Is Afghanistan (Iraq, etc) really an independent country?

[myata]

President Karzai, in the prime of his sovereignty is calling upon the international community to set a timeline for an end to a war with Taleban: (Karzai: BBC story).

Voila. Sovereign president... is calling on UN... to stop a war ... in his own country. Not exactly what we've been hearing about this war from the government (or even on this board). That Afghan government is in full control of their destiny... what foreign troops will do whatever they (i.e Afghan government) wish... what they only stay there (and do what they do) because the Afghan government is begging them to...

What else can be said? How much more "sovereign" these new democracies need to be?

[Oleg Bach]

Afghanistan is a collection of provincial tribal leaders. As was Iraq untill the Americans choose one tribal leader and put him on top of the heap. That was Sadam. Eventually when Sadam became troublesome he was removed by the Americans as we saw - they indirectly almost removed his head. The idea that sovereignty can be attained by planting a western president is a joke. What is really taking place is that there is an attempt to create western sovereignty though a surrogate. It does not work because of the very nature of the old and proud tribesmen and their sons and daughters. They will NEVER recognize the authority of a leader that is put in place by a power other than their own. If you looked at the supposed sovereign court that tried and executed Sadam - It was clear to see that America gave the word to hand him over to his executioners - hense the phone call from Bush allowing this transphere - WAS the only real sovereignty - Best to leave these nations to their own device - It's none of our buisness.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post