done with it. Once this has been decided private contractors are then given very specific jobs, the entire rebuilding process should be centralised to prevent corruption.

The companies involved should employ Iraqis wherever possible to allow the money being invested to enter the Iraqi economy rather than be sent back to the USA. This wil cause a cascade as more money in the economy creates more jobs, providing employment and making people richer. This undercuts the insurgency by showing that the US is really trying to make life for normal people better.

This is a long term plan to deal with the insurgency, an Imperial plan that would stand a much better cahnce of success.

To deal with the insurgents in the short term veterans from the Iraqi army should be returned to the forces under US and UK officers, these troops could then be used to help police the region, rather than trying to rebuild the army from scratch. Also the US and UK should put more troops into the region and stop talking about pulling troops out to show that there is a genuine commitment to the region.

Once these steps have been taken and Iraq is rebuilt and prosperous the work on creating a government can be begun, using the Iraqis who have worked for the US/UK governing body and have a good grasp of government and how to make it work. The Iraqi people then choose for themselves the government they want and what happens to their country.

An American Empire is the only hope for the people of Iraq now.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:07 AM
The roles and responsibilities of the "American Empire" are very eloquently made in the book "Colossus" by Niall Fergurson.

If a nation is going to play at being an imperial power it should accept the responsibilities that come with it. Surely the best and the brightest graduates of American universities should be jumping at the opportunity to rebuild countries like Iraq, but for some reason they're content to slip away into the private sector and make a fat pile of cash!

Unfortunately, if you accept that the US is an empire, it is a rather pointless one. Yes, Empires have caused much suffering throughout history, but then again so has every other form of government from the petty tyrants and republics of the ancient world to the dictatorships of the last century.

The utter failure to protect private property, civilians and even the basic vestiges of law and order in Iraq is shameful. I was very much against the conflict, but now that Britain and the US are there they simply must finish the job no matter how long it takes. Empires can be capable of gargantuan undertakings, a vigorous, liberal, far-sighted empire could change the world for the better. Franklin D. Roosevelt made a canny observation in regards to Empires:

"Imperialists don't realize what they can do, what they can create! They've robbed Africa of billions, and all because they are too short sighted to understand that their billions were pennies, compared to the possibilities! Possibilities that must include a better life for the people who inhabit this land."

A statement that I feel is appropriate today in the Middle East today as well as Africa.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:23 PM
i say that a single dominant force(or empire) is much better than a multipolar world. the next century looks like it will have a more spread out balance of power between the u.s,eu,china and india(and lets not forget russia). unfortunately having many powerful groups will lead to rivalry that could escalate into a legitimate world war.just look at history:both wws took place in global environments that lacked any cenrealized balance of power. also looking at europe from the middle ages until the eu there have been many wars fought because of a multipolar urope(uk,france,spain,germany,etc). now of course in recent history with the cold war and now there are wars but none have the large scales that old wars had.

now im not saying that america should be the world police or anything but i think that america should strengthen ties with the Eu, india, brazil,mexico,japan,australia and other allies and form some type of union. im not talking about an oppressive nwo or anything but a dominant alliance such as the one listed above could encourage world stability very effectively.we all have nothing to lose from this arrangement as it could be governed by a central gov that would allow much self government. this sounds a little like the un today but the un consists of far to many nations with far to many agendas and no real military power.The new alliance could then start assimilating other nations peacefully or forcefully.the point is that with only one dominant imperial force, there would be no imperial rivalries.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:33 PM
i thought the Spanish American war was the start of the American empire. maybe im looking at my history wrong but critics say that time was the start of the American empire. im surprise sombody bring this American empire right now since people say America was an empire long time ago. wonder how we explain dat.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:08 PM
The US has had an "empire" for many years. It has steadily grown and it could be argued that Iraq is an extension of this.

The main difference between the US empire and those that have preceeded it is the general political attitudes of the era. Gone are the days of slavery. Gone are the days where attitudes of colonisation were for "the benefit" of the indigenous population so they could be "civilised."

Another significant difference is that much of what may be considered the American empire was not acquired by military means. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say by simple invasion and annexation.

Because of the shift in ideals of the vast majority of the peoples of the world (towards freedom and equality) which can be credited to the US, the traditional ways of empire building and indeed empire maintaining cannot be employed because they will not be tolerated by the indigenous population, the American people and it will not be tolerated by the rest of the free world.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
. In the past however Empires simply extracted resources without leaving vast improvements on the lives of the inhabitants.

I cant agree with this statement. Rome one of the most powerful empires of all time often actually imroved the standard of living in lands under its control. For example Switzerland under Roman rule. Gradually the entire population was Romanised.

The Romans built towns as administrative centres, where they also set up schools in which Latin was the language of instruction. Trade and exotic goods with far off lands now became possible.

Theres a reason the Dark ages came after the fall of Rome. There is no way life in the dark ages was better then life under Roman rule.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:25 PM
There is no easy answer to the balance of power and the drive for peace. The simple fact there are still wars means no solution has been reached.

One single dominating force is not the answer unless that force is driven by democracy. The Nazis were striving to be one dominating force as was the Soviet Union. Imagine living under those regimes!!

Also, a multi-polar world has a tendency to result in war. One good thing is that most wars in a multi polar world tend to be localised conflict unless of course, they develop onto world wars. Which is not the desired answer.

Cases to be examined could be the Roman Empire. Ruled much of the known world yet fell against the constant onslaught of many smaller states.

The 19th Century was a largely peaceful time due to a balace of power arrangement between the maor european powers, the Crimean war was an attempt to maintain the balance of power in Europe. Obviously there were many smaller wars such as the Boer and Zulu wars, the 1812 War between newly independent America and Britain, but these were essentially civil/local/annexation wars.

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:10 PM
well the difference btw the nazis or soviets trying to conquer the world and what i proposed is that a neither force had the means of taking over the world.b they both pretty much were almost solo nations and its easier to make single nations efforts fail. as for rome falling against many small tribes-yes this is true but the empire had experienced decades of self inflicted decline before they were ever vulnerable to outside attack.multipolarity only caused local wars in the past because the world waas a lot bigger back then then our modern tech makes it today.look at both wws last century- they took place in a world with power spread out across the whole world. democracy would be the best way of accomplishing all this but the insurgency in iraq show that too many ppl would be against it

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:09 PM
The point I was trying to make was that there is no easy answer. Human affairs are too complicated to have one definitive answer.

There has always been war and indeed peace whether there has been a multi polar world or a uni polar one.

I truly believe that the only way to a lasting peace, is government by democracy. The sooner democracy is worldwide the better.


posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 07:12 PM
the essence of an empire is good governence, we learned that when our empire was at its hight. American is having enough problems running its own affairs nevermind anyone elses.

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 07:03 PM
yes i totally agree that a world wide democracy would be the only way to get rid of war. a militaristic rule would be subject to far too many rebellions and insurgencies. the means of making this come to pass was the only point i was trying to make.on a semi related note- the problem with the invasion of iraq is that it is too neutral. it was neither peaceful or diplomatic enough to avoid insurgency, nor is it hard enough iether. the insurgeny in iraq is only (arguably)successful because were arent their as conqueres but as people trying to set up a nation. look what the russians did with uprisings in chechnya: they came in with heavy armor and leveled everything! im not saying we should do that of course. i also admire britain and australia for deporting radical moslems that preach hate.

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 07:28 PM
The height of America has passed. We are now to learn to live among the peoples of the world or to die just another empire in history.

And as much as I wish that were not so, it is. History is not forgiving.

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 05:04 PM

Originally posted by rockonchucktown
the problem with the invasion of iraq is that it is too neutral. it was neither peaceful or diplomatic enough to avoid insurgency, nor is it hard enough iether. the insurgeny in iraq is only (arguably)successful because were arent their as conqueres but as people trying to set up a nation.

I completely agree. If Western govts. could make up their minds on how to deal with the situation effectively, the whole war against the insurgents will go on for years!

new topics

top topics


log in