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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (128526)	4/6/2004 11:53:34 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

For Sistani to side with the US in this situation would be more than a "loss fo face" -- it would be an act of betrayal that would substantially widen the split within the Shiite community -- it would be a disaster for the US if Sistani did indeed side with the US at this point. We are sliding into civil war -- this would hasten its arrival.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (128526)	4/6/2004 12:25:58 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Things are becoming so crystal-clear, I feel confidant, in making specific predictions. So, here's another, in my series: I predict that, in Iraq, until the last American soldier is off their soil, no Shiite cleric will help us kill or capture any other Shiite cleric. Sistani and Sadr are playing a "good cop, bad cop" routine with us. Sistani pretends to be our friend (at least, he seems friendly, in comparison to Sadr). Then he extracts concessions from us, while Sadr keeps up the pressure. These guys aren't dumb. Our best chance, for working the classic colonialist tactic of DivideAndConquer, was to pit Sunni against Shiite. Or seculars against the clerics. But, instead, we are pissing everybody off, and they are all concentrating their efforts against us.