Apparently, blog exchange has become purely mean spirited, rather than trying to give the benefit of the doubt before ripping apart an argument. 

Which is kind of ironic when you consider that it was Iranian students that led to the religous leaders taking power in the first place...

I don't think it's impossible to see a state in which the secular and religious power is separate. I don't think it is conceivable for any hardline religious faction to take power in Iraq, given the diversity and overall history of secular power there. Even if the Shiites are in the majority, the insurgency now proves how a very small minority can wreak havoc. If an "Ayatolllah" took power, I think it would be far bloodier than it is now, and many of the peaceable people tolerating the US would become far less tolerant.

Dabe - perhaps you should try improving your reading comprehension. I've written a gazillion blogs on why we went into Iraq and the target isn't moving. Left wing zealots keep re-defining it.

You guys were the ones who tried to claim it was about the oil, remember? It only became about picking up WMD stockpiles after none were found. Only then did you guys pretend that WMD stockpiles mattered.  As if any of you would have been satisfied with if we'd found some stockpiles of mustard gas. You still would have been against it. You would have said it was about the oil.

And even if Iraqi's had elected some imaginary wonderful government, you would have just said we'd tricked them into electing puppets who will help us steal their oil.

So get over yourselves. You guys lost. You keep losing. and you keep losing because you're nasty, shrill and negative all the time.

The principle reason we went into Iraq has always been well defined by those who don't have an axe to grind: Saddam Hussein was an open enemy of the United States who funded terrorists, had access to vast capital because of his oil resources, and was waiting out sanctions to continue with his WMD programs (which the Kaye report made clear was his plan).  The fear of WMD stockpiles was used by Bush (unfortunately) to try to get UN Security Council support which I think was a mistake as it opened him up to people like you who focus on that nonsense. 

Since we removed Saddam, something had to be put in its place. Now you're complaining about the democracy that's being put in place? Truly sad.

By your argument, it was wrong to liberate Europe in World War II because the government WE installed in Germany has been a regular pain in the ass since then.  Or put another way, I suspect the newly elected Iraqi government will be more helpful to the US than Germany has been recently.

Like I say, it needn't be moderation. He would just have to see the political expediency. He can become a huge factor in a nation's political system, or he can screw the whole process and end up with a splintered, bloody nation that would doubtlessly reside at the end of the world's bayonettes.

The Taliban couldn't even pull off that kind of thing, they just kept enough tribal leaders happy. There's no way Sistani could keep the Kurds or Sunni happy. If he behaves himself, Democracy is far, far more attractive for him than a splintered nation, bloody mess.