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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (17625)	2/10/1998 12:22:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

You got me there. I'm nobody's authority on Islamic governments - just schtuff I picked up from newspapers and such. "Islamic republic". I'm using current Iran as a template for this construct. They used to be the most secular Western-style society in the region. Then the revolution brought the ayatollahs into the fore. The new gov't was a collectivist ("Socialist", give or take) form drawing heavily on the tradition of Islamic law. (If I understand it right, Islam as a religious tradition is unique in the West in its current penetration of ordinarily secular matters, like dress and law. Judaism was like this in Roman times; a thousand years later the Catholic church had its crack at totally managing society.) One of the key features of the new Iranian order was that it broke with the West, considering it corrupt and a "bad influence". The USA got tagged as the ringleader, perhaps because of our habit of hands-on diplomacy in the area. So, while Iraq is an Islamic nation, its government is only nominally Islamic. Saddam's setup was originally fairly liberal as regards cultural and economic diversity. Now that he's on hard times (and on the outs with Uncle) things have tightened up plenty for the regular citizen in Baghdad. Israel is one of those tough situations. We have a staunch ally in a politically volatile region. We really needed their asses in the 70s to prevent the whole area from becoming a southern extension of the East Block. Kinda like having a hotel on Boardwalk when your opponent has most of the board. So - we're in bed with Israel, and giving the Palestinians a fair shake is a bit of a Gordian knot. The Middle East has always been a really tough place to manage - the Palestinians are but one small facet of a frightening carpet of feuds, grudges, open conflicts, faits accomplis, and whatnot. And we have a real big economic interest in the area - unlike, say, Bosnia. Thus the difference in our response to the fall of Kuwait vs. big chunks of Yugoslavia. Our one big advantage here is that Iraq and Iran hate each other's guts passionately. So they don't qualify as an axis. Now if a different government ascended in Baghdad, we could see the "beginning of a beautiful friendship" between Teheran and Baghdad, with the only reliable consequence being the shutting-out of the USA from the region's politics. And we can't have that, now can we? Let's all offer a moment of silence in gratitude, for Reagan had seen fit to keep us in aircraft carriers.