New Iraqi Government - A puppet of the US government?

You know, I've seen a fair number of posts claiming that the new Iraqi government is a puppet of the US government. I'll concerned that this is a possibility... but I've yet to see any discussion on it. Some people take it as assumed that it is, while other people just ignore the possibility. Does anyone have records of how the government was set up? Any evidence that it is or is not?

 

absolutely

 

nice quality post there....what do you think Rob?


Anyway, I am not sure they are a puppet govt. of the US, but I do think they are ones of their religions. i.e. that radical cleric al-sadr had many of his supporters step down from the govt in the past few days.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266208,00.html

This govt is more of a puppet of individuals who want all the power than the US govt.

 

Sure they are, are the americans not still in Iraq?

 

that doesn't prove anything...can you give some specifics?

 

A pictures's worth a thousand words. Here are four thousand words:









Pretty much sums it up.

 

That does not mean sh*t. You and d16man flash pictures and throw slogans and cliches as if they mean sh*t.
A country can NOT have free and fair elections while it is OCCUPIED by foreign troops.
The Iraqi Government is a PUPPET because it relies on the US for its own security. When your life depends on someone, you can not be independent from that person. If the US were to leave right now, the current Iraqi Government knows that it will be toppled. Nouri Al Malaki security is guaranteed by the US.
The Iraqi Government can NOT go against US interests or it will be toppled. This is what happened to the former Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Al Jaffari. The US had enough of him and they made sure he was replaced by Nouri Al Malaki.

Please spare us these propaganda images.

 

Thus far I have seen zero evidence on either side as to weither the government is a puppet government, just assumptions, supposition, and pictures of happy Iraqis.

I did, however, see signs that a subset of Iraqis want the US out. How many of them do, however, is another question.

And that's actually a separate issue from if the government is a puppet government or not.

 

It means enough that you got upset over the truth.

So you are upset that your brothers and sisters have what you have...the right to vote? You'd prefer they live under terrorist control? Sounds about right for you.

Iraq is not occupied. We are there at the request of the Iraqi government. They one those people voted for. You are just upset al qaida is not in charge.

What else would you falsely accuse your country of, to support your backwoods religion?

 

I think the biggest clue Josh is to think about all the US Administration rhetoric about "mission accomplished" and all the rest of the BS and then look at all the "enduring" (a.k.a permanent) bases over there now.

The US troops will not be leaving Iraq any time soon mate.

Of course it's a puppet government and anyone with even half a brain can see that.

 

You've seen evidence, just not prepared to accept it. What you saw were people that risked their lives, showing off ink stamps, for their right to vote for who they want to represent their government.

What was the commonality of the Iraqis in that photo. Obviously you just saw them "happy" but missed something else of great importance. Was that intentional?

 

Have an example of this?

That's bad news for the people you support.

That's probably why you see it that way. It only takes half a brain.

 

I think you have your panties in a wad for sure...wow you got ticked off because of those pictures...I guess anyone that is against the terrorists ruling and against the actual iraqi govt would be upset though.

 

Pardon. "Happy Iraqis that just voted." Since you had to have your finger inked as a part of the voting process.

The fact that people voted does not necessarily negate the possibility of it being a puppet government. There have been dictators who have been voted into office time and time again because... if you didn't vote for them, you were in some really deep trouble, and if the dictator lost, he'd just invalidate the election.

The fact that the US military is currently occupying Iraq does not necessarily make it a puppet government of Iraq. We occupied Japan for a long time after we fought our way there, and yet the Japanese government was still the Japanese government. We currently provide security for the Japanese due to the disarmament, but does the Japanese government bow to our every whim? No.

 

I am not ticked. Your pics don't mean sh*t. You can NOT have free elections while your country is under occupation. Your government can not be a free government if it relies on a foreign power for its protection.
What part of this don't you understand, b*tch???

 

Do you know what happened to the former prime minister Ibrahim Al Jafari??? He got booted because he felt out of favor with its US master???
Don't you watch the news in the US. Republican and Democrat politicians are starting to ask openly if Nouri Al Maliki is the "right" man for Iraq. How can the iraqi governement be a sovereign government when foreign politicians are starting to think whether or not it should be replaced????

Whether you like or not, Nouri Al Maliki is a puppet and he knows it. He has to do what the US wants him to do or he is history. The US military does not even ask his permission to conduct military operations in Iraq.

Hell, the US owns that place!!!

 

There is no occupation. But we know who you would prefer to be in charge. It's a shame you would wish that upon your brothers and sisters while you are occupying in a country that offers you peace and safety.

 

I do watch the news. So far the only person I saw talking about the Iraqi government was a presidential candidate.

 

There is no occupation??? That is the dumbest comment I have read in a long time.

According to wikipedia: Military occupation is the period of time following a nation's territory invasion by a controlling military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation

Oh right, that definition does not apply to the US. We are the good guys, the civilized ones. The savage ones are the muslims.
We don't torture people. We simply make them feel uncorfomtable.
We don't occupy other countries. We simply free their people.
We don't terrorize people. We simply use precision guided 2000lb bombs on their cities and towns.
We don't kill civilians. They are collateral damage.

The terrorists are the ones whom we choose to call terrorists.
Occupation is when we call it occupation. Syria was "occupying" Lebanon. Israel is NOT occupying Palestinian lands. We are NOT occupying Iraq.

You got to be dumb as sh*t to believe in your self-righteousness.

Since GTech is so fond of pictures, here is one for him.
From the Guardian, today Images of injured Iraqi released

 

Dumb people often read dumb things.

We (not you) are there at the request of the Iraqi government. The one the people above elected, that you are furious with for voting against your buds.

muslims have more experience with occupying other's lands then any other entity. Virtually all the region is occupied by muslims.

Israel is not occupied. Israel was Israel long before islam was invented. Palestine is not an Arab name, it was given to the territory by the Romans.

If muslims want to stop losing land in the Israel area, they should stop starting wars against Israel. What lands do we see muslims giving back to others? None. But Israel have given back lands taking during war when they were attacked first. Must be that "peace and tolerance" thingy in islam, right?

Torture. A handful of individuals were guilty. They are behind bars. That was the last of it. You raise it as an issue, but speak nothing when your buds use kids to detonate bombs to kill other Iraqis. You speak nothing about the muslim on muslim crime taking place there. Perhaps muslims are not capable of managing themselves? Iraq sure paints that picture, doesn't it?