DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**jamisi** · 04-08-2010, 08:14 AM

That is simply wrong. Their constitution was drawn up by a constitutional committee assisted and advised by constitutional experts working through the UN. The process involved extensive consultation with the Afghan people throughout Afghanistan as well as with Afghans living in other countries. It was then presented to a loya jirga for approval where it was very hotly debated before being approved.

How exactly does this change the fact that the decision to implement a democracy was made in Wasghington only? Afghanistan was seized and the tribal leaders were presented with a democratic constitution. It wouldn't even surprise me if all the "native" authors of that constitution were on the CIA payroll for years.

There simply was no other option discussed, for the occupators decided to enforce their own system of government. And just like you put out, there was resistance, before the tribal leaders decided to tolerate the worthless piece of paper.

The decision that there would be a democracy in Afghanistan was made in Washington and in Washington only. Options like reinstating the King were refuted by Washington and therefor out of discussion.

Today, it becomes obvious that this democratic system forced upon the Afghanis by us is neither practical for the country nor healthy enough to survive the quarrels within the country. We can only hope that just like in Iraq, an ethnic cleansing stabilizes the country in the end.

04-08-2010, 08:14 AM	#30
jamisi Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 414 Senior Member	That is simply wrong. Their constitution was drawn up by a constitutional committee assisted and advised by constitutional experts working through the UN. The process involved extensive consultation with the Afghan people throughout Afghanistan as well as with Afghans living in other countries. It was then presented to a loya jirga for approval where it was very hotly debated before being approved. How exactly does this change the fact that the decision to implement a democracy was made in Wasghington only? Afghanistan was seized and the tribal leaders were presented with a democratic constitution. It wouldn't even surprise me if all the "native" authors of that constitution were on the CIA payroll for years. There simply was no other option discussed, for the occupators decided to enforce their own system of government. And just like you put out, there was resistance, before the tribal leaders decided to tolerate the worthless piece of paper. The decision that there would be a democracy in Afghanistan was made in Washington and in Washington only. Options like reinstating the King were refuted by Washington and therefor out of discussion. Today, it becomes obvious that this democratic system forced upon the Afghanis by us is neither practical for the country nor healthy enough to survive the quarrels within the country. We can only hope that just like in Iraq, an ethnic cleansing stabilizes the country in the end.
	Quote