U.S. not an imperialist nation?

by crownboy 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • crownboy

    I'm beginning to change my "no" answer on this. This seems pretty close to it.


    U.S. Plans for Two-Year Occupation of Iraq

    2 hours, 16 minutes ago
    Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

    By Jonathan Wright

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. officials on Tuesday laid out plans for a two-year military occupation of Iraq in the event of an invasion and told wary senators that "enormous uncertainties" made it impossible to say whether troops might stay even longer or how much it would all cost.

    Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the military and civilian administrators after a U.S. invasion would report to Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East.

    Pressed for an idea of how long a military occupation would last before Iraqis could take back the government of their country, his colleague from the State Department, Marc Grossman, said he would guess "two years."

    But the two officials, at a hearing called to discuss the future of Iraq, said they did not know how the United States would manage the Iraqi oil industry, who would cover the costs of reconstruction if oil installations are damaged in the invasion or how they would install a democratic government.

    "How this transition will take place is perhaps opaque at the moment. Hopefully there will be people who come up and want to be part of the government," Grossman said.

    "There are enormous uncertainties," added Feith. "The most you can do in planning is develop concepts... That's our problem. We have been thinking this through as precisely as we can, given the uncertainties."

    Some of the senators expressed incredulity at the state of the Bush administration's planning and several said they regretted Senate approval last year of military action.

    "There is no informed consent. The American people have no notion of what we are about to undertake. They believe it will be swift and successful and largely bloodless," said Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the committee.

    "It's going to be expensive and it's going to take a long, long time. It's better to lay that out now," said Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat.

    The Republican chairman of the committee, Richard Lugar of Indiana, also faulted the administration for its belated and incomplete planning. "Oil will not go away until you make clear how you will manage the oilfields. It needs to be finalized urgently," he added.


    The U.S. officials repeated assurances that oil revenues under the military occupation would pay the costs of the Iraqi people's needs and would be the property of all Iraqis.

    But Feith said: "The administration has not yet decided on the organizational mechanisms by which this sector should be operated. We shall be consulting on this important matter."

    Grossman dealt another blow to the aspirations of the Iraqi opposition in exile, which has been jockeying for advantage in the hope that the United States will overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites ) in the next few weeks.

    He said the Iraqi opposition in exile would not be allowed to control decisions for all Iraqis. "While we are listening to what the Iraqis are telling us, the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States," he added.

    The officials denied that a desire to control Iraqi oil played any part in the U.S. motivation for an invasion, which they justify as the best way to rid the country of alleged chemical and biological weapons.

    But Feith, once part of a pro-Israeli lobbying group that has been pressing for the overthrow of Saddam for years, said a U.S. occupation could benefit Israel and Middle East peace.

    "The Saddam Hussein regime provides support to Palestinian terrorist groups who are blocking any hope for progress toward Arab-Israeli peace," he said.

    "If it is possible to ... encourage the creation of democratic institutions in Iraq, one effect of that would be to inspire Palestinians to create for themselves democratic institutions that would help create the kind of interlocutor for the Israelis that could make serious progress toward peace much more realistic," he added.

    But Biden said Iraqi assistance to Palestinian groups was insignificant compared to that of Iran or Syria.

    Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former commander of U.S. Central Command, told the same hearing that any Iraqi government favorable to Israel would not last long.

    "By changing the government in Iraq, you don't change the attitude on these (Arab-Israeli) issues. No one could succeed in governance by having this pro-American, pro-Israeli ... approach in this environment today," he said.

  • bigboi

    The US has been an imperailist nation since the 1890's. When the country became a superpower there was another one staring right at us, so of course we couldn't take this new "unilateralist", "proactive" course lest the whole Mutually Assured Destruction thing happened and of course NOBODY really wanted that now did they?

    Now we are the only Superpower with a defense budget and the military capability to do pretty much what we want...at least on paper. However, I think in the next 5 to 10 years the good ol USof A is gonna get a nice piece of good ol humble pie that seems to always be served when a government or nation gets it's head to far up it's own ass.

    Edited by - bigboi on 11 February 2003 18:26:44

  • roybatty
    The US has been an imperailist nation since the 1890's.

    Yup, look at all the nations the US has invaded and ruled or set up puppet governments....Germany...um..no....Japan..um...no...Korea...oops...no again...Vietnam...nope..El Salvador...nope... Nicaragua...Panama...no Gernada...nope...Bosnia....nah...Iraq...not.

    If one looks at all the world powers throughout history, the US has been anything but.

  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    I agree. The US seems to think the invasion of Iraq will be a cake walk. Mark my words, I think it will be another Vietnam situation. Also the other night there was a good show on A&E about the Palestine suicide bombers. They were showing how most Palestinians live in poverty etc. and that has led to the hatred of Israel and the US. I mean for someone to strap a bomb on their back and blow themselves up they really have a hatred. I just don't think the US gets it. They think they can just go around, bully other smaller nations and not get retaliated on. Then when something like 9-11 happens they can't understand why anyone would hate them so much. I think it is about time they start putting in place some preventive measures before it gets to this point.


  • Grunt

    It won't be another Viet Nam. Viet Nam wouldn't have been like it was had we had the same approach there that we did and do in the recent fights

    I am all for getting in and out as quickly as possible. The last thing we want, as we have shown in all of our occupations in the past, is to keep Iraq or Afghanistan. The sooner we cut the oil off to the terrorists and their supporters the better.

    It would be nice if we could be isolationists, but that didn't work. We are forced to take an interest in world affairs for our own protection, not profit. We will spend far more than we can afford on both Afghanistan and Iraq and judging from the attitudes of the people there, will wind up with them hating us anyway.

    Read the latest message from the great coward of allah, the Running Martyr, and you will see his quote on hating ALL christians and jews. As for profits, he encourages the faithful to kill moslem apostates and steal their goods.

    If any proof is needed of what a bunch of maniacs we are dealing with, this little note from hiding urging everyone ELSE to stand and fight to the death and inflict casulties is it.

    Until this bird and his ilk are wiped out and their money taken from them, we will have to be on a war footing and occupy places he would like to be but can't because we are there. We have to keep him in his ditch with his head DOWN, shouting out for everyone else to stand up.


  • gsx1138

    Well, well is this the same Crownboy from Infidels.org. I noticed you posted the same topic there. My answer is a resounding YES!

  • foreword

    ......."We are forced to take an interest in world affairs for our own protection, not profit"

    Now that's a good one.

    We have two large oceans on each side of us, to the north we have Canada and to the south, Mexico.

    Now tell me, how difficult is it to protect this continent from an invasion. The intruder has to come over or on the seas to attack us. We'll see them coming days ahead of time.

    But no, we have to stick our noses in everybody's business cause we are avid users of this planet's resources. We need the toys produced by cheaper raw products and the cheaper labor. In other words we need to exploit others to keep the toys coming.

    But to say we are there because we are protecting ourselves is in my opinion...propaganda

  • crownboy

    You are indeed correct, gsx1138. But I do post here more often.

  • bigboi

    imperialism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (

    1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
    2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

    This is the definition given for imperialism at dictionary .com

    Based on this definition the USA has been and still is an imperialist state.

    Ever hear of the Spanish- American War? The Boxer Rebellion in China? Before the 1890's, the Mexican- American War?

  • Grunt

    Foreword: the last attack on the US came from terrorists in planes. I know these people can't afford a real army or navy, they can't launch a real attack. They can however blow up buildings and given time and enough attempts, they have a high failure rate, they will even be able to kill a lot of American civilians with either poison or a dirty bomb. They can only do that with money and support. We can't cut out all of it, but we can cut out a lot of it. We can't kill or catch them all, but we can kill and cathc an awful lot of them. There are a few hundred sitting in Cuba right now, some trying to kill themselves, that would love to be killing us. Iraq, Iran and a lot of moslems in other lands will lend support too. However the arabs are a fickle crew, when they thought the Mother of All Wars was going to be an actual fight, they were hooting for Saddam. When he got his poor misbegotten army destroyed and it was all a joke, all the cheers stopped. I guess they didn't want to bet on a losing horse anymore. The more of these types that get knocked down, the more countries who back them and give them weapons that get toppled, like Iraq and Afghanistan, the higher the threat is to them the better for us. Hitting them over there keeps them from being able to throw as many attempts over here. If you think the US can be isolationist, you need to think again. It really is a small world, as this board itself attests to.

    Bigboi: "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

    Ever hear of the Spanish- American War? The Boxer Rebellion in China? Before the 1890's, the Mexican- American War?"

    Are you trying to say that due to these wars the US has acquired territory in these countries and now has an economic and political hegemony there??? Do we still control any of China? Spain? Mexico? No. The places we freed from the Spanish we gave independance too when they were ready for it. Did we after defeating Spain, occupy Spain??? No. Did we keep Okinawa after all the blood we spilled taking it??? No. We are not an imperialist state. Places like Germany, Japan, Spain and many others are the best proof of this. The last thing we want is to take another country. We would go broke giving them food and medical care and trying to rebuild their roads. I am afraid this is what will happen in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't think we can afford the 15 billion to Africa for its AIDS but I do want to help the people. I just hope it doesn't go for more private jet planes for the leaders.


Share this