Is it true that the Invasion of Iraq be considered as  21st  century Colonialization ?
474825
Well, of course, some people might say that, but there's a big difference.  A colonization entails not just occupying a nation, but taking over all government operations, dictating it's policies, and integrating it into the national life.\n\nIn the case of Iraq, no one in America imagines it as a long-term venture.  Perhaps people in the government do, but American people certainly don't imagine being involved in Iraq, or even occupying the nation for very long.  The stated goal has always been to remove the dictator, and then help the nation get back on its feet quickly, and then leave.  Only because of all the terrorism is America still involved.  \n\nI never supported the invasion at that time, but calling it colonization is really silly, and it just shows that much of the debate is not based in reality.  It's become a matter of trying to embarrass members of different political movements, and it leads nowhere.
145798
First, Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The US has never been a acquisition nation.\n\nNow, there has been a trend to criticize imperialism not at an economic or political level, but at a simply cultural level, particularly the widespread global influence of American culture. We have a great deal of influence on all cultures and our culture is slowly changing the world. \n\nIt comes down to how you view it.
631752
From one point it was an altruistic move by Bush to liberate Iraqi peopel. The present administration is altruistic in mitives than ever. But the way it does it really sucks.\nSecond, gaining control over oil prices since US needs energy resources fro its further development and domination in the world. The point US Strategy for 21st century makes is that Americans will never let any country to rise at the same hegemony level it has acquired.\nThird, there were miscalculations in US intelligence circles. Look what happened to CIA chiefs.\nSummarizing - the goal behind US invasion in Iraq is complex and very misguiding, but at all it is objectively considered as a political failure of Bush Administration.
574053
The original premise for invading Iraq was the alleged presence of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and possible ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.  Both allegations have been proven false since the invasion.  Whether Saddam's overthrow has made the region more stable will not be answered for years, possibly decades.\n\nThere are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.  In both conflicts, our troops were not fighting an enemy which clearly identifies itself.  Another similarity shared by Iraq and Vietnam is the lack of well-defined goals for victory.\n\nWhile it has been speculated oil was the primary reason for invading Iraq, that remains largely unproven.  Statistically speaking, Canada and Mexico provide the largest chunk of imported crude oil to the United States, followed by Saudi Arabia.  It appears the decision to invade Iraq was based more on socio-political reasons (i.e. establishing a Western-friendly regime) than it was for acquiring natural resources.
1028016
How dare u call a country shit-hole???  Iraq has been one of the most civilized places in world history.  It has been plundered by Saddam and the US.  It has a potential to be a great nation.  Probably the most worthy place to undertake historical study on early and medieval archeology rather than pouding with carpet bombs and other destructive gizmos.
367192
Of course. This is the 21st century.
707240
yes you better beleive it.some body said above russia will be the next 3rd reiche,untrue our governments are all run by the global elite ,world banks and such most of the figure heads in so called civilised countrys are compramised this goes back a century but the point is the 4th reiche is on its way and all the countrys involved in thse world banks are part of it.in the next 5-10 years we will be living in a world wide version of nazi germany t,the people will be drafted and used as cannon foder to invade contrys that are not under control of the NEW WORLD ORDER like .....................the middle east ,there are and have been millitary bases all over iraq ,this will be the base in which to invade the middle east .this is kind of a generaliseation and off target to your question ,but all this is in plain view .history is repeating itself.
477383
Globalization is neo-imperialism. This means the whole world should do what USA tells them to do. Anybody says anything against the western invasion, will be called "Anti-western" and be destroyed by American globalizers. On the other hand it is the god given right of the west to be anti-east. To make sure this plan of globalization works, son-of-a-bush is making sure that nobody else can have nuclear bombs. Only America has used nuclear bomb in the past and only they can have it.
1022626
Yes\n\nThe bottom line is that all countries, in this supposed civilized world, have no right to occupy/invade another country unless there is a threat.... That threat has to be proven and UN approval must be granted. This is exactly why we, and many other countries, helped Kuwait when Iraq occupied/invaded them.\n\nOne country has no right to decide on its own to suddenly go liberate another country. That is common sense in a civilized progressive world. That (and I am not trying to compare Bush to Hitler) is exactly what Germany did in WWII when HItler kept occupying one country after another. The world recognized that as wrong.\n\nAlso as far as being charged with war crimes... yes.\n\n* Bush has violated the geneva convention \n* Bush has used redension to knowingly use torture.\n* Bush is holding prisoners without allowing the Red Cross to have access to some of them and also not releasing some of their identities.\n\nSorry if some of us Americans don't want to hear that but all of that is fact and are clearly war crimes.\n\nI also believe that assassinating ppl in Iraq and killing 100,000s shoud be considered a war crime in this circumstance because Bush had no right to invade that country. He invaded on false-pretense. BUT that part is just my personal belief and I am not sure where that falls under any war crimes act.\n\nAlso Answerman, don't fall into the 'congress voted for it' trap. They want you to believe that all who voted to GIVE BUSH AUTHORITY IF NECESSARY was saying it was ok to go to war. I've seen many interviews with politicians who stated they never would have believed in 100 years that Bush was going to go into Iraq without UN approval. They got tricked into falling for his scam.\n\nPpl should learn their history: Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia were not occupations. They were either forms of containtment (that is the political term for the freeze on the spreading of communism) or humanitarian acts.
599932
I have read the answers above. \n\nDoes this mean that the French were right a couple of years ago when they declined to invade Iraq as they believed that the situation would deteriorate into what the US is now facing there today? \n\nDoes this mean that staying on in Iraq will breed more fanatics like Bin Laden (one of the reasons he struck against the US was because he believed that US troops should not be based in Saudi Arabia)? In 10 years, will we see an increase in the number of Iraqi terrorists on a global scale?
294907
Absolutely not. Saddam may well have been a tyrant, despot and  an egotistical maniac as well as a bully but the UN should have got him out when he sent troops into Kuwait in the 90's and there was truly an international coalition against him. They had the moral high ground then and a mandate from the UN which made Operations Desert Sheild and Desert Storm legal under International Law plus there were many arab nations involved.\n\nThis time things are different. The so called coalition is made up of mainly American and British forces with a few small contingents from some countries, the majority had no wish or desire to become involved. The case for invasion this time was flimsy at worst and a complete pack of lies at best.\n\nUN inspectors found no evidence of chemical weapons let alone weapons of mass destruction yet at the UN members were shown "spy satellite photo's" of mobile chemical trucks and production facilities. Strange how the inspectors never found any of it. When America and Britain put forward a resolution calling for the invasion of Iraq most of the UN voted it down, the US and UK virtually thumbed their noses at the UN and went ahead with the invasion anyway.\n\nSo now we have a situation where the "liberators" are now the occupiers, insurgents are all over the country, American and British soldiers are being attacked daily, suicide bomings are becoming more and more frequent, kidnappings of Westerners and Muslims is increasing, the new Iraqi Government is virtually paralised by internal squabbling, the American trained Iraqi Security Forces are bareley holding their own and the whole country is sliding ever more closer to civil war and anarchy. Yet both Britain and America maintain that things are getting better.\n\nReally where??.
35504
Not anything more during this pres period. The military is stretched and presence in Iraq will be for many years to come.
288689
Iraq is like Yuoslavia.  Yuoslavia was an artificial country forced together by a strong dictator.  When the dictator was removed, the country fell apart. Iraq is one of the last remnants of the British-French colonial era.  It was cobbled together by the British as part of an effort to maintain a land route to India.  Iraq is not a homogenous group of people with a common heritage or religion. It consists of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shites.  The best thing for Iraq would be to split it up along the lines of these three groups, just as Yugoslavia disintegrated into several smaller entities.  Short of that, the only way to keep Iraq together as a cohesive unit will be for another strong dictator to appear and bring these diverse groups together by force. The concept of democracy as backed by the United States will never work in Iraq. After the Americans leave the country will either break apart in bloody war or be held together by a ruthless strongman.  Democracy is not and has never been a viable option.
774601
Yes. It's the 21st century
1035585
Nope. It's still the same way it was before we invaded. Warlords run most of the country under their own laws, and the only thing that's pro-Western is the government in the capital. Sorry.
64306
That all depends on your definition of war... There were, of course, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vitenam, Iraq I, Bosnia, Mogadishu, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq II, but Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Bosnia, Mogadishu, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq II were not declared wars, but "police actions" or some such. So, the only declared wars in all of the 20th century were WWI and WWII. Other invasions of import were: The Bay of Pigs Invasion, Grenada, Panama (Operation Just Cause), and Rwanda. So, if you include everything, it would be 14 wars.
784598
I can think of several things that may qualify, but upon closer examination I find evidence lacking for all of them.  Not counting some local or minor issue that may have been discussed in your class, consider Iraq?\n\nNo, we are not a colonial power exploiting another people.  Further, the people of Iraq are not culturally related to us, like we were to the British.  So bag that idea.\n\nWhat else? Elections?  Change of focus of power from Republican to Democrat?  No, there were no parties in Colonial America.  Not like we have them today.\n\nSorry I can't be more helpful.  Perhaps, Like I said, the question may be related to some topic covered in class that is not "general knowledge."  \n\nLots of teachers have their own agenda and even more ask questions that only make sense to them.  Some make a career out of making the obvious, obscure.