U.S. pays $300 billion to make Iraq into Iran

Majic:

I know what I know about Iraq, you don't. Disadvantage: you.

The singlemost idiotic phrase I have ever seen on this site, where do I vote for it?

I recommend that you re-read this thread, and save me the effort of having to block quote half of it and point out the obvious for you. Please re-read it with my points in mind.

I STARTED the thread, Professor, but thanks for the tip.

My tip for you is READ the article I linked.

www.chron.com...

Despite such assurances, the questioning highlights a growing U.S. worry that the government set to take power in Iraq could be dominated by Shiite clerics strongly influenced by Iran.

Many members of the Iraqi Shiite coalition lived in Iran until the April 2003 fall of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Despite those Iranian links, U.S. officials supported the Iraqi Shiite parties before the war because they shared Saddam as a common enemy. Three of the Shiite parties in the coalition closely cooperated with the United States in the run-up to the U.S.-led Iraq invasion.

The prospect of close Iraq-Iran Shiite ties also worries Iraq's Sunni Arab minority — a group that had long dominated Iraq under Saddam and which nurtures strong anti-Iranian sentiments.

The Shiite ticket set to take power in Iraq, called the United Iraqi Alliance, is built around two major Shiite parties with close links to Iran — Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as SCIRI.

It was endorsed by the Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, and includes supporters of a young Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, with ties to the Iranian clergy, and prominent politician Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shiite who once was Washington's favorite to replace Saddam.

You say:

The assumption that they will choose to become a theocracy like Iran is insulting. It is possible to have an Islamic republic that operates under genuine democratic principles.

Show me ONE Islamic republic that operates under democratic principles. PLEASE, Doctor.

You're putting words in people's mouths and disparaging Iraqis, Shias, Islam and the democratic process all in one breath.

What? Care to explain that? You're all over the place here. I'm saying that based on election results and HISTORY, the Iraqis are going to end up as an Islamic republic. And you say "you're racist"? Nice intellectual responses there.


jako

Originally posted by Jakomo
Read a little then, and educate yourself. Al Sistani is an Iranian cleric, and the dangers of iraq becoming an Iranian style government are REAL, whether it pisses you off or not.

jako

No Jakomo, actually its you that needs to read a little and educate yourself, eh?! How many times does Al Sistani have to publically come out and explain the differences between Iranian Shi'ites and Iraqi Shi'ites? How many times does he need to publically proclaim that Iraq will not be like Iran?
Iraq's Shiites rule out Iran model: Political coalition says it won't create an Islamic theocracy
Shiites in Iraq Say Government Will Be Secular
U.S. Officials Say a Theocratic Iraq Is Unlikely
Rise of Iraq's Shiites could pose threat to Iran's clerical rulers

Typical Jakomo...




seekerof

as posted by Jakomo
The single most idiotic phrase I have ever seen on this site, where do I vote for it?

Objective mod-speak here, with no "professor" required:
Still haven't learned yet, have you Jakomo?



seekerof

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof:

No Jakomo, actually its you that needs to read a little and educate yourself, eh?! How many times does Al Sistani have to publically come out and explain the differences between Iranian Shi'ites and Iraqi Shi'ites?

www.aina.org...

Al-Sistani, whose views are influential with most Shiites in Iraq, is known to oppose the idea that clergy have a right to rule. He is, however, expected to insist that the constitution drawn up by the new National Assembly upholds Iraq's Muslim traditions and not include freedoms or practices violating the faith's basic tenets.

The new Iraq will have far more in common with Iran's theocracy than it does with any Western democracy. A democracy that revolves around Muslim traditions and does not include freedoms or practices violating the faith? What does that mean exactly, do you figure?

Objective mod-speak here, with no "professor" required:
Still haven't learned yet, have you Jakomo?

I've learned to try and not argue with pro-Bush shills who never admit when they're wrong even when the evidence is totally contrary to their position is what I've learned. Mod or not.

fyi I think your avatar is offensive

;p

Is it sarcastic?

With Majic here, you shouldn't gloate at Bush policy in iraq by putting all sji'ite people in one corner...

The future will tell if bringing demo(ehr theo)crazy to iraq is an utter failure or a most brilliant move, after all how better to piss off a sunnite Bin Laden then to give power to sji'ites?

Well, if Bush is really unhappy about how the sji'ites will rule iraq and don't hold to their secretely negotioted terms with the u.s.a, I guess he can always launch an airattack on Irani installation to spark a some sji'ite uprise in iraq, thereby getting pretext for removing an unfavourable democrativcely chosen regime...

Also the sji'ite might surprise by actually bringing some stabillity in the region, I think the memory of Khomeiny is still too much imprinted in the eyes of many americans, let's give them some benefit of the doubt, its a great experiment, allthough a bit dangerous experiment....

However, precisely for this reason (iran sorta holds usa hostage in iraq) I don't expect usa attack iran, maybe Israel does, they don't expect much good from most middle east countries so the might as well don't care.


[edit on 15-2-2005 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Countermeasures]

All Shiites in the region had one main leader his name is Ayatollah Al-Sistani, it does not matter that he is Iranian because he is still a Shi't.

The Shi'ts will follow their religious leader not matter if he is Iraqi born or Iranian born he is a Shi't.

The party that won the majority votes in Is backed by Al-Sistani.

The only thing that will split the Shi'ts in Iraq is the next Ayatollah Al-Sadr but he has not taken the tittle yet even when he is entitle to it by birth right.

Before the election he would have taken a lot of the votes away from Al-Sistani backed Party, but he did not run for government position.

Al-Sistani is in favor of a theocracy and regardless of what many thinks, Sunni favor theocracy also.

The Kurds are in the middle here and at the end when things get to hot they will go back to their safe haven and will claim Independence.

We just have to wait and see.

Two possibilites exist in my mind for our current situations with the continued insurgency in Iraq and the looming confrontation with Iran.

1. Within the entire intelligence/pentagon/nsa/state department apparatus, we simply made an intelligence 'goof' that Iraq had WMD AND we 'goofed' again when a high-level discussion over coffee and doughnuts assumed we would still be warmly welcomed by Iraqis as liberators from their tyrannical government.

OR

2. The US did not care if Iraq possessed WMD or not but had SOLID evidence that Iran was on the verge of creating or is already in possession of nuclear devices and delivery systems. In order to confront Iran as the ultimate goal, Iraq would have to be occupied or allied to allow alternative overland support routes from Jordan and Turkey to the theater, should the Strait of Hormuz become too dangerous for coalition warships or the high probability that the other Gulf States would not support such action on Iran.

Can you guess which of the two possibilities I feel is more like the truth? I find it SO hard to believe that we would dismiss the widely known nuclear technology that exists in the radical theocracy of Iran and see a more direct threat from Iraq that MIGHT have WMD but no active nuclear reactor. This is simply not the case folks. Any of you involved in millitary strategy or policy know that a soldier doesn't take a dump that wasn't planned two or three years out. Is it just me or does it seem awefully coincidental that the administration's rhetoric on Iran suddenly intensified AFTER the presidential elections in November and just prior to the Iraqi elections in January?

I'm not saying that the Iraqi people and the entire region would have been better off with Sadaam Hussein remaining in power. Personally I think we screwed the pooch when we didnt back the Shiite uprising against Hussein following the first Gulf War - this understandibly created strong distrust and resentment AGAINST the US by the Shiite population that were subsequently tormented following the crush of the uprising.

I'm also not saying that we shouldn't take out Iran's nuclear capability if it does exist. How long has their government encouraged the chanting of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" ? 26 years I believe. Either way, we will have a tough sell on this one given our honest blunder or strategic lie about Irag - depending on your point of view.

Folks, If Iran gets operational intermediate-range nukes - its WWIII - period. How can anyone believe that a regime that has had flagrant support of terrorism would not consider using it in an offensive action?

I sincerely hope that the US can prove in the end that we did what was necessary for the world by ridding Iran, even if temporarily, of nuclear weapons. Although it seems clear there is some wool being pulled over our eyes, I hope that the government has the world's interests at heart - not just our own. God help us if we don't.

W.E.S.B

Just wait until all the Iraqi Shi'a, Sunnis, secular/Christian Iraqis and the Kurds get together to write a new constitution spelling out what type of government should be for the whole of Iraq. Most Iraqis and Kurds agreed that it is better to hold the whole country together than to split into three, it's mutually benefiting all. They're tired of insurgency, of which 95% of those involved are FOREIGN FIGHTERS, they're tired of endless worries and uncertainty whether they get electric powers, heating, jobs and so on or not. They just wanted the insurgency to stop fighting and attacking the US and Iraqi security troops and wanted the insurgents captured and expelled. They wanted normal lives back.

Syria is uncooperative with the US and Iraqi authorities on the status of foreign insurgents getting in and out of Iraq with impunity (and often under Syrian protection).

Many Iraqi Shi'a recognized what the ruling clergy of Iran have done to Iran and they don't like what they saw and wouldn't wanted it in Iraq. You'll be surprised that there's a strong pro-Western, even pro-American, young majority among Iranians and the reformers. They hate the Iranian secret religious police and the Revolutionary Guards. And they're afraid of their religious leadership seeking nuclear weapons, knowing it could spell doom for Iran and the Middle East. They wanted changes.

Do not assume that the majority of Iraqi Shi'a would welcome a theocracy in Iraq, even with al-Sistani in a very influential position to chart a course for the future of Iraq. He knows that Iraq cannot conveniently following the theocratic model of Iran and he professed no desire to rule Iraq. There are actual Shi'a moderates in al-Sistani's circle. Don't worry about that idiot al-Sadr, who caused troubles and grief with al-Sistani and his circle last spring over the fights between the US troops and Shi'ite militants in Najaf and Karbala. Al-Sadr have been relegated to a lesser position of influence (in other words, he has been "demoted") among the Shi'a majority, some are still angry with him for all the troubles he caused last spring.

Just wait until they all get together to write a new constitution for the new Iraq. They won't follow Iran's model.

[edit on 02/13/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by marg6043
All Shiites in the region had one main leader his name is Ayatollah Al-Sistani, it does not matter that he is Iranian because he is still a Shi't.

I think Grand Ayatollah Montazeri would be in the position to become the leader of all Shias not al-Sistan

Originally posted by Sep

I think Grand Ayatollah Montazeri would be in the position to become the leader of all Shias not al-Sistan

He was under succession after Khomeini but after the Islamic revolution in Iran he was put on house arrest and Khomeini removed him from succession.

Originally posted by marg6043
He was under succession after Khomeini but after the Islamic revolution in Iran he was put on house arrest and Khomeini removed him from succession.

True, but there are some more Grand Ayatollahs. I admit that Sistani is the best know, but these people have the same authority as him: Muhammad Said Hakim, Muhammad Ishaq Fayyad, Bashir Hussein al-Najafi, Mohammad Taqi al-Modarresi, Hassan Tabataba'i-Qomi, Muhammad Sadeq Ruhani, Kazem al-Hosseini al-Haeri and Hossein-Ali Montazeri. First four are in Iraq.

Point Of Order

Originally posted by transient
If Prophet Yoshiel can see the future why can't we as well?

In fairness, Yoshiel never ever claimed to be able to see the future.

In fact, Yoshiel insists it is almost certainly not possible. So that's not really fair. The working theory is that Yoshiel uncovered memories of past futures - - which sounds nuttier, admittedly.

Especially since Yoshiel may be nothing more than evidence of serious psychological problems on my part.

But I know you're yanking my chain, and don't mind that at all.

The Importance Of Never Taking Ourselves Too Seriously

Originally posted by transient
Just kidding man you make some great points.

Well, you do too.

And while I reserve my rancor for people who seek to deliberately deceive, I would be a pretty sad case if I didn't have a sense of humor.

Keep smiling, and never let anyone take away what makes you cool.

The Hazards Of Amateur Mind Reading

Originally posted by Jakomo
Majic:

I know what I know about Iraq, you don't. Disadvantage: you.

The singlemost idiotic phrase I have ever seen on this site, where do I vote for it?

If there is such a category, your implication that you know more about my own mind than I do would make you a top contender. Your statement is inherently absurd.

You claim to be able to read my mind, then imply I'm an idiot?

Are you a psychic? Do you know who I am? Have you lived my life? Do you know my thoughts better than I do? If not, then knock off that nonsense, because it makes you look stupid.

You don't even provide any sort of justification for that comment, you just throw it out as an insult.

Comments like this prove – in your own words – that you are not qualified to discuss this topic in a way worthy of further effort on my part.

I did read the article. You appear to have misread it, inferring things the article does not report, and have missed several crucial points in this thread, which is why I recommended rereading both.

Bad Investment

You're wasting my time, and I just don't have enough of it to squander on someone who has proven an unwillingness to engage in rational and honest discussion.

I don't mean this as a personal insult. I don't know you personally, and assume that since you can at least use a computer, you must have some reasonable degree of intelligence and may very well be a wonderful person.

Unfortunately, you are insisting on trying to cloud the dialog with insults and misdirection, and I just don't have the time to waste on that.

You may not be a child yourself, but your behavior in this case is childish, and I recommend improving it.

I hope that someday you do so – and may the day come soon.

It's Not Too Late To Make A Change For The Better

Until then, don't expect me to waste time playing your pointless little games of insults and misdirection.

If you change your mind, I'd love to talk more. Post honestly and support those posts with facts, and I'll be interested in seeing what I may learn from them

Continue to insult me for disagreeing with you, however, and I'm not the only one who will express disappointment in your choice of behavior.

Remember this well: If you thought you were right, you wouldn't insult me. You would set me straight using a case built on facts instead of innuendo and false assumptions.

Instead, you prove that you know you are wrong by hiding from the truth and lashing out at those who disagree with you, and as if disagreeing with you is some sort of offense.

It is: It's an offense against your vanity and personal insecurities.

You know in your heart you are wrong to do this. Stop just stop doing it.

It's never too late to change.

Don't do it for me, do it for yourself. I promise you: you will never regret it if you do.

Please, choose a better road.

Embrace honesty, and Deny Ignorance.


[edit on 2/16/2005 by Majic]

Majic:

You're wasting my time, and I just don't have enough of it to squander on someone who has proven an unwillingness to engage in rational and honest discussion

You would have made this point far better if you had not then proceeded to write 800 words of further words which I honestly didn't bother reading.

I know what I know about Iraq, you don't. Disadvantage: you.

You goof on me for saying it's a stupid phrase when in fact it is.

You're saying you know what you know about Iraq and that makes you better than me because you assume I know less than you about Iraq?

Solid logic there.

Watch how I do this.

You're wasting my time.


[end message]

jako


[edit on 16-2-2005 by Jakomo]