why dont we just make iraq an america state?

lol i mean we did take it over and i think turning it into an american state will benefit all the plps there and dont tell me we cant do that cuz we fought for there freedom and this could improve our economy.

just my two cents

Well, seeing how they didnt ask to be "liberated" nor do they want us there, its a safe bet to nsay they would be even less happy being part of the US. especially when there is nothing in common culturally between them and us.

Not only that, why would the US want Iraq as a nother state? We do just fine with 50. What the hell do we need another 30 million citizens for anyway?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
.......What the hell do we need another 30 million citizens for anyway?

to invade iran

simple answer to your question.

They are a soveriegn nation. period

The very attitude Iraq should fear. The US liberated Iraq so the US owns Iraq.
As the above responses said, sovereignty, will of the people.

Not that the US voter would be attracted anyway. Another 20 million for the health dare program?

This tyrannical imperialist mindset sickens me. Unfortuantely a lot of people in the United States had the same mindset as Bush and gave him the green light in 2003. Iraq, as others has said, is a sovereign nation. We have no business meddling in their affairs.

The only benefit i see is that the Americans will no longer need to be CRUEL to be KIND. I think more guys would have died in Americans attempt at Iraqui liberation than under Saddams Bondage.. and the liberation has come for only the ones who have died... Let us not fool ourself with Mr George Bush's claims on the aims of this war.

Originally posted by TONE23
simple answer to your question.

They are a soveriegn nation. period

In addition, it would be against US principles (Monroe Doctrine)

The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed the United States' opinion that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States of America, Mexico, and others. In return, the United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and in wars between a European power and its colonies. However, if these latter type of wars were to occur in the Americas, the U.S. would view such action as hostile toward itself.

From the Wikipedia entry.

So it's rather irrelevant, as Iraq is neither European nor one of its colonies.

As for turning Iraq into a US state benefiting all the people there... don't you think they've had enough "benefit" already?

They're upset by being ruled by puppets and occupied by a hotstile, trigger-happy army that shoots pregnant women and burns the corpses of raped teenagers as it is. Do you think that by waving a magic wand and saying "you are now a US state" they'll all just be deleriously happy?

This is delusional thinking.

Originally posted by rich23

...

I am aware of that. However, the fact remains its against US principles is against colonizing, the Monroe doctrine was just an example, which does, of course not apply here.

Another example is when the Netherlands fought a war against its colony Indonesia, which had been occupied from the 17th century till midway the 20th century, the US did support Indonesia in its war for of indepdence.

The US purports to be against colonizing... except in the cases of Hawaii, the Philippines (and you might want to check out what Mark Twain had to say about THAT little adventure - he was, imo, a truly great American), Puerto Rico, Guam, Diego Garcia and a handful of other tiny spots.

But actually, when you look at the history, you find, for example, that the main point of the Monroe doctrine was to announce to the rest of the world that Central and South America was US PROPERTY - HANDS OFF. There has been a continual parade of interventions, invasions, and coups which have all been designed to subjugate the South American states, the latest of which were Haiti in 2003 and Venezuela in 2002 - the latter, I'm ecstatic to report, unsuccessful.

The Monroe doctrine was ignored by the US in any event: they were instrumental in the coup that brought the military cabal to power in Greece in the sixties, and they interfered in Italian and French politics to try and destroy the Communist party in those countries. They also removed the Gough Whitlam government in Australia in the mid-seventies.

As for Indonesia, it followed a remarkably consistent US pattern, as this link (the first one I came across, as it happens, but it works rather well) demonstrates.

As it was on the way to the printers, both the CIA and the United States State Department took action to block the publication of a book detailing U.S. covert action and goverment involvement in the coup in Indonesia which resulted in the loss of up to one million lives (the victims of the U.S. sponsored purge were leftists, not surprisingly). The documents have been reproduced on the George Washington University Archive site and reveal that American involvement included passing the names of leftists to the Indonesian death squads (with the Ambassador at the time suggesting that these steps were required since, on their own, the Indonesia military seemed to be to clueless to figure out who these people were themselves.)
In one of the more interesting quotes from the article the embassy reports back to Washington at the time that "We frankly do not know whether the real figure" of communists who have been killed "is closer to 100,000 or 1,000,000 but believe it wiser to err on the side of the lower estimates, especially when questioned by the press." The comminiques also address the possibility of public disclosure of U.S. covert action and involvement in the massacres by noting that "The chances of detection or subsequent revelation of our support in this instance are as minimal as any black bag operation can be."

Against colonizing? Overtly, yes, covertly, no.

I thought for a second what would it be like if Iraq was a US state. Iraqis could come to the US as they pleased for one thing since they would all become US citizens. They could also vote for the US president but I doubt they would change the outcome of the election since the US system is rigged by the size of the population in each state rather than how many people voted. I for one would rather have all the suicide bombers stay in the Middle East and not grant them access to the US as an American citizen.

As far as the people of Iraq voting to become a US state, that's pretty funny. I doubt the people of Iraq would have that much to gain. Now if a whole lot of foreign countries attempted to be part of the US, it could change the whole political structure of the US. However I don't think that will happen either because the people here would have to accept adding several new states.

I can imagine some (not me) might dream of several Middle Eastern countries becoming US states and then we get a new US president and congress mostly from the Middle East. I believe it's best if the views and interests of the people of a new US state be similiar to many Americans in existing states. I for one would not be happy if a Middle Eastern congress were elected to our congress and freedom of religion was abolished and everyone had to adopt Islam as the US national religion. So to sum up, be careful what you wish for.

Turning Iraq into a state of the USA ?
I wouldnt go that far but I think that power was handed over to the Iraqi government way to soon. Paul Bremer was clueless about Iraqi politics and the region , Iraq needs a Macarthur type figuer but alas I think it is to late if the coalition tried take power back now there would be a real revolt.

If any thought or planning had gone into post war Iraq the government would have been given authority gradualy starting at local city council level.

When you build a house you lay the foundations before you build the roof.
In Iraq the roof has been built without any foundations being laid.