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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (96636)	4/28/2003 12:51:18 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As Iraqi Clerics Go Home, Talk of Schism With Shiite Hard-Liners in Iran nytimes.com [ Widely reported news stories? From the usual "reputable" sources like Fox News and WorldNetDaily, I assume? Or whoever else the PNAC people are spewing their line du jour to for reliable regurgitation? For a contrarian take from a suspect source, there was this story from Saturday. I'm sure the NYT has it wrong, though, and your "widely reported news stories" are correct. The NYT just can't get with the PNAC program, so they are by definition wrong. Clip: ] Many people who follow the course of religious affairs here believe that the return of Shiite clerics to Iraq, and the revival of Iraq's historically holy city of Najaf, may pose a serious threat to the rule of the hard-line ayatollahs in Iran. Najaf is expected to become the center of Shiite faith once again when influential clerics return and begin teaching at its seminaries. Some high-ranking Iranian clerics who believe in freer religious studies, such as Ayatollah Javad Tabrizi, have also said that they would go to Najaf when stability returns. Since the Islamic revolution here in 1979, Iran's hard-line religious leadership has defined Shiite Islam for its 120 million followers around the world. But analysts say that Iran's status as the leader of Shiism will be undermined once Najaf develops its own brand of the faith, which is expected to be more moderate than the one Iran favors.

To: michael97123 who wrote (96636)	4/28/2003 12:52:03 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sigh. Then you are just speculating. A "widely reported" nonsense is still nonsense. In your original post you talked about a shia conduit to Syria. But there too few Shias in the area between Baghdad and Syria. So such a conduit cannot exist. The so called Iranian "agents" have been neither Iranian nor agents. They are Saddam's opposition who found refuge and help in Iran. This opposition includes both factions of the Kurds (which US is very happy with), people like Khoi whom Ledeen praised, supporters of Sistani (whom again US supports and is actually an Iranian), people like Sadr (who is an Iraqi and can potentially be hostile to Iran), and Hakim who shares ideology with Iran. All of these people are jostling for power in Iraq because guess what, that is what they were after way before they moved to Iran. Did you expect not to do so when Saddam was gone? The so called "Iranian agent" label is what the administration uses for the opposition it does not like, while at the same time ignoring the Iranian based opposition that it does like. Try to be more objective in your thinking and let evidence lead to conclusion rather than finding evidence for your desired conclusions. See here Message 18886839

To: michael97123 who wrote (96636)	4/28/2003 12:56:51 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Respond to of 281500

A united democratic iraq poses a problem for all the non-democratic states of the region, not just iran. I assume you disagree. I think those with any sense (we can possibly rule out Syria) in the surrounding governments are well aware that an Iraq descending into chaos will be worse for the region than another 20 years of Saddam would ever have been. The "Arab Street" can and will foam at the mouth, and the press in the surrounding countries can print what they want to flatter the former with what they want to hear, but what really counts is that an Iraq that gets back on its feet would be better than the pyrrhic victory of seeing the US humiliated at all costs by an Iraq that turns into a collection of warlord run terrorism ridden fiefdoms. This is one of the main reasons that one of the worst outcomes is probably not going to happen - which will be much to the disappointment of the America-haters. The final government may not be as pro-US as we'd like, but I'm hopeful it won't be virulently anti-American in the long run. And we have some control of whether this comes to pass or not by how quickly we get basic services running again for example.