It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Puppet Government.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I think the US government is forcing a system of government upon a country that does not want it.

Iraq. The US...or "Coalition" is appointing leaders to govern the country in a democratic system. Think about that for a second. Since when does a democratic government involve government appointed leaders, I somehow thought that the people of Iraq would have a say in who would lead them in their "new and improved country."


I personally don't think that Iraq is ready for a democracy, there is too much infighting, too much instability, too much religion in their politics. I don't think it is right for them. Many people believe that this will be the fix-all... once democracy gets a foothold it will fix all of the problems that Iraq once had. I don't think it will last.

If the Iraqi's got to choose, I doubt their leader/president would be cooperative with the US.

So my questions to all of you are:

If the Iraqi's had their choice of a leader, what type of leader would he/she(doubtful) be?

Do you think that democracy will fix this country?

Do you think that the US is indeed placing a puppet government that will cooperate with them?


your thoughts would be much appreciated.

-Durandal




posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
its not going to be a democracy I would call it a voodoo-democracy because the people really dont have a say with this installed government; any legislation that goes thru a legit democratic process is still subject to paul bremer's final say weather it gets passed or not.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Democracy won't work there because strict Islamic law does not blend with it. Your definitely right in saying it will be a puppet regime. Why do you think they're going after Al-Sadr so badly? He opposes the U.S. and has a strong following. His father is a Martyr in the eyes of the people for being a man of the people assassinated by Saddam Hussein. Any government installed in Iraq will do what it's told.

Of course this will never happen. The people of Iraq won't allow it. What do they have to lose? They had more freedom under Saddam Husseim for Christ Sake's. What does that tell you!

Before this war started I predicted another Vietnam for the U.S. The Vietnam war almost started a revolution in the U.S. If the Administration doesn't smarten up, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
What do you think the current administration is trying to accomplish with this obvious puppet government?

I don't think this "democracy" will last long at all if Coalition forces pull out of the country... it looks as if a long and tumultuous conflict is ahead. Obviously there must be a longer period of occupation in Iraq than previously thought by the public. What was everyone expecting? That once Saddam was ousted it would all be over and the new "democratic" government would make the country happy again. What of all the factions in Iraq trying to fill the power vacuum that Saddam left. I guess we will soon see.

This will get worse before it gets better.

-Durandal



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I find it funny that a post about zombies can get more replies than a post about important current world events.

just an observation.

zombies ate my dog.

-Durandal



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Iraq is now a puppet republic (officials making the decisions for the people), it was never going to be a democracy. If the U.S. wishes to maintain economic control over the country, it will have to remain that way. If somehow true elections took place, everything the U.S. really fought for would be wasted as real elected officials would actually be required to do some things for the people of Iraq and not the United States and its monied interests.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
The appointed, transitional or provisional (whatever you want to it) government leaders were picked in a meeting by Iraqi's several months back.

The provisional government is to take Iraq to the point of having national elections.

The religious fanatics don't want that to happen.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
quoted from the CPA website: "The Governing Council was appointed by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer on July 13, 2003."

They were not picked by Iraqi's.

I think that even if they did get to the point of elections (which is very far away) that it would not work.

(took awhile to write, as i had to visit the bomb-shelter after another mortar attack.)

-Durandal
Read this article from the CPA website.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by Durandal]



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I think it will end up turning into a theocracy. Or a theocratic dictator will take reign.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
Iraq is now a puppet republic (officials making the decisions for the people), it was never going to be a democracy. If the U.S. wishes to maintain economic control over the country, it will have to remain that way. If somehow true elections took place, everything the U.S. really fought for would be wasted as real elected officials would actually be required to do some things for the people of Iraq and not the United States and its monied interests.

[Edited on 10-4-2004 by heelstone]


Now I agree with you that the US will want to retain control using those means, but by all accounts Bush, L. Paul Bremer and the Iraqi Governing Council are trying to make it a Democracy. Even NGO's like the IID (Iraq Institute for Democracy which was founded in 1999) are shooting for that end.

So although everyone is saying that Iraq will be a democracy, I really dont think that idea is plausible any time soon.

-Durandal



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durandal
I think the US government is forcing a system of government upon a country that does not want it.

So my questions to all of you are:

If the Iraqi's had their choice of a leader, what type of leader would he/she(doubtful) be?

Do you think that democracy will fix this country?

Do you think that the US is indeed placing a puppet government that will cooperate with them?


your thoughts would be much appreciated.

-Durandal
I think that the Iraqi country as a whole would want to elect somebody that is religious to their faith in Islam. Somebody who will fight for the cause of having their own country to govern, not one placed in order by the 'Western World'.

I don't think that democracy will fix this country in the beginning, and it probably never will. I think that because of the history of these parts of the world, they would do better off with a one party system based on their faith.

Yes, the U.S.A Government is attempting to place their puppet 'players' in control of the country, but it is coming at a cost. Lives being lost on both sides, the 'coalition' and Iraqi people themselves.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   
There is heavy opposition to this democracy in Iraq simply because if it takes a foothold here, the people in the surrounding countries will notice the improved standard of living and general improvement of life, and it will spread. The powers that be in syria, iran, and other surrounding countries do not want to be ousted from their positions of top dog. They will fight to keep democracy out of the middle east.

this will get alot worse before it gets better, as i said before.

-Durandal



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I think the whole reason for Iraq was to create a new US controlled base. Obviously, Saudi Arabia no longer wants us there.
So, a new area needs to be groomed for a permanent US presense. Also, Iraq is more centrally located, is larger and is the cradle of civilization, FWIW.
Getting rid of Saddam was a secondary purpose.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I think the whole reason for Iraq was to create a new US controlled base.


I think so.
They already have plans for military bases after the handover.

Reporters asked Kimmitt if the coalition would maintain six bases in Iraq after sovereignty returns. "We will have quite a few more than six bases in Iraq following return of sovereignty," he said.


www.cpa.gov...

I've heard there will be 14 bases.

The US is going to have a lot of say in the new government also.

Bremer passed yet another law further opening up Iraq's economy to foreign ownership, a law that Iraq's next government is prohibited from changing under the terms of the interim constitution.
...
The US occupation authority has also found a sneaky way to maintain control over Iraq's armed forces. Bremer has issued an executive order stating that even after the interim Iraqi government has been established, the Iraqi army will answer to US commander Lt General Ricardo Sanchez. In order to pull this off, Washington is relying on a legalistic reading of a clause in UN security council resolution 1511, which puts US forces in charge of Iraq's security until "the completion of the political process" in Iraq. Since the "political process" in Iraq is never-ending, so it seems is US military control.

www.guardian.co.uk...

I think Bremer is the one controlling the Iraq government now and he'll be the one controlling after the handover also.




top topics



 
0

log in

join