In years past, during colonial occupations, various countries - notably England - would appoint a Viceroy to a conquered territory.
A Viceroy was basically a final authority - a ruler if you will - representing the conqueror over the conquered.
Should the USA appoint a Viceroy, or a Viceroy like figure in Iraq?
The Arabs and Iranians have proved themselves basically to be savages, unable to be trusted in the broader global picture and thus need to be ruled, at least until their backward, destructive culture is changed or reformed
2007-03-31 17:53:19 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I would love to say yes, but unfortunately it's way more complicated than that. The USA would just screw things up. They have no real idea of what their culture is about (martyrs and such), and would probably provoke a violent revolution rather than change/improve it.
Furthermore, I don't think Iraq is really a conquered nation. You would have to completely cripple them first (after you get the permission from the other World Powers) before you appoint a Viceroy. I'm sure everyone else would like a piece of the cake too.
Thanks for the education anyhow, I didn't know what a Viceroy was until you told me.
2007-04-02 01:56:02 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That appears to be the only solution that would satisfy most people. Make Iraq a US territory/protectorate.
2007-03-31 18:16:54 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's essentially what Paul Bremmer was. It hasn't worked out very well.
2007-03-31 17:58:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are so wrong. Do you want to create even more enemies?
2007-03-31 17:57:01 · answer #4 · answered by G T 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋