PDA

View Full Version : USA occupation of Iraq: Puppet Government or Struggling Democracy?


Volcana
Jun 23rd, 2006, 09:09 PM
When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, Afghanistan soon had a 'democratically elected' government, and an insurgency. Of course, the insurgents, and the United States government, said that the government of Afghanistan at the time was a puppet regime, and offered as proof the need for ten of thousands of Soviet troops to support that government.

Does this sound familiar?

So the obvious question. Is the current 'democratically elected' government of Iraq a puppet regime, propped up by, and dominated by, the United States. Or does it genuinely represent the will of the Iraqi people, rather the will of the occupiers of Iraq? And how do you tell?

'How do you tell?' That's the real question, isn't? Just like one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

fifiricci
Jun 23rd, 2006, 09:12 PM
Indeed. I do believe that the US Government supported the IRA on the basis that they were "freedom fighters" (presumably freeing the downtrodden Northern Irish from their imperialist British masters, which must have got many an American pulse racing) whilst in the UK the IRA was portrayed as largely a terrorist outfit. Its an interesting debate. ;)

Rather like beauty, methinks it depends on the eye of the beholder, but I know what I'm seeing at the moment and it isn't American Beauty :p

azdaja
Jun 23rd, 2006, 09:16 PM
i think it's mixed. most people already forgot that in the beginning the americans did not want elections in iraq, but they were forced to accept that in the end. but that does not mean the elected politicians will really represent wishes of their people even if they wanted to.

Lord Nelson
Jun 24th, 2006, 12:59 AM
er excuse me, there was never a democratically elected government under the Soviets. They had at least 2 of Afghan leaders killed. There was talk of having elecxtions in 87 I think but the leader at that time Najibullah was hated by most Afghans and he was eventually tortured and killed bu the Taliban. This fate could have been avoided but the idiot trusted the Taliban more than Mujahedin people like Massoud.

Speaking of totrured leaders, Samuel Doe, the notorious illiterate leader of Liberia was also tortured, They had his torture being filmed. His ears were cut off and I believe so was his nose. The videotape of his slow and painful death became quite a hit on the streets of many parts of Western Africa according to my Nigerian friend. Hey people need entertainment. ;)

Volcana
Jun 24th, 2006, 02:47 AM
er excuse me, there was never a democratically elected government under the Soviets. They had at least 2 of Afghan leaders killed. There was talk of having elecxtions in 87 I think but the leader at that time Najibullah was hated by most Afghans and he was eventually tortured and killed bu the Taliban. This fate could have been avoided but the idiot trusted the Taliban more than Mujahedin people like Massoud.Pardon me. you are quite correct about the elections. There were supposed to be single quotes around the term 'democratically elected' in the original post. It was my intent to communicate that the Soviet called that government 'democratically elected', when of course it was not. I will make the appropriate correction.

However, what's your take on the actual question. How do you TELL? What makes the Sandanistas 'terrorists' and the contras 'freedom fighters'? Is it just whether or not someone agrees with their politics? Isn't that expediency to the point of amorality?

RVD
Jun 24th, 2006, 07:31 AM
Pardon me. you are quite correct about the elections. There were supposed to be single quotes around the term 'democratically elected' in the original post. It was my intent to communicate that the Soviet called that government 'democratically elected', when of course it was not. I will make the appropriate correction.

However, what's your take on the actual question. How do you TELL? What makes the Sandanistas 'terrorists' and the contras 'freedom fighters'? Is it just whether or not someone agrees with their politics? Isn't that expediency to the point of amorality?Pardon me if I chime in Volcana... :wavey:

But wouldn't the answer to the question be...'if it is the will of ['the people']'... and not the will of the occupiers? :shrug:

If 'the people' are allowed to elect and vote unencumbered by outside influences, I'd imagine that their 'will' would be that of a pure democratic process. Anything outside that cannot be considered a truly democratic election or a true democracy.

NOTE: Granted, there is no such thing as a truly democratic government.

I realize that I'm overly simplifying the answert, but I've just recently returned from the A's vs Giants game and I'm tired and hungry. :) Incidentally, my A's won. :bounce:

TheBoiledEgg
Jun 24th, 2006, 10:04 AM
even if they had a proper democratically elected govt.... Bush wont like them either :o

good example, Hamas in Palestine.

properly elected winners of the election and what does Bush do :rolleyes:
cant win can they.

the people hate the US, doesnt matter what puppet they put there.

wta_zuperfann
Jun 24th, 2006, 02:09 PM
If Iraq is such a paradise thanks to Bush, why is it that the 600,000 refugees who left after the invasion still haven't returned? Where are the pro-Bush rallies? Why haven't any statues been erected in his name? Why are USA troops being targetted by both the Sunni and Shiia?

Obviously, the puppet regime in Baghdad is ruling againt the public's wishes. If it had any validity, the public would be openly supporting the Bush imposed government and the "insurgents" would have no public support at all.