28th June 2004, 7:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 28th June 2004, 8:06 PM by A Black Falcon.)
First, of course Iraqis now have more control over their country than before. But the point is that we still have a deciding interest in their politics and the fact that the government is now Iraqi won't stop us from doing just about anything (policywise) that we want...
Yes, of course they were going to put someone who is close to the American government in power. That's my point -- they don't want any problems with making it look like they are making him do things, so they put someone in who will do as we want on the major issues and not do much of substance to question what we are doing there. Now, we absolutely have to keep our troops in Iraq, but I think that anyone expecting this move to lead to much change in the situation in Iraq, politically or resistance-wise, isn't looking very hard.
Oh, and the free government could be a very big problem. A LOT of Iraqis hate us now. Have a truly free election and we will get a very large anti-American party who hates us... why do you think that the American government has only the lightest criticism for Musharaf in Pakistan?
Yes, of course they were going to put someone who is close to the American government in power. That's my point -- they don't want any problems with making it look like they are making him do things, so they put someone in who will do as we want on the major issues and not do much of substance to question what we are doing there. Now, we absolutely have to keep our troops in Iraq, but I think that anyone expecting this move to lead to much change in the situation in Iraq, politically or resistance-wise, isn't looking very hard.
Oh, and the free government could be a very big problem. A LOT of Iraqis hate us now. Have a truly free election and we will get a very large anti-American party who hates us... why do you think that the American government has only the lightest criticism for Musharaf in Pakistan?