PDA

View Full Version : So how come the US does NOT WANT democracy in Iraq?



Toma
01-16-2004, 01:23 PM
I thought first it was beacuse of WMD's and Iraq being a direct threat, but now it was to "free the people of Iraq"and bring them democracy ....but as handover time comes, the US wants to APPOINT a leader, and not allow democratic elections.

Seems weird, if I did not know any better, I would think the US had alterior motives for the whole war :confused:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3392425.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3402859.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=481715

Redlyne_mr2
01-16-2004, 01:33 PM
I distinctly remember bush saying "the iraqi people deserve the rights to a democracy". It frustrates me to much to even think and talk about that piece of shit

Ajay
01-16-2004, 02:51 PM
Bush can turn blue saying he wants a democracy restored in Iraq so the Iraqi people can rule themselves.

At the end of the day we all know it's bullshit. He wants a government in power in the Mid East besides Israel that's friendly to Americans. I guess he wants an Arab nation that's more American friendly for numerous reasons. One of those reasons is primarily oil.

Just like in Afghanistan they brought in someone who was pro American....they'll do the same in Iraq. The only people that are gonna suffer by the US employing it's foreign policy in Iraq is the Iraqi people.

Weapon_R
01-16-2004, 03:31 PM
"The people of Palestine deserve free and fair elections, and I will guarantee them statehood, so long as they don't elect their elected leader Yasser Arafat"

CRX-R
01-16-2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Weapon_R
"The people of Palestine deserve free and fair elections, and I will guarantee them statehood, so long as they don't elect their elected leader Yasser Arafat"

HAHA, that's priceless. Politicians sure can talk!!:guns:

E36M3
01-16-2004, 03:40 PM
This isn't anything new, and it is not an attempt to deny democratic process. In order for an election to work, the Bush administration (and their allies, most notably Great Britain) assert that there has to be some stability in the country.

In order to get there, the plan is to setup a transitional government that will pave the way for democratic elections. Although from a puritanical view, it may seem as though this is derailing the thought of true democracy, I can't really see how it would any other way. The big problem is that without a good way to communicate to a people (80% of whom were born into the Saddam regime) who don't know about how a democracy works, the elections would be ineffective and unsupported by the people, and there would be a very real threat of a dictator seizing power.


Originally posted by Toma
I thought first it was beacuse of WMD's and Iraq being a direct threat, but now it was to "free the people of Iraq"and bring them democracy ....but as handover time comes, the US wants to APPOINT a leader, and not allow democratic elections.

Seems weird, if I did not know any better, I would think the US had alterior motives for the whole war :confused:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3392425.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3402859.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=481715

Toma
01-16-2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by E36M3
This isn't anything new, and it is not an attempt to deny democratic process. In order for an election to work, the Bush administration (and their allies, most notably Great Britain) assert that there has to be some stability in the country.

In order to get there, the plan is to setup a transitional government that will pave the way for democratic elections. Although from a puritanical view, it may seem as though this is derailing the thought of true democracy, I can't really see how it would any other way. The big problem is that without a good way to communicate to a people (80% of whom were born into the Saddam regime) who don't know about how a democracy works, the elections would be ineffective and unsupported by the people, and there would be a very real threat of a dictator seizing power.


Yep, that sound liek exactly the excuse the US Gov't will use as it sets up its 15th pro American dictatorship.

Its like one lie, then another to cover it, then another to cover it, then another.... justification upon justification upon justification.... and people still fall for it :banghead: :D

E36M3
01-16-2004, 04:58 PM
That is a pretty cynical point of view, but definitely a valid prediction. We'll see what happens -- I am very interested to see if the U.S/British coalition will have the balls to allow democracy in Iraq.

Call me an optimist, but I think they will do it. It is in their best interest (as far as I can tell) and will be very interesting to watch.

Only time will tell which one of us is right.


Originally posted by Toma

Yep, that sound liek exactly the excuse the US Gov't will use as it sets up its 15th pro American dictatorship.

Its like one lie, then another to cover it, then another to cover it, then another.... justification upon justification upon justification.... and people still fall for it :banghead: :D

rice_eater
01-19-2004, 03:08 AM
As much as i hate what's going on in that region, you guys should remember that there are actually many factions there in Iraq. As bad Sadam was, he actually kept the country together. The cost of that we all know, but honestly there would be so many different factions fighting for power that it would rip the country appart. The Kurds especially want to have their own country.

Look at this link and you'll understand what i mean

http://www.stripes.com/mideast/graphics/ethnic.html

So i throw a different question at you guys...
Who should govern Iraq?
-Iraqi people with the risk of the whole country splitting up and factions fighting eachother for control of more land?
-A US puppet state
-Who else? Will the US really allow the UN to take over? I doubt it...they haven't made up the money they spent on the war yet...

mo_virgin
01-19-2004, 04:25 AM
To understand this problem its important to understand that the United States itself is not a Democracy any longer. It is more of a Facist Aristirocracy. George Bush isn't really accountable to anyone execpt the secret societies that he belongs too (skulls and crossbones, the NSA .... ). Is there ANYONE blind enough to beleive that the motives for war in Iraq was not merely a conflict of intrest for the rich of the USA???

hjr
01-20-2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by mo_virgin
To understand this problem its important to understand that the United States itself is not a Democracy any longer. It is more of a Facist Aristirocracy. George Bush isn't really accountable to anyone execpt the secret societies that he belongs too (skulls and crossbones, the NSA .... ). Is there ANYONE blind enough to beleive that the motives for war in Iraq was not merely a conflict of intrest for the rich of the USA??? HA HA HA HA HA OMG, secret society... The president is accountable to congress BTW.

rogue
01-20-2004, 07:45 PM
wow you guys and your conspiracy theories and "secret societys" so what about these "secret societys" they arent even secret anymore the freakin Freemasons have a house downtown and the Knights Templars are pretty much advertising. Welcome to the new millenium where secret societies arent SECRET ANYMORE>:eek: :D (a few exceptions of course :D )

Super_Geo
01-20-2004, 08:27 PM
lol forget my post. i thought the quote was referring to something else :nut:

mo_virgin
01-20-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by rogue
wow you guys and your conspiracy theories and "secret societys" so what about these "secret societys" they arent even secret anymore the freakin Freemasons have a house downtown and the Knights Templars are pretty much advertising. Welcome to the new millenium where secret societies arent SECRET ANYMORE>:eek: :D (a few exceptions of course :D )

They might be public... must general public have no idea what they represent and the power they have and do hold