HELP!
2007-03-04 13:01:53 · 5 answers · asked by Britney 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I do not see how this is an act of imperialism.
In 1992 the government of Iraq under Saddam Husein signed a armistice agreeing to limits on the Armed Forces, the total discontinuation of the Iraq program to develop Atomic, Chemical, and Biological weapons and the authority of the UN to monitor and review this program. These were terms agreed to in-order to end the hostilities that began with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
The government of Iraq failed to hold to any part of that agreement and by right the United States and the duty to enforce the terms of that agreement by force. When a war is ended under terms that means that when a party violates the terms, guess what, the war is back on.
An empire would be if GW went into Iraq and started putting up signs "Welcome to East Texas".
2007-03-07 02:22:01 · answer #1 · answered by DeSaxe 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not. Imperialism would have been the smart thing in this situation. We pay taxes so we can blow up a country, take down their insane leader, but instead of taking all of their oil, we try to set up a democracy there. We are in control of a country that has almost all of the oil in the Mideast, and yet I'm still paying 3 bucks for a gallon of gas.
2007-03-04 21:40:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ummm It isn't. Unless you believe we are trying to take over Iraq and rule it ourselves. They have a democratically elected government . One that they selected. It is not imperialism.
2007-03-04 21:06:47 · answer #3 · answered by Willie 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is not an act of imperialism. Imperialism would be the U.S. taking total control. They now have an elected government of their choice.
2007-03-04 21:11:58 · answer #4 · answered by J.R. 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely....He wants to be the king.
2007-03-04 21:05:58 · answer #5 · answered by melissa 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋