Iraq Will Elect a Shia Govt.? Bush Is Itching To Attack Shi'ites In Iran?!

[bigtree]

Iraq has a 60% Shite majority population. Al Sadr, the 'radical' muslim cleric that we tried to bomb and capture is Shite. Bush and his Iraqi puppets were blaming Iran for the Shite militant problem and rattling their sabers at the Shite controlled government in Iran.

So, we are now going to hear Bush and his lackey Rice tell us how special and good the elections were while they pump us up for war against the same forces that are aligned with the Shites that our American forces helped gain power in Iraq with our soldiers blood and sacrifice. We are being set up to view Iran as some sort of evil axis while at the same time they tout a vote that will allow Shites supported by Iran (who we are told are waging terrorist assaults on our troops and the Iraqi citizens), to form a quasi-theocratic government in Iraq protected by our soldiers.

Bush I spent the '80's, as President Clinton said Thursday, actively supporting the Iraqi government under Saddam as they provided a buffer against the Shites in Iran. Now Bush II has sacrificed over 1500 American lives with over 7,000 wounded to allow the Shites to overtake the Iraqi government. Iran has supported Sadr and all the "Jihadists" in Iraq. Zargawi uses Iran-Iraq borders to go in and out of Iraq. They have allied with Iraq's worst enemies, the Wahabies who want to destroy Iraq and prevent 'democracy' there.

Whose side are these neocon really on?

[rqstnnlitnmnt]

1. that of the corporations n/t

[bigtree]

11. The same corporations who want Iraq's oil now want us in Iran

From our Dept. of Energy:

"Iran is OPEC's second largest oil producer and holds 10% of the world's proven oil reserves. It also has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia).

According to the Oil and Gas Journal (1/1/04), Iran holds 125.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, roughly 10% of the world's total, up from 90 billion barrels in 2003 (note: in July 2004, Iran's oil minister stated that the country's proven oil reserves had increased again, to 132 billion barrels, following new discoveries in the Kushk and Hosseineih fields in Khuzestan province). The vast majority of Iran's crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the southwestern Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. Iran has 32 producing oil fields, of which 25 are onshore and 7 offshore.

In October 1999, Iran announced that it had made its biggest oil discovery in 30 years, a giant onshore field called Azadegan located in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, a few miles east of the border with Iraq. Reportedly, the Azadegan field contains proven crude oil reserves of 26 billion barrels.

Since 1995, NIOC has made several other sizable oil discoveries, including the 3-5-billion-barrel Darkhovin onshore oilfield, located near Abadan and containing low sulfur, 39° API crude oil.

In February 2001, NIOC announced the discovery of a very large offshore oil field, named Dasht-e Abadan, in shallow waters near the port city of Abadan. According to a top NIOC official, Dasht-e Abadan could contain reserves "comparable" in size to Azadegan. "



http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iran.html

[izzybeans]

2. I think this election might

come down between the kurds and shite.

[bigtree]

6. The same Kurds who harbored the terrorist Zarqawi

while we looked the other way.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. here is how they explain that

The neoclown explanation is that those shiites over in iran are the persian flavor of shiites while our shiites in iraq are the arab flavbor of shiites. Our good shiites would never try to institute an iranian style theocracy. In fact their leader mullah sistani, who spent many years in exile in iran and happens to be a persian flavor shiite, has said exactly this, that he has no intention of establishing a theocracy in iraq. And as the shiite population is largely blindly obedient to sistani, you see we are in no danger here at all of transforming our iraqi blunder into a massive no-cost victory for iranian ambitions.

No danger, none at all.

[bigtree]

5. Resembles Nixon's ambitions in Vietnam

He explained in his 'Silent Majority' speech that North Vietnam, with the logistical support of communist China and the Soviet Union, had a campaign to impose a communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.

Nixon:

"In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam."

"For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before."

At the end of decades of war, and thousands of American lives sacrificed, North Vietnamese forces took Saigon in 1975. Communist forces occupied the South, renaming Saigon Ho Chi Minh City.

[G_j]

4. Robert Fisk:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/01292005A.shtml

This Election Will Change the World. But Not in the Way the Americans Imagined

By Robert Fisk
The Independent U.K.

Saturday 29 January 2005

Shias are about to inherit Iraq, but the election tomorrow that will bring them to power is creating deep fears among the Arab kings and dictators of the Middle East that their Sunni leadership is under threat.

America has insisted on these elections - which will produce a largely Shia parliament representing Iraq's largest religious community - because they are supposed to provide an exit strategy for embattled US forces, but they seem set to change the geopolitical map of the Arab world in ways the Americans could never have imagined. For George Bush and Tony Blair this is the law of unintended consequences writ large.
<snip>

Few in Iraq believe that these elections will end the insurgency, let alone bring peace and stability. By holding the poll now - when the Shias, who are not fighting the Americans, are voting while the Sunnis, who are fighting the Americans, are not - the elections can only sharpen the divisions between the country's two largest communities.

While Washington had clearly not envisaged the results of its invasion in this way, its demand for "democracy" is now moving the tectonic plates of the Middle East in a new and uncertain direction. The Arab states outside the Shia "Crescent" fear Shia political power even more than they are frightened by genuine democracy.

<snip>

[Stop_the_War]

7. It's Shi'ite, or Shia. Not Shite. n/t

[bigtree]

8. thanks

that doesn't change the facts that have our soldiers fighting and dying to facilitate the consolodation of a "Shi'ite, or Shia" majority government that we spent decades opposing, coddling Saddam so he could keep them from overunning Iraq.

This is what we are spending billions for every month, sacrificing over 1500 American lives to defend, as it is presented to us as spreading 'freedom' and 'democracy'?

[Oilwellian]

9. Juan Cole was talking about this

I saw him on CSpan last week and he couldn't understand why we set it up in Iraq for there to be only one "legislature." He mentioned the fact that we have to Houses, the Reps and Senators to assure the smaller states had equal representation and didn't allow the larger populated states to overpower the smaller ones.

So why did Bush set it up so the Shia (60% of Iraq) could overpower the other 40%?

[bigtree]

10. What happens when the Shi'ites revert to Islamic law?

Who will the Bushies turn to to revolt against the coming Islamic state now that they have allowed the suppression and weakening of the Sunnis?