Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (19281)	2/18/2003 8:57:28 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 23908

Iranian-backed forces cross into Iraq By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran and Guy Dinmore in Washington Published: February 18 2003 21:48 \| Last Updated: February 19 2003 1:43 Iranian-backed Iraqi opposition forces have crossed into northern Iraq from Iran with the aim of securing the frontier in the event of war, according to senior Iranian officials. The forces, numbering up to 5,000 troops, with some heavy equipment, are nominally under the command of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a prominent Iraqi Shia Muslim opposition leader who has been based in Iran since 1980 and lives in Tehran. A US State Department official said he was aware of reports that part of Ayatollah Hakim's Badr brigade had crossed into northern Iraq but declined further comment. Analysts close to the administration of President George W. Bush said the US was concerned about the intentions of this new element in an increasingly complicated patchwork of forces in northern Iraq. Turkey has long had a limited military presence in northern Iraq, and US special forces began moving into the region several months ago. The Badr brigade has been trained and equipped by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and could be regarded as a proxy force of the Iranian government. Iranian officials insist that force's role in the north is defensive but its presence will exacerbate the concerns of the US and especially the Arab world that military intervention in Iraq will lead to a permanent disintegration of the country. Through inserting a proxy force, Iran is underlining that it cannot be ignored in future discussions over Iraq's make-up. Ayatollah Hakim's forces had previously been based in southern Iran, close to Iraq. Two months ago they began moving into the area of northern Iraq governed by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of two Kurdish parties that rule an area the size of Switzerland outside Baghdad's control. A senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named, said the presence of Ayatollah Hakim's troops was defensive and aimed at countering a possible attack on Iran by the People's Mujahideen Organisation (MKO), an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq and strongly supported by President Saddam Hussein. Another official said the Badr force had moved into an area near Darbandikhan, a depopulated and rugged stretch of hills and ravines about 15 miles from the closest point on the Iranian border. The MKO used Iraqi territory to mount attacks on Iran during the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq. The Kurdish parties controlling northern Iraq have also expressed fears that Mr Hussein would try to use the MKO against them in the event of a US-led invasion of Iraq. Ayatollah Hakim is the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), a mainly Shia Muslim group that fought in the failed 1991 uprising against Baghdad in southern Iraq. More recently Sciri has taken part in talks between the Iraqi opposition and the US. His office in Tehran denied that the Badr brigade had moved into northern Iraq but said Sciri had maintained forces in that region for several years, gathered from Iraqi Shia who had fled the Iraqi regime. A representative of the PUK also denied there had been a recent movement across the border but confirmed a presence of Sciri forces. news.ft.com

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (19281)	2/19/2003 8:21:20 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Left Behind Are celebrity activists passé? BY MELIK KAYLAN Wednesday, February 19, 2003 The French poet Paul Valéry once observed that intellectuals, when they run out of serious things to say, end up by flashing their genitals to get attention. With the coming launch of her new antiwar music video, one could argue that Madonna has reversed the process. As Dennis Miller said about her in a recent interview with Phil Donahue, "After you've shown every orifice from every angle, you might have to make a political statement to get people reinterested in you." True enough, but her gesture feels so trite and theatrical partly because celebrities as a class seem stuck in the same hackneyed pose--one rooted in Vietnam-era polarities and untrue to the moment. Consider the recent photo of Joan Baez and Martin Sheen in the New York Times. They are smiling so euphorically at a San Francisco rally that they might be at the opening night of the second coming. "Mobilizing a Theater of Protest. Again," read the headline. A more jaundiced paper like the Onion might have subtitled it, "Hollywood Dreams of Sixties Sequel. Thanks, Saddam." The fact is, this is a different time. The homeland was attacked. The draft is gone. Saddam is, manifestly, a monster growing in size. Yet you'd never know it from the simple antiwar certainties of so many big-name entertainers--from Sean Penn on his Baghdad pilgrimage to Spike Lee ("the German and French governments should be commended") and Edward Norton ("I almost forgot what it's like to be proud of our government"), both at the Berlin Film Festival. One senses that the average American is disgusted with these solipsists-turned-activists and that he doesn't, for example, feel the same way about the unknowns marching beside the stars. There's nothing more forced or false than an entertainer misjudging the public mood. And, right now, the public does not want to hear from celebs on serious issues. Something uneasy has entered into the contract of illusion between us and celebrities. A sharp change occurred in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when most citizens felt a twinge of nausea at the sight of an Entertainment Weekly cover. This acute aversion to hollow glitz lasted awhile, and seemed to fade, but has now revived due to the unelected tub thumping of Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon and their ilk. We enjoyed them for being mere entertainers, and then we didn't for a while--but we never intended them to be anything more. Besides, they're not good at it. On the scale of historically maladroit gestures, Sean Penn's visit to Iraq evokes something more fatuous and vain even than Chamberlain's return from Munich. As the imaginary "Hollywood Foreign Policy Review" indicates on its parody cover, they have no expertise to offer but their fame. Their only calling card is their entertainment past, and in these times that counts conclusively against them. In truth, the media monolith that fed the country incessant celebrity pap instead of news for a decade or more was already exhausted before 9/11, as the public turned increasingly to such alternative sources as the Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh. The celebrity era was already dying, but "important" journalists such as Dan Rather who bemoaned its prevalence wanted to go back to hard news as they'd known it, with outdated political biases, and most people didn't want that either. Our entertainer-activists would do well to study the 1960s, but not in the way they think. Today's mistrust of politically predictable media--this time of the liberal mainstream--once again has been leading people to seek alternative news sources. But the Rolling Stone and Village Voice of our time are conservative talk shows and Web sites. The anti-media media are again all the rage--this time in the form of best-selling books by Anne Coulter, Bernard Goldberg and others who deplore the liberal bias of most television news, who tell the public that there is more to reality than they are allowed to see. And just as the 1960s marginalized an aging galaxy of patriotic entertainers from Bob Hope to John Wayne and put the Dylans and Lennons in their place, a similar sea change is threatening to sweep away performers of our own time whose political default setting is stuck in the Vietnam era. The '60s passed and left them passé. They still don't know it, but their audience does. opinionjournal.com