I'm not sure what rock you are living under, but people are very outspoken about it. Hell, I'm pretty sure both the New Yorker and the Atlantic (which is HIGHLY conservative bt very good) have run articles about it in every issue for the past year. (Edit: Hey, here's the Oct 14th, 2002 New Yorker in my hand--I never read the Condoleezza Rice profile--and there are TWO articles on it.)
Sorry, but an american empire is not a good idea. I think you are confusing the uni-polar world model with one dominated by an american empire.
You are also acting like the American model is inherently the most democratic, which it absolutely is not. Whether you support our model or not, the fact is that it is one of the least representative of the modern developed democracies. Many other nations have more advanced democratic models that more accurately represent their populations.
The world is not as black and white as your are trying to make it.
No they aren't. Nobody is really against empire, they're against:
"adjective that doesn't describe me," Empire.
HOLD ON HOLD ON HOLD ON.
I actually can't think of a way to describe how solipsistic, parochial and arrogant this is.
Nobody is against empire.
The millions of Africans mown down by English Gatling guns, the Indians in poverty in their own land, the Boers in English concentration camps, the Cubans who saw their labour turned into American wealth while they starved ...
... they were into Empire deep down, they would have done the same, so it's all OK to build the US Empire.
Chalabi is already becoming the official spokesperson for Iraq through the platform given to him by the pentagon and neo-cons elsewhere.
Are you talking about the same Chalabi who said "I am not a candidate for any post."? That didn't participate in any of the planning meetings? The same Chalabi that Jay Garner is referring to when he says Chalabi is not the choice to run Iraq?
All this "the US is installing Chalabi!" crap is very two-weeks-ago. Keep up with the times.
Ignore reality, stick to month-old conspiracy.
This guy who is calling himself the mayor of Iraq is more noteworthy than Chalabi.
Quote:
The Iranians, of course, are pushing for the 'one man, one vote' model knowing that those sunnis will be out of power instantly. Pentagon doesn't want this, and has said it repeatedly.
Do you have any kind of source for what you're talking about?
And beside that, why should Iran be pushing for anything and why should anyone pay attention to it? Iran has a horrible government.
Quote:
You are already seeing the attempt to discredit the Shi'a groups with the strong Iranian talk, and I think it's pretty clear that the Pentagon will continue with it's campaign to make them seem radical and opposed to democracy with a preference for an islamic theocracy. By doing so, they can gradually slip Chalabi in there and make it look like the Iraqi people actually want him.
That's some high-quality tin-foil hat talking there. The only people keeping the Shia out are the Shia.
You're leaving out the state department and completely neglect the man on the ground with the actual authority, Jay Garner.
Isn't it an odd track to take to have your choice to lead Iraq say he's not going to take any office and have your guy on the ground in Iraq say he's not the choice?
However if what you are saying is that they said we should stay for a few years BEFORE the war, you are right, and have now stumbled on yet another example of the American people being duped by a bunch of BS.
Obviously they weren't into an empire that disadvantages and abuses them. The opressed always appear saintly by virtue of logistics. But what have those indians been up to since the brits left? Was not Castro a reaction to empire, and how has tha ameliorated anything?
Nothing you say really refutes the basic goodness of this argument, which is naive (in a horrible way) yet at the same time is deeply distrustful, not just of oppressors but also of the oppressed: basically, of the general politcal motivations of all people.
Do the Shi-iites or the sunni, or even the Kurds want America out for the good of Iraq, or for the chance to instill themselves over the others?
For me, perhaps a deeply libertine streak is now being read as neo-conservatism, and can't help sounding like it, but really, my suspision that all politics is a science of imposition is much farther from conservatism than it may seem.
So we go case by case instead, what kinds of impossitions in the middl east have been successful?
There has only been one kind. Empire by proxy, support of one corrupt expedient or another,and has not worked, especially in Iraq and Afganistan.
But it HAS deeply demaged them. Can theynow be left to build themselves? I don't think that's realistic at al, rather it plays into a strategy that guarantees failure and pain, and provides a sort of self fulfilling prophetic argument for a future intrusion.
Rather than wait, make the intrusion now and make it count. Give Iraq a real chance by protecting it long enough to let the civil instutions recover and develop.
Rather than bomb and run, or pick a leader and then run. This is silly, it will not work, there is no history that suggests it could ever work.
That's what I mean by Empire by proxy, and I dispise the practice. There has never been a benevolent protectorate, what I would hope for, and the current president is not interested in AMerica taking that role, but it would be a visionary landmark in international relations, actually occupying a country with it's own best interests at heart.
Too naive to ever be attempted, but also the only thing that could work...
This guy who is calling himself the mayor of Iraq is more noteworthy than Chalabi.
You do realize he is one of Chalabi's men, don't you?
Quote:
And beside that, why should Iran be pushing for anything and why should anyone pay attention to it? Iran has a horrible government.
I think this (and the above) clearly demonstrates you really aren't qualified to discuss this. It's like discussing particle physics with someone still struggling with algebra**
Quote:
That's some high-quality tin-foil hat talking there. The only people keeping the Shia out are the Shia.
The shia aren't being kept out of anything at this point, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, but there are certainly the beginnings of attempts to undermine their position
Quote:
You're leaving out the state department and completely neglect the man on the ground with the actual authority, Jay Garner.
AEI just had a massive day of trying to discredit the state department! Everyone knows Jay Garner doesn't like Chalabi. So what else is new? Does it matter at all? INC is getting highly preferencial treatment from the neo-cons and the pentagon they control. Not news. The brits have their own preferred leaders, Bush's envoy has his own. But the pentagon has already asserted it's authority in the present. This you can't argue with. All you can say is that maybe one of the other groups will somehow win out in the end, which could happen and hopefully will.
Quote:
Isn't it an odd track to take to have your choice to lead Iraq say he's not going to take any office and have your guy on the ground in Iraq say he's not the choice?
All you are observing is the internal splits. Note also what is said in The Hill about this head butting: that it adds to Chalabi's legitimacy.
The facts are this: Marines airlifed in Chalabi and some of his troops, they are giving them weapons, they have allowed them to take credit for all of the regime surrenders. Chalabi has been given a louder voice by the neo-cons, which is not a surprise since he is their favored man and has been since the beginning. He is certainly the most high profile of any possible leader, which is not an accident. The INC has been portrayed as the best group to lead Iraq. Hell, for most of the past 12 years the most prominant plan for removing saddam was to back the INC as they did it. He certainly has a big head start, which is pretty crazy for someone that has no backing in the country he might end up in charge of.
The mistake threads like this make is that democracy was ever a goal of the coalition. And if democracy has ever been a "stated" goal of the coalition it certainly has not been for democracy's sake or for the sake of the Iraqi people.
" The millions of Africans mown down by English Gatling guns"
Millions? .Harald,do you mean by the British or by the Europeans as a whole? I had the pleasure and pain of studying what we in the west call "The scramble for Africa" for my history A level. Many atrocities were commited by the European powers .I am not defending any massacre, border drawing, mineral and population expoitation or the idea of empire, British , German, ,Belgian , Dutch, French even. Imperialism should be consigned to the history books, after the current US administration has had why it's a bad idea explained to them.
I should include my Euro brothers in this, apologies.
Maybe start a thread about Empire ...
Quote:
Originally posted by Alex London
" The millions of Africans mown down by English Gatling guns"
Millions? .Harald,do you mean by the British or by the Europeans as a whole? I had the pleasure and pain of studying what we in the west call "The scramble for Africa" for my history A level. Many atrocities were commited by the European powers .I am not defending any massacre, border drawing, mineral and population expoitation or the idea of empire, British , German, ,Belgian , Dutch, French even. Imperialism should be consigned to the history books, after the current US administration has had why it's a bad idea explained to them.
I like to throw a terms out there when I see them being used. Lazy, but not always, you get to understand what people mean by there use, unfold a bit of their motivation, their psychology.
I know full well that democracy was never a goal for Iraq, but like all the terms, it gets played by both sides of the debate when it suits them. There is very little consistence from either side beyond they want what they want.
So, I ask, what is best for Iraq?
To me, I cannot see how the majority of people will be able to avoid intense civil conflict, poverty, and death, unless an order is basically imposed on them.
AND, as I have said many a time, I KNOW this sounds bad, but is it, and will it be? (which are two different things, not sounding and being, but being and becoming, if you want to tease it)
I don't see how anything but pain will follow an American withdrawl unless America can leave Iraq in a general state of security and welfare. To me, that takes a lot longer than 24 months.
The best thing for Iraq, for the United States, for Britain, heck, for the rest of the world, would be that people ensure that the Bush and Blair regimes are not re-elected after their current terms are up.
Whatever happens to Iraq now is in the hands of the Bush regime and, to a far lesser degree, the Blair regime. I guess I don't trust either of these governments to act in the interest of Iraq.
You do realize he is one of Chalabi's men, don't you?
And you'll notice it's not Chalabi.
And you'll notice Garner doesn't recognize him as the mayor of Iraq.
Quote:
I think this (and the above) clearly demonstrates you really aren't qualified to discuss this. It's like discussing particle physics with someone still struggling with algebra**
Iraq != Iran
Please explain what you are talking about.
The mullahs (pushed by the Iranian theocracy) can get the people to scream when they are all together in a group of 2 million. But they'll go home soon and be faced with the realities of their life as it stands now.
Quote:
The shia aren't being kept out of anything at this point, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, but there are certainly the beginnings of attempts to undermine their position
They weren't proportionately represented at the first "big tent" meeting because many of them were protesting. There's another one tomorrow, we'll see how it goes.
Quote:
AEI just had a massive day of trying to discredit the state department! Everyone knows Jay Garner doesn't like Chalabi. So what else is new? Does it matter at all? INC is getting highly preferencial treatment from the neo-cons and the pentagon they control.
And it's all up in the air and impossible to call at this point. Why act like Chalabi is the next leader?
Quote:
All you can say is that maybe one of the other groups will somehow win out in the end, which could happen and hopefully will.
Hopefully the idea of building a government from the local level up wins out and then basing the national government on a strong constitution will win out in the end.
Quote:
Hell, for most of the past 12 years the most prominant plan for removing saddam was to back the INC as they did it. He certainly has a big head start, which is pretty crazy for someone that has no backing in the country he might end up in charge of.
I agree that appointing Chalabi as the new head guy in Iraq would not be wise, but you're acting like it's just a short matter of time, which is ridiculous.
Now, your argument would be much stronger if you could keep to "the Pentagon is pushing hard for Chalabi" without going on tangents like this:
So it's not that Arabs can't handle democracy (which I have yet to see ANYONE claim), it's that the situation does not allow for it.
Now, your argument would be much stronger if you could keep to "the Pentagon is pushing hard for Chalabi" without going on tangents like this:
[b]So it's not that Arabs can't handle democracy (which I have yet to see ANYONE claim), it's that the situation does not allow for it.
I was specifically responding to your statement:
Quote:
Also, I think the ability of the Arab world to accept secular democracy is greatly underrated by us Westerners.
Hw is that a tangent?
Your point assumes that there is a group of people saying Iraq can't have democracy because the Arab world is unable to accept secular democracy, which no one is. People are saying democracy is not going to happen because it is not realistic.
The reason it is not realistic is because the main power groups do not want it, and that includes the US pentagon policy makers which, in case you didn't notice, have ultimate authority in Iraq right now. While in theory they should be answering to 'the president," this assumes a cohesion of ideas in the US government right now which does not exist. The fact is, the US pentagon leaders (the people who created this war) are backing Chalabi and are putting him in a much more advantageous position than any other group.
I see that reports of Zubaidi falling out with Chalabi are coupled with calls from various parts of the US government to restrain both men.
But why is this so interesting?
Simply because the backing of Chalabi by Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Feith show that they are not interested in real representative democracy in Iraq. In fact, they are willing to undermine the will of the Iraqi people, who all are opposed to Chalabi, in order to put their man in power. The people that created this war sold it to you on a false pretense that they did not believe in. Period.
Quote:
They weren't proportionately represented at the first "big tent" meeting because many of them were protesting.
Any representation they are lacking is the result of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's men murdering Majid Khoei and effectively giving the appearance of taking over politically, and perhaps doing so. This is specifically what the White House is talking about when 'warning Iran.' Again, you demonstrate that you don't have adequate knowledge of the situation to comment accurately.
I want to add that to say that 60% of Iraq was not represented because they were out protesting is really rediculous. The US needs to acknowledge that there is a large number of people whose voices are not being heard and account for it. If we are really 'building democracy' then we need to recognize that many groups are not going to automatically have representatives. It is the job of the US to make sure these people are adequately represented. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening, and the many Iraqis (that just happen to belong to the group that the neo-cons don't want in power) are being portrayed as opposed to democracy, something that you have obviously bought into with you comment about them not being represented because they were protesting.
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
They can't admit it to themselves, but the most basic operating psychology of any nationalistic group is in a perpetual empire-building epochal state.
I honestly think you're hanging around too many conservatives.
Sorry, but an american empire is not a good idea. I think you are confusing the uni-polar world model with one dominated by an american empire.
You are also acting like the American model is inherently the most democratic, which it absolutely is not. Whether you support our model or not, the fact is that it is one of the least representative of the modern developed democracies. Many other nations have more advanced democratic models that more accurately represent their populations.
The world is not as black and white as your are trying to make it.
Originally posted by Matsu
Harald,
No they aren't. Nobody is really against empire, they're against:
"adjective that doesn't describe me," Empire.
HOLD ON HOLD ON HOLD ON.
I actually can't think of a way to describe how solipsistic, parochial and arrogant this is.
Nobody is against empire.
The millions of Africans mown down by English Gatling guns, the Indians in poverty in their own land, the Boers in English concentration camps, the Cubans who saw their labour turned into American wealth while they starved ...
... they were into Empire deep down, they would have done the same, so it's all OK to build the US Empire.
Chalabi is already becoming the official spokesperson for Iraq through the platform given to him by the pentagon and neo-cons elsewhere.
Are you talking about the same Chalabi who said "I am not a candidate for any post."? That didn't participate in any of the planning meetings? The same Chalabi that Jay Garner is referring to when he says Chalabi is not the choice to run Iraq?
All this "the US is installing Chalabi!" crap is very two-weeks-ago. Keep up with the times.
Ignore reality, stick to month-old conspiracy.
This guy who is calling himself the mayor of Iraq is more noteworthy than Chalabi.
The Iranians, of course, are pushing for the 'one man, one vote' model knowing that those sunnis will be out of power instantly. Pentagon doesn't want this, and has said it repeatedly.
Do you have any kind of source for what you're talking about?
And beside that, why should Iran be pushing for anything and why should anyone pay attention to it? Iran has a horrible government.
You are already seeing the attempt to discredit the Shi'a groups with the strong Iranian talk, and I think it's pretty clear that the Pentagon will continue with it's campaign to make them seem radical and opposed to democracy with a preference for an islamic theocracy. By doing so, they can gradually slip Chalabi in there and make it look like the Iraqi people actually want him.
That's some high-quality tin-foil hat talking there. The only people keeping the Shia out are the Shia.
You're leaving out the state department and completely neglect the man on the ground with the actual authority, Jay Garner.
Isn't it an odd track to take to have your choice to lead Iraq say he's not going to take any office and have your guy on the ground in Iraq say he's not the choice?
Originally posted by Matsu
But I realized that so many people (including the pro war americans) want Americans out of Iraq ASAP. The US is saying they want to stay for 2 years.
Who is this 'US' you are talking about? Apparently you don't mean the senior US government officials that actually make the decision:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr20.html
However if what you are saying is that they said we should stay for a few years BEFORE the war, you are right, and have now stumbled on yet another example of the American people being duped by a bunch of BS.
Nothing you say really refutes the basic goodness of this argument, which is naive (in a horrible way) yet at the same time is deeply distrustful, not just of oppressors but also of the oppressed: basically, of the general politcal motivations of all people.
Do the Shi-iites or the sunni, or even the Kurds want America out for the good of Iraq, or for the chance to instill themselves over the others?
For me, perhaps a deeply libertine streak is now being read as neo-conservatism, and can't help sounding like it, but really, my suspision that all politics is a science of imposition is much farther from conservatism than it may seem.
So we go case by case instead, what kinds of impossitions in the middl east have been successful?
There has only been one kind. Empire by proxy, support of one corrupt expedient or another,and has not worked, especially in Iraq and Afganistan.
But it HAS deeply demaged them. Can theynow be left to build themselves? I don't think that's realistic at al, rather it plays into a strategy that guarantees failure and pain, and provides a sort of self fulfilling prophetic argument for a future intrusion.
Rather than wait, make the intrusion now and make it count. Give Iraq a real chance by protecting it long enough to let the civil instutions recover and develop.
Rather than bomb and run, or pick a leader and then run. This is silly, it will not work, there is no history that suggests it could ever work.
That's what I mean by Empire by proxy, and I dispise the practice. There has never been a benevolent protectorate, what I would hope for, and the current president is not interested in AMerica taking that role, but it would be a visionary landmark in international relations, actually occupying a country with it's own best interests at heart.
Too naive to ever be attempted, but also the only thing that could work...
Originally posted by Matsu
Obviously they weren't into an empire that disadvantages and abuses them. The opressed always appear saintly by virtue of logistics.
Logistics.
The only people I know of that were able to talk about pain and death of this type as "logistics" were ...
... not good people.
Originally posted by groverat
This guy who is calling himself the mayor of Iraq is more noteworthy than Chalabi.
You do realize he is one of Chalabi's men, don't you?
And beside that, why should Iran be pushing for anything and why should anyone pay attention to it? Iran has a horrible government.
I think this (and the above) clearly demonstrates you really aren't qualified to discuss this. It's like discussing particle physics with someone still struggling with algebra**
That's some high-quality tin-foil hat talking there. The only people keeping the Shia out are the Shia.
The shia aren't being kept out of anything at this point, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, but there are certainly the beginnings of attempts to undermine their position
You're leaving out the state department and completely neglect the man on the ground with the actual authority, Jay Garner.
AEI just had a massive day of trying to discredit the state department! Everyone knows Jay Garner doesn't like Chalabi. So what else is new? Does it matter at all? INC is getting highly preferencial treatment from the neo-cons and the pentagon they control. Not news. The brits have their own preferred leaders, Bush's envoy has his own. But the pentagon has already asserted it's authority in the present. This you can't argue with. All you can say is that maybe one of the other groups will somehow win out in the end, which could happen and hopefully will.
Isn't it an odd track to take to have your choice to lead Iraq say he's not going to take any office and have your guy on the ground in Iraq say he's not the choice?
All you are observing is the internal splits. Note also what is said in The Hill about this head butting: that it adds to Chalabi's legitimacy.
The facts are this: Marines airlifed in Chalabi and some of his troops, they are giving them weapons, they have allowed them to take credit for all of the regime surrenders. Chalabi has been given a louder voice by the neo-cons, which is not a surprise since he is their favored man and has been since the beginning. He is certainly the most high profile of any possible leader, which is not an accident. The INC has been portrayed as the best group to lead Iraq. Hell, for most of the past 12 years the most prominant plan for removing saddam was to back the INC as they did it. He certainly has a big head start, which is pretty crazy for someone that has no backing in the country he might end up in charge of.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...8/144410.shtml
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030422-73490640.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...8/wchal218.xml
BTW: Note that Chalabi's men are even wearing US uniforms!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr16.html
** OK algebra can be pretty cool, but if you haven't gone BEYOND it, physics of any sort is going to be pretty difficult.
Millions? .Harald,do you mean by the British or by the Europeans as a whole? I had the pleasure and pain of studying what we in the west call "The scramble for Africa" for my history A level. Many atrocities were commited by the European powers .I am not defending any massacre, border drawing, mineral and population expoitation or the idea of empire, British , German, ,Belgian , Dutch, French even. Imperialism should be consigned to the history books, after the current US administration has had why it's a bad idea explained to them.
Maybe start a thread about Empire ...
Originally posted by Alex London
" The millions of Africans mown down by English Gatling guns"
Millions? .Harald,do you mean by the British or by the Europeans as a whole? I had the pleasure and pain of studying what we in the west call "The scramble for Africa" for my history A level. Many atrocities were commited by the European powers .I am not defending any massacre, border drawing, mineral and population expoitation or the idea of empire, British , German, ,Belgian , Dutch, French even. Imperialism should be consigned to the history books, after the current US administration has had why it's a bad idea explained to them.
I know full well that democracy was never a goal for Iraq, but like all the terms, it gets played by both sides of the debate when it suits them. There is very little consistence from either side beyond they want what they want.
So, I ask, what is best for Iraq?
To me, I cannot see how the majority of people will be able to avoid intense civil conflict, poverty, and death, unless an order is basically imposed on them.
AND, as I have said many a time, I KNOW this sounds bad, but is it, and will it be? (which are two different things, not sounding and being, but being and becoming, if you want to tease it)
I don't see how anything but pain will follow an American withdrawl unless America can leave Iraq in a general state of security and welfare. To me, that takes a lot longer than 24 months.
Whatever happens to Iraq now is in the hands of the Bush regime and, to a far lesser degree, the Blair regime. I guess I don't trust either of these governments to act in the interest of Iraq.
You do realize he is one of Chalabi's men, don't you?
And you'll notice it's not Chalabi.
And you'll notice Garner doesn't recognize him as the mayor of Iraq.
I think this (and the above) clearly demonstrates you really aren't qualified to discuss this. It's like discussing particle physics with someone still struggling with algebra**
Iraq != Iran
Please explain what you are talking about.
The mullahs (pushed by the Iranian theocracy) can get the people to scream when they are all together in a group of 2 million. But they'll go home soon and be faced with the realities of their life as it stands now.
The shia aren't being kept out of anything at this point, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, but there are certainly the beginnings of attempts to undermine their position
They weren't proportionately represented at the first "big tent" meeting because many of them were protesting. There's another one tomorrow, we'll see how it goes.
AEI just had a massive day of trying to discredit the state department! Everyone knows Jay Garner doesn't like Chalabi. So what else is new? Does it matter at all? INC is getting highly preferencial treatment from the neo-cons and the pentagon they control.
And it's all up in the air and impossible to call at this point. Why act like Chalabi is the next leader?
All you can say is that maybe one of the other groups will somehow win out in the end, which could happen and hopefully will.
Hopefully the idea of building a government from the local level up wins out and then basing the national government on a strong constitution will win out in the end.
Hell, for most of the past 12 years the most prominant plan for removing saddam was to back the INC as they did it. He certainly has a big head start, which is pretty crazy for someone that has no backing in the country he might end up in charge of.
I agree that appointing Chalabi as the new head guy in Iraq would not be wise, but you're acting like it's just a short matter of time, which is ridiculous.
Now, your argument would be much stronger if you could keep to "the Pentagon is pushing hard for Chalabi" without going on tangents like this:
So it's not that Arabs can't handle democracy (which I have yet to see ANYONE claim), it's that the situation does not allow for it.
Originally posted by Alex London
You're half right imho.
You're referring to the Blair half, right?
Originally posted by groverat
Now, your argument would be much stronger if you could keep to "the Pentagon is pushing hard for Chalabi" without going on tangents like this:
[b]So it's not that Arabs can't handle democracy (which I have yet to see ANYONE claim), it's that the situation does not allow for it.
I was specifically responding to your statement:
Also, I think the ability of the Arab world to accept secular democracy is greatly underrated by us Westerners.
Hw is that a tangent?
Your point assumes that there is a group of people saying Iraq can't have democracy because the Arab world is unable to accept secular democracy, which no one is. People are saying democracy is not going to happen because it is not realistic.
The reason it is not realistic is because the main power groups do not want it, and that includes the US pentagon policy makers which, in case you didn't notice, have ultimate authority in Iraq right now. While in theory they should be answering to 'the president," this assumes a cohesion of ideas in the US government right now which does not exist. The fact is, the US pentagon leaders (the people who created this war) are backing Chalabi and are putting him in a much more advantageous position than any other group.
I see that reports of Zubaidi falling out with Chalabi are coupled with calls from various parts of the US government to restrain both men.
But why is this so interesting?
Simply because the backing of Chalabi by Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Feith show that they are not interested in real representative democracy in Iraq. In fact, they are willing to undermine the will of the Iraqi people, who all are opposed to Chalabi, in order to put their man in power. The people that created this war sold it to you on a false pretense that they did not believe in. Period.
They weren't proportionately represented at the first "big tent" meeting because many of them were protesting.
Any representation they are lacking is the result of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's men murdering Majid Khoei and effectively giving the appearance of taking over politically, and perhaps doing so. This is specifically what the White House is talking about when 'warning Iran.' Again, you demonstrate that you don't have adequate knowledge of the situation to comment accurately.