they voted in a constitution which is a blueprint for breakup and the basis for a protracted civil war. Also supports the privatization of natural resources. The constitution makes Iraq ungovernable and provides the U.S. the reason for continuing the control of Iraq as a 'helpmate toward democracy'. It is a farce.
Yes vote passes in Iraqui
- Thread starter Durgan
- Start date
Well HardLuck Henry, THAT was a great response.
I don't know how much influence Iran will really have, because although Iran would LIKE to have influence and is certainly moving in agents, you can't count on Saudi public remarks, because they are westernized Sunni elite and privately voice concern that the US should NOT leave yet.
Even the Iraqi government staffed by Kurds (hated by Iran) and staffed by Shi-ites PUBLICLY WARNED both Syria and Iran about foreign agents coming in.
So that is a public comment by the Iraqi government and by the Iraqi SHIA themselves AGAINST Iranian influence.
Cancel the importance of that if you must, but I think the major shiite players certainly wish NOT to be an Iranian satelite.
Sistani is not liked by the Iranian government but is revered by shia on both sides of the border.
My Moroccan friends give me the Sunni view of all of this and don't know anymore than any of us outsiders, but it's highly interesting to get even a Morroccan Sunni view of it all.
All in all, the Iraqi shia and the Iranian shia have quite strong nationalism in their culture as well, and a war of 8 years that damaged a little trust, and a revered leader Sistani who distrusts the Iranian influence and who is distrusted by the Iranian government.
The bad boy shi-ite Sadr has been quite an upstart but still not enough of a powerful rebel to take away the reverence and thus the power of al Sistani. At many points he responded to Sistani's requests to desist.
What we know are pieces and so anyone who watches this debate also notice the spin each person puts on the pieces of information they know.
Your spin is more predicated by the sin of the American invasion and my bias is more predicated by the hope that a major muslim nation starts to learn about all the intricacies of democracy.
I don't know how much influence Iran will really have, because although Iran would LIKE to have influence and is certainly moving in agents, you can't count on Saudi public remarks, because they are westernized Sunni elite and privately voice concern that the US should NOT leave yet.
Even the Iraqi government staffed by Kurds (hated by Iran) and staffed by Shi-ites PUBLICLY WARNED both Syria and Iran about foreign agents coming in.
So that is a public comment by the Iraqi government and by the Iraqi SHIA themselves AGAINST Iranian influence.
Cancel the importance of that if you must, but I think the major shiite players certainly wish NOT to be an Iranian satelite.
Sistani is not liked by the Iranian government but is revered by shia on both sides of the border.
My Moroccan friends give me the Sunni view of all of this and don't know anymore than any of us outsiders, but it's highly interesting to get even a Morroccan Sunni view of it all.
All in all, the Iraqi shia and the Iranian shia have quite strong nationalism in their culture as well, and a war of 8 years that damaged a little trust, and a revered leader Sistani who distrusts the Iranian influence and who is distrusted by the Iranian government.
The bad boy shi-ite Sadr has been quite an upstart but still not enough of a powerful rebel to take away the reverence and thus the power of al Sistani. At many points he responded to Sistani's requests to desist.
What we know are pieces and so anyone who watches this debate also notice the spin each person puts on the pieces of information they know.
Your spin is more predicated by the sin of the American invasion and my bias is more predicated by the hope that a major muslim nation starts to learn about all the intricacies of democracy.
Talk about spin...*yawn* your constant riddle me this and riddle me that..much adieu about nuttin.