Quote:
Originally posted by dio_j:
If the US had ANY imperialistic goals or was on any kind of epire like expansion we would currently be the owners of Iraq and Kuwait, and would have been so for more than 10 years after that brief 100 hour ground scuffle in '91.
Well you could not have stayed there. What would be your excuse. Instead you put an american friendly goverment in kuweit and kept iraq intact in order to have an excuse for letting there troops and equipment in order to keep the middle east under your immediate control.
That simple
|
I wasn't aware the government of Kuwait changed. Where did you come across that information.
To my knowledge Kuwait was established by Britain as a Briitsh protectorate when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled - because of the oil most probably.
No reason it shouldn't have been part of Iraq, but there you go. History has dealt us a wierd hand and we have to live with it.
Thus, it's a bit of a stretch to call the American government THEN Imperialist. Culturally imperialist sure, but not governmentally.
The issue for me is that America MAY become imperial in the future with this precedent "pre-emptive invasion" creates. Rome had "pre-emptive invasions" against the Gauls of France, who had sacked Rome. They then invaded Britain, practically for "harbouring terrorists" or in other words, hostile Gallic tribes and peoples from France operating from within Britain.
History judges the invasion of Britain as have more than one reason though. Surely Caesars own political and military ambitions should be considered.
Similarly, the American wars should be judged likewise. Reasons are myriad, Varied. Multilayered.