Lion of the Blogosphere

How about that Islamic State?

A 2013 Pew survey found that 91% of Iraqis favor Sharia being the official law of the land. Thus it’s not surprising that the Islamic State has a good amount of support among Iraqi Sunnis who favor the Islamic law imposed by the Islamic State over living with secular law imposed by a Shiite-controlled government.

What a huge mistake to think that Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds could live together in the same country without a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein to keep law and order. However, the United States insists on exporting it’s love of “diversity” to the rest of the world. In reality, nobody wants diversity besides Western liberals, and even Western liberals, when they have a choice, choose to live in an un-diverse place such as Portland Oregon (where everyone else is also a white liberal) rather than a diverse city like Detroit or El Paso.

Even though Barrack Hussein Obama and Saddam Hussein share a name, Obama lacks Saddam Hussein’s fortitude to do whatever it takes to ensure law and order. There’s an article in today’s NY Times about how the airstrikes are ineffective because the pilots are not allowed to strike anything next to civilians, and of course the Islamic State has learned to keep all of their military people in civilian areas to avoid being hit. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have held back like that.

Obama also lacks the will to put American troops on the ground. Although that would probably turn into a Vietnam-type situation in which the American military is restricted from using its massive firepower to obliterate everything, and a lot of Americans just get killed. No one wants that. I don’t want that.

Is it really such a big deal if the Islamic State winds up becoming a real state? How would the Islamic State be any more dangerous than Iran? The Islamic State has no nuclear capability. Obama is worried about the wrong enemy.

I also like the Islamic State, because they keep disproving all of the liberal nonsense about Islam being a religion of peace. This is a good lesson for all to learn.

I feel bad for any moderate people living in the area who don’t want to live in a strict theocracy. And of course, it’s even worse for the people who are beheaded for being the wrong religion. In retrospect, the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein, and the people of Syria were better off under Bashar Assad.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

May 26, 2015 at 1:55 PM

Posted in International

72 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Yes, talking heads tell us any day now the Sunnis will get sick of the Islamic state and rise up. It’s only fear of Shia and Iran that leads them to accept ISIS. The possibility that they might actually like ISIS is never even considered.

    And what’s not to love, especially if you’re a male? The certainty that you’re living in accordance with divine law, at least one wife if you work hard enough with zero chance she will cheat on you or divorce you, zero crime rate,and you even get to practice slavery!

    They’re not going anywhere. Getting rid of them would require mass civilian casualties or thousands of American deaths. We don’t have the stomach for either.

    Hepp

    May 26, 2015 at 2:03 PM

    • I don’t think that all of the Sunni are that fond of ISIS. But given the brutality of the Shiite troops towards the Sunni population they feel safer under ISIS rule.

      Jim

      May 26, 2015 at 5:07 PM

  2. I just want to add that this sort of reminds me of US reaction to China going communist in the 1950s. We freaked out for a while, but eventually learned to live with the new state. Maybe something similar will happen here.

    Hepp

    May 26, 2015 at 2:07 PM

    • Muslim extremists are very proactive and determined (and they’re not isolationists, unlike the Chinese).

      JS

      May 26, 2015 at 6:25 PM

      • Red China under Mao was extremely aggressive battling US interests across the far east. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviet Army and Chinese Red Army were prepared for WW3. A major reason Vietnam wasn’t obliterated was because the Soviets and Chinese would retaliate possibly with nuclear weapons. They also supplied north Vietnam with sophisticated air defense systems and military advisers. These were rational atheistic regimes imagine what a jihadist super state could possibly achieve. ISIS needs to consolidate their gains first and build up for at least a decade or two before that happens.

        redarmyvodka

        May 26, 2015 at 10:07 PM

      • The Maoists also destroyed a vast amount of China’s cultural treasures and architecture. They were easily as destructive as ISIS if not worse.

        Peter Akuleyev

        May 28, 2015 at 9:00 AM

      • What about the Chinese now? Without Mao, China would have been completely wiped off the map by the Japanese and later, by the Americans.

        JS

        May 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM

  3. While everything you say here is undoubtedly true, you haven’t really identified an issue. Seems to me there’s a meaty one right in front of you, I.e., the whole question of foreign policy expertise. If anything’s been proved since 2002, it’s that all claims of polcy expertise for the ME are phony, many flavors of manifest bullshit. Your frequent discussions of unproductive jobs/positions in business ought to be expanded to the entire FP apparatus. These are all people making very nice livings doing nothing. In a “fair” society, these positions should be rotated by lottery or something. Make a reality show out of it, like turn the State Department over to 100 black meter maids and 100 skateboarders and see if anything gets any worse.

    morty

    May 26, 2015 at 2:09 PM

    • Just look at news articles from the past decade to see who knew what they were talking about.

      John McLaughlin, former acting CIA director, predicted all of this but was forced out of the agency by Bush II’s appointee Porter Goss who brought in his political cronies to get even with all the agency managers they held grudges against.

      http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/06/world/fg-withdraw6

      Fiddlesticks

      May 26, 2015 at 3:33 PM

      • He was only partially right. He said that there wouldn’t be a rise of Al Queda, but the Islamic State is essentially that. Different management, but following almost the same principles.

      • From that 2006 LAT article:

        “President Bush has warned that a precipitate withdrawal would create a terrorism superstate in the Middle East that is rich with oil cash and determined to topple moderate governments around it.

        Terrorists “will launch new attacks on America from this safe haven,” Bush said, and “will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia.”

        Heh, that Bush, stupid nutter. I don’t see how he even got to be president.

        Dan

        May 26, 2015 at 8:40 PM

      • @Dan

        If Bush was so clever he would not have toppled Saddam to begin with.

        Ava Lon

        May 27, 2015 at 12:39 AM

    • In the DOD, the guy who spends (wastes) the most money gets the promotion. It’s really perverse what our federal government has become.

      Bar_Back

      May 26, 2015 at 4:12 PM

    • “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.” – William F. Buckley, Jr.

      njguy73

      May 26, 2015 at 9:26 PM

      • buckley was a snob. but with good reason. the real import/prejudice of his remark is that academics, even the most august are…

        proles.

        jorge rafael videla

        May 27, 2015 at 11:05 PM

    • the really big con and expertise claims of the totally inexpert is by investments managers…with a few exceptions.

      they take at least 1% a year of total financial assets, which is ca 5% of earnings and more when fixed income is included. and the earnings of publicly listed companies is a much larger part of total income than it used to be.

      financialization is to all other cons what a squib is to the h-bomb.

      off topic ranting guy

      May 26, 2015 at 10:36 PM

    • In a “fair” society, these positions should be rotated by lottery or something.

      “In governance, sortition (also known as allotment) is the selection of officers as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates.
      In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the primary method for appointing political officials and its use was conventionally regarded at the time as a principal characteristic of democracy.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

      The wiki has many real world examples of functioning states with a lottery element in selecting government officials (jury duty for example). It’s not crazy.

      dsgntd_plyr

      May 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM

  4. Mentoring: whether it’s a dictator or a president, why are political leaders so bad at mentoring and grooming heirs apparent outside of family?

    Reagan was stuck with Bush as VP but didn’t try to mentor anyone else. Bush didn’t care about helping Quayle. Clinton made Gore look like a dupe and preferred to help his wife. Bush II and Obama chose VPs who were considered to old to run for President on their own.

    Obviously no one wants to be saddled with an unpopular mentor – Carter was the last President to try to groom a successor – Mondale – but couldn’t popular, effective leaders do a little more to share the love?

    Fiddlesticks

    May 26, 2015 at 2:22 PM

  5. Well, there is the whole genocide bit for small minorities like the Yazidis.

    JayMan

    May 26, 2015 at 2:24 PM

    • Yes, the Israelis have treated the Palestinians a lot better than the Islamic State has treated and will treat minority religions within its territory.

      • That’s because the animosity between the Sunnis and Shias is very old, not of a recent event like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The same could be said of the Arab hatred for the ethnic Kurds, and the Muslims’ long standing contempt for the People of the Book (Jews & Christians). You see, the Sunni Muslims view Islam as the final and only relevant message from God.

        JS

        May 26, 2015 at 2:56 PM

      • Further, Israel is deemed as an Anglosphere outpost, a modern colonizing entity in the Middle East, where the Arabs are viewed as primitive underdogs.

        JS

        May 26, 2015 at 2:59 PM

      • It’s not because of animosity levels, it’s because the Jews in general just behave better than Arabs. Let’s put it like that, you will not cross to the other side of the street if you see a Jew, you might do it if it is an Arab, especially an Arab immigrant in Europe, that’s the whole story.

        Hashed

        May 27, 2015 at 6:59 PM

  6. What I don’t understand is why the US didn’t simply take total control of the oil and divide Iraq into three countries: Kurds, Sunni, Shia. Why one country? Did Bush/Cheney really believe their own nonense of spreading democracy and all the women waving their purple fingers?

    fakeemail

    May 26, 2015 at 4:20 PM

  7. Biggest bullet point on Hillary’s resume is her tenure as secretary of state. All her supporters have been pointing to this as proof of demonstrated competence. Now, she is not responsible for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein but she was directly involved in Gaddafi’s overthrow and the undermining of Bashar Assad (let’s leave aside the counterproductive meddling in Ukraine). If the Republicans had any brains they would home in on these two debacles as evidence that Hillary was in way over her head, and not fit to hold any executive authority. But the Republicans themselves have supported these two disastrous interventions and cannot seem to make any political capital on them. Stupid party.

    Hillary is going to win the election and the world will move ever closer to total chaos.

    BTW, why do the Israelis prefer ISIS hegemony in the middle east to that of the Iranians, or that is what I have been reading. Iranians are a pest but they don’t seem to be insanely dangerous as is ISIS. If ISIS consolidates its hold on Syria/Iraq I don’t see why they wouldn’t then direct their forces to Jordan, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia. And they can take over all these nations, all of whom share a border with Israel. Seems that it is better to have Iran as the local hegemon, if for no other reason than that they don’t share a border with Israel.

    Daniel

    May 26, 2015 at 4:31 PM

    • Well, first of all it is hard to speak of “the israelis”. We don’t all think the same.

      Secondly, Iran’s cronies are a lot closer to Israel right now – Hizzbala and Hamas, and Iran’s nuclear program seems like a genuine threat.

      I think the best interests of israel is some balance of power, that no-one would get it all. Something like the english policy for europe.

      Yoav

      May 27, 2015 at 2:23 AM

    • The Republicans should be less obvious about panting for a war whenever it’s offered. If you’re that thirsty you get played guys, as seen above. It makes your owner department look bad too, even if they make a few bucks in the short term.

      Glengarry

      May 27, 2015 at 4:09 AM

  8. One positive result of all the turmoil in Iraq has been the emergence of the Kurdish area as a de facto independent nation. It’s basically what the rest of the country (and region) is not: prosperous, stable, democratic, and reasonably secular.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    May 26, 2015 at 4:35 PM

    • An independent Kurdistan will destabilize Turkey.

      Jim

      May 26, 2015 at 5:10 PM

      • Probably. The Turkish president has pivoted in the last few years to a pro-Kurdish position. He probably still doesn’t want to see a fully independent Kurdistan, but I don’t think it’s his worst nightmare, either. Perhaps this pivot was caused by the strategic consideration that such an independent Kurdistan might be unavoidable in the mid-run.

        Greg Pandatshang

        May 26, 2015 at 6:11 PM

  9. There are three big problems with ISIS:

    1. Their destruction of antiquities and archaeological sites.

    2. Their genocide of ethnic and religious minorities.

    3. Their decentralized but galvanizing terrorist network.

    Points 1 and 2 ultimately relate to diminishing the richness of humanity. The world will be a poorer. less interesting place without Yazidis and Roman and Assyrian ruins around.

    Point 3 relates to the security of Western countries. Al-Qaeda under Osama Bin Laden tried to have a very hierarchical power structure. Osama tried to micromanage and direct terrorist attacks on the US. This was very stupid, because terrorist networks, by their nature, can’t have closely-knit chains of command, the way that the US military or even the Soviet Union could. Terrorist networks are too fragile and secretive.

    In contrast, ISIS is much more decentralized. Instead of trying to coordinate plane hijackings or bombings, they tell young Muslim men in the West to grab a gun,set off a homemade bomb or even just drive a car and kill infidels. What we saw with the Boston Bombings and the Charlie Hebdo shootings is a taste of what ISIS has in store. Remember how hysterical Americans got after the Sandy Hook shootings or when Elliot Rodger went on a shooting spree? Imagine what will happen when ISIS gets a dozen Muslims to carry out such attacks over the course of a month or two.

    Sid

    May 26, 2015 at 4:47 PM

    • “Imagine what will happen when ISIS gets a dozen Muslims to carry out such attacks over the course of a month or two.” ——————– Attacks, what attacks? The press will declare all such attacks as ‘workplace violence.’

      Curle

      May 27, 2015 at 1:21 AM

  10. El Paso is actually the least diverse big city in the us, the dominant ethnic group (Hispanics) comprising something like 90% of the population, which makes it more Hispanic than Portland or Pittsburgh are white, or Detroit is black.

    aisaac

    May 26, 2015 at 4:51 PM

    • “Diverse” means no white people. So if a city has 90% brown people, then it is nearing ideal Diversity, which is 0% white people. Diversity = white genocide, and it is encouraged and sponsored by the US government. Ergo:

      DEATH TO AMERICA

      emaciator

      May 27, 2015 at 9:27 AM

  11. In retrospect, the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein, and the people of Syria were better off under Bashar Assad.

    But was it “good for the Jews”?

    Was Israel better off with Assad and Saddam or these wild primitives running around killing the weak?

    Rifleman

    May 26, 2015 at 4:58 PM

    • I think that the rise Islamic State is good for the future of Israel, although this is not intentional on the part of Obama who hates Israel.

      Liberal Jews in America no longer particularly care too much about Israel. They, like liberal white gentiles, favor the underdog Palestinians.

      • How is ISIS good for Israel? If anything, they’ve jeopardized Israel’s influence on US foreign policy. A year ago, it was a lot easier to claim that Iran was the US’ principal foe in the Middle East, which is far more easy to dispute with ISIS running amok.

        Sid

        May 26, 2015 at 6:55 PM

      • The rise of the Islamic state is good for Israel because they make Americans more fearful of the Arab world & more willing to engage militarily (so Israel doesn’t have to)

        When Saddam was around Iraq was becoming very secular & thus giving Israel competition as another civized country in the Middle East. In addition Saddam fired scud missiles at Israel and was funding suicide bombers. Netanyahu hated hated hated Saddam and even lobbied the US congress for regime change as John Kerry recently reminded us.

        And while Saddam didn’t have WMD, some were paranoid he’d get it, given his anti-Semitism & proximity to Israel

        Humans are genetically predisposed to get very nervous & aggressive when they fear their gene pools are at risk

        pumpkinperson

        May 26, 2015 at 7:44 PM

      • I think that the rise Islamic State is good for the future of Israel, although this is not intentional on the part of Obama who hates Israel.

        If he’s helping a country he supposedly hates, that make me question his IQ, because smart people by definition can figure out how to reach their goal

        So either he doesn’t hate them as much as you think or is he’s not as smart as you think.

        But the real test will be what happens with Iran

        pumpkinperson

        May 26, 2015 at 8:06 PM

      • Blinded by liberal-think.

      • “The rise of the Islamic state is good for Israel because they make Americans more fearful of the Arab world & more willing to engage militarily (so Israel doesn’t have to)”

        Maybe if Romney had been President. So far we’ve thumbed our nose at Israel and their tacit allies in the Arab Gulf States, and have made many steps to be friendlier with Iran.

        Sid

        May 26, 2015 at 9:07 PM

      • Saudis are far more afraid of ISIS than Israilis are. They have genuine reasons for that. US has chosen to abandon the Saudi clan, and put its bets on a more capable player, the Iranians. The Saudis were besieged on two fronts, without US lifting up a finger to do anything for them. I bet, in 10 years Iran will be a much bigger US ally in the region than Saudis are now.

        Israilis on the other hand can be at ease now: Egypt has been effectively turned into a non-state by continuous civil uprising, economic crisis and so on; Syria, the owner of the biggest tank force in the Middle-East, is also a non-state thaks to the civil war; the califate has also tickled nerves of Nasrallah and Co., keeping them pre-occupied. Israilis are more at ease now than at any moment since the creation of Israel, since there is nobody left to pose real challenge to their military. Israel is being cordoned-off from the IS by a buffer state, Jordan. A short span of border they do have with Syria comes across a natural barrier, and can be easily reinforced without much of resource expenditure.

        khomenei

        May 28, 2015 at 3:45 AM

    • It’s good because lately the main danger was from the Shias in Lebanon, Iran was using them as a proxy to attack Israel without it reflecting too much on Iran, now they are engaged by ISIS.

      But the more important thing, the main weapon against Israel is on the legitimacy field, the legitimacy for it to exist and more than that to fight its enemies. No country in the world adhere to the standards required from Israel, certainly no country under attack from its neighbours.

      The thing is, if ISIS attack Israel it will be very hard for the world to delegitimise the right of Israel to defend itself. Israel is not afraid to fight and doesn’t need favours from anybody, they just need to know that they can go and actually fight like any other army, something they can’t do these days against their current enemies. I am pretty sure though that even against ISIS the world will find some excuse to blame Israel in “war crimes” but it will just be more difficult.

      Hashed

      May 27, 2015 at 7:06 PM

  12. Only under US occupation did Iraqis elect their leaders democratically and the different religions lived in relative peace. US should have continued the occupation as police & military affair, funded by taxing the locals, continuing to provide good governance and rule of law, importing the smart fraction (http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm) which the Iraqis can’t supply themselves from their own population. This would be the most humane option for the Iraqis. Free press and democracy in the US would have been better check and balance of Iraqi colonial government wrongdoings than anything the Iraqis can provide from their own population.

    kuffis

    May 26, 2015 at 6:04 PM

  13. So, I was right, all those years of hearing how bad we were for “propping up dictators,” and not really giving a shit. Well I did care, but suspected those countries couldn’t do better at the time. Or any time, maybe.

    Mrs Stitch

    May 26, 2015 at 6:23 PM

  14. I’ll believe this administration is serious about ISIS when they admit the threat is Islamic and not diverse like they have constantly whined. Its getting to be weak sauce when even Saudi Arabia is complaining we’re not hard enough on these people. Iran is even complaining that America is not helping them to fight ISIS! This is just bizarre. When has the Ayatollah and the mullahs ever had a problem with an Islamic Terrorist Organization?
    Stabilizing the Middle East is impossible. There are animosities going back over a millenium in this region. Anyone who believes in Peace in the Middle East must just be crazy. Peace and Islam belong together like Oil and Water. We should only help to prevent them from entering our country, and isolate this problem in their own region.

    Joshua Sinistar

    May 26, 2015 at 6:33 PM

    • Everybody in the Middle East wants Americans to fight and die for them and give them lots of money also. It seems we are stupid enough to do that. Meanwhile back home the US is being overrun by Mexicans.

      Jim

      May 27, 2015 at 11:35 AM

  15. In reality, nobody wants diversity besides Western liberals, and even Western liberals,…

    who have been americanized.

    the up-series’s upper class kids’ accents become more and more american with each septenary.

    the united states is a malignant neoplasm in the political and cultural world.

    off topic ranting guy

    May 26, 2015 at 8:53 PM

  16. In reality, nobody wants diversity besides Western liberals, and even Western liberals,…

    who have been americanized. extroverts worship power and wealth.

    the up-series’s upper class kids’ accents become more and more american with each septenary.

    the united states is a malignant neoplasm in the political and cultural world.

    off topic ranting guy

    May 26, 2015 at 8:55 PM

  17. I’m pretty sure that the goal of USA/ State department policy is to keep the Arabs and Persians at war with each other. When one side gets strong, the US backs the other side, even if this means backing Al Queada.

    Anyways, the long term problem is neither Arab / AL Queda / ISIS / Sunnis nor Persian / Hezbollah / Shiites.

    The real problem is excess African Fertility. Africans are starved of food and water supplies now, yet are doubling in population every 22 years with total fertility of 7 children per woman and (thanks to modern medicine) full adult lifespans.

    Its easy to see that the future of Africa is bloody civil war and population migrations. If they go into the Middle East, then the Middle East will go to Europe. All of it. Wherever they go will become Africa, even if they go to the USA.

    A population boom in Mongolia created the waves of migration that destroyed Rome. Something similar is happening today in Africa.

    Rotten

    May 26, 2015 at 9:35 PM

    • “A population boom in Mongolia created the waves of migration that destroyed Rome. Something similar is happening today in Africa.”

      Fascinating.

      File this under “Only the rich can afford to work:” Kennedy grandchild Tatiana Schlossberg writes for the New York Times.

      http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/author/tatiana-schlossberg/

      Ava Lon

      May 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM

    • I doubt that Middle Easterners will allow Africans to take over. Europeans though seem bent on self-destruction.

      Jim

      May 27, 2015 at 11:37 AM

      • Even today, excess African population spills into Yemen.

        Rotten

        May 28, 2015 at 11:14 AM

  18. People don’t realize how sensible sharia is for the most part. It’s not really about beheadings and chopped off hands. It’s mainly a fairly sane and effective system for tort resolution and family law. I would take a sharia family court over an American family court any day, were I female or male and facing divorce. Criminal proceedings from what I’ve seen also appear fairly sensible.

    sammysamsam

    May 26, 2015 at 10:21 PM

    • Disagree about how sensible sharia is (at least for western people). Agree with preferring it to an American family court which hate, hates, HATES men!

      fakeemail

      May 27, 2015 at 2:36 PM

  19. “I also like the Islamic State, because they keep disproving all of the liberal nonsense about Islam being a religion of peace. This is a good lesson for all to learn.”

    They’re not taking the bait though, they hide behind the “The Islamic State isn’t really Islamic” line, just like “the USSR does not represent true Marxism”. You’re talking about people who are incapable of learning from observation.

    cliff arroyo

    May 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM

  20. There’s only one way to defeat Isis: We’ve got to bomb their factories!

    jef

    May 27, 2015 at 6:32 AM

  21. I’ve been saying this since June 2014. ISIS is exactly what it says it is: the Dar-al-Islam. They have infrastructure, a creed, a people, and a territory. Most important of all, they have their God and they fear Him. So they will keep on going until they are killed, and when they are killed, that’s when they’ll stop.

    Secular social democracies are utterly paralyzed in the face of people who fight for God. There is a lesson here for the secular Right.

    The Anti-Gnostic

    May 27, 2015 at 9:04 AM

  22. “Western liberals, when they have a choice, choose to live in an un-diverse place such as Portland Oregon (where everyone else is also a white liberal) rather than a diverse city like Detroit or El Paso.”

    This cannot be said enough. Portland’s newspapers endlessly and hysterically decry the lack of Diversity [sic] in Portlandia, as Portland gets whiter by the minute. Hey, all y’alls guilty white folks, there’s land almost literally for the taking in Detroit! Get moving!

    emaciator

    May 27, 2015 at 9:14 AM

  23. Does anyone really think that this sort of low-level clash of civilizations is sustainable over the long run? In 5,000 years, will people still be talking about Islam vs. the West? At what point do we just truly embrace the death of Christianity and bomb these people into nothingness and then move on? It’s getting boring. Even the Romans only had the patience to fight three wars against the Carthaginians.

    BS Inc.

    May 27, 2015 at 10:45 PM

    • America is in a position to simply ignore the islamic world. Just stop allowing them to live here. It is only on account of the israel lobby and also insane arrangements with the saudis that we get militarily involved. Reagan simply packed up and pulled out of Lebanon. Why not do that again? There is no coherent reason not to completely extricate America from the mideast. Maintain naval supremacy in the mediterranean and persian gulf, but beyond that there need not be americans on arab/persian soil. Likewise there’s no need for muslims here in north america. problem solved.

      sammysamsam

      May 28, 2015 at 7:33 PM

      • An all-out war in the middle east that destroys a lot of oil facilities would cause great pain to the world. It’s just the way it is.

        Furthermore, nuclear proliferation in the Mid East could have horrible consequences outside of the Middle East.

        The world, today, is just to small for the U.S. to retreat into isolation.

      • The idea that American military involvement in the mid-east is a force for peace and stability is rather ridiculous. The Saudis, Persians, and Turks should simply be left to sort out an equilibrium in the region. Israel wants undue influence on that process and they want to do it on the american dime. America has nothing to gain from any of this nonsense and can surf any oil supply disruptions far better than our European and Asian competitors. An oil shock might actually be advantageous to America, driving industry away from Asia.

        sammysamsam

        May 29, 2015 at 12:02 AM

  24. ISIS are winning battles on the ground which is really bothering the human rights crowd (really just the same neocon chickenhawks), but is what they’re doing really any messier than bombing campaigns?

    People who shame ISIS think battlefield warfare and battlefield victory are obsolete.

    The ISIS soldier is fit, stands upright, is not obese, nose-breathes, same can not be said of the average American or the pro-American coalition (compare the ISIS soldier to that mouth breathing Jordanian nerd mamma’s boy pilot they burned alive), we might have our work cut out for us in the future unless we ban muz immigration into the west. ISIS have healthy and youthful human capital which is worth more than technology IMHO.

    LooksMoneyStatus

    May 28, 2015 at 2:55 AM

  25. I dunno. My worker is a Tajik Muslim. He goes to the mosque and believes real weird stuff about religion, but he says he would nuke caliphate. He hates wahabies and extremists. Are ayatollahs the best thing for Iran? Then why is ISIS the best thing for sunnies?

    Israel should use the chaos to repatriate the Arabs to their places of origin, which it won’t do. Otherwise, who knows what’s best? People butchering each other is not good. I think secular state would be the best for the Arabs, but it won’t happen either.

    Yakov

    May 28, 2015 at 6:56 AM

    • Strangely enough, the Middle East had a fair number of secular states just recently: Libya, Iraq, Syria come to mind. Just look for Baath parties. Apart from that, Turkey still is (for a while, at least). Egypt had a short intermezzo as islamic but went back to secular.

      Glengarry

      May 28, 2015 at 9:01 AM

    • Muslim extremists seem to be mostly of an Arab ethnic origin. Things become dicy, if you bring non-Arabs in the fold, such as the Iranians and the Turkic people (such as your Tajik servant), who usually do not engage in inane and deadly terrorist activities. Given the fact that Tajikistan is one of those Central Asian Caucasoid and Mongoloid, hodge podge nations, the East Asian component would have made them docile.

      JS

      May 28, 2015 at 10:27 AM

      • Think deeper, if a guy like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev or his brother Tamerlane, would have flew a plane during 9-11 in the name of Islam….At least their family think their sons acted on impulsiveness, not on a brooding ideology that led to their fate.

        JS

        May 28, 2015 at 10:34 AM

      • Yakov

        May 29, 2015 at 6:23 PM

  26. After they devastate Palmyra and blow up the oil wells, the Islamic State will be in a quandary as to how to support their economy. Tourism? Nope. Fossil fuels? Not if you can get those from anywhere else. Oh, I know – they could collect the skulls of all the people they’ve beheaded, steam-clean the damn things, varnish them with polyurethane and sell them as novelty drinking vessels to the alcohol-guzzling West. I can just see their commercials now, on the late night TV of my feverish imagination. They could even schedule a tie-in with the next season of “Vikings” (that is, if there is one).

    Hank Rearden

    May 29, 2015 at 10:38 AM

  27. If ISIS marches into Texas I’m relying on the McLennan County Sherrif’s Dept to save my ass.

    Jim

    June 3, 2015 at 12:25 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: