NY Times advocates U.S. military intervention in Iraq to stop Sunnis from killing Shias??
In the last four days the world has quietly turned upside-down. Here's an editorial from the NY Times three days ago:
Now if you're under 27 or so you may not know that the Times was vehemently against the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003--an effort that was approved by the United Nations after a dozen openly-debated votes and months of discussion and study, but which the Times always called George Bush's war.
Before Bush replaced Clinton all Democrat party leaders--including Bill and Cankles--agreed that Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant who was torturing and killing dissenters, had used poison gas on his own people as well as on Iranians (it's a fact--killed five thousand or so; google it.) and was a clear and present danger to civilization. If Bush had just gone with that argument, much of the opposition would have been left dangling because it would have been the Democrats' war as well.
Unfortunately someone added the international consensus intel conclusion that Hussein--that would be Saddam, not Buraq--was also "developing WMDs" (which of course he had already used). And that was the poison apple. Because now the Times could get away with calling the military action "Bush's war," which meant they could be (and were) dead-set against it.
And they didn't let a day go by without shrieking to the American people about what a ghastly thing this "illegal" war--a "war of choice," they called it--was.
But now--well, see, now things are different. Cuz, you know, Obama. Lightworker. Bill Clinton but with a better speaking voice and more affirmative-action support. And none of what were slanderously referred to as "bimbo problems."
Now, I don't expect that a single person at the Times has even the ghost of a fucking clue about what it would take to defeat ISIS. [See end note on this.] From what I've seen (video) and know about weapons and tactics I'm pretty sure the only way ISIS could be stopped is by American firepower (whether air-only or air and ground) or its equivalent--and I'm pretty sure the Times isn't seriously suggesting we send in troops.
Instead I think the Times editors are simply posturing. They've suddenly realized that an ISIS takeover of Iraq would not only be an utter bloodbath but would deliver billions of oil dollars to Islamic terr--uh..."extremists." (To the reporters and editors of the Times there are no such thing as Islamic terrorists, merely "freedom fighters" or "militants," who are actually just like the men who fought the American revolution.)
The Times doesn't quite know how the whole "beheading" thing fits into this narrative, but no matter.
So they're not serious, just posturing. And I think an even more important reason for their posturing is because they've concluded this is a great way to bash Bush and the Republicans for going into Iraq in the first place. "See, all the lives and expense was for nothing." They know no one will recall that while Clinton was in office every last Democrat leader not only said but actually signed letter attesting to the fact that they regarded Hussein as a danger who should be taken out.
And of course in that last, at least, they're absolutely right. You've never seen the letters the top Dems wrote. I have, and posted them some years ago. I'll go find the post and link it later.
But first, here's a revolutionary thought--one that would leave a huge impression on heads of state around the globe: Every spokesperson in the U.S. government should wring hands, sadly touch back of hand to forehead and say this:
But it gets better: For the last two years rebel forces in Syria have been trying to overthrow the regime of Bashir Assad. (Remember Syria? It's the place Obozo wanted to send air-strikes to, to help overthrow the Assad regime.) Among these rebel groups is...ISIS. You almost certainly never heard this but for the last 18 months at least, Obama has been sending U.S. weapons and other aid to these rebel groups. So Obama has been supporting...ISIS--the same group that's now threatening to turn Iraq into a totalitarian Islamic state.
But in an unbelievable twist, the Assad regime--members of the Alawite sect of Islam--has found a strong supporter in the Shiite regime of...Iran. Yes, the same Iran that's been calling America "the great satan" for about four decades now.
So why would Iran support the Assad regime? Well, did I mention that ISIS are Sunnis? And that the ruling factions in both Iraq and Iran are Shia?
And you should know that Sunnis and Shia are mortal enemies.
You can probably see where this is going, right?
Yep, Iran has already sent units of the Revolutionary Guard toward Baghdad, to help stop the Sunni pigs of ISIS. And unlike the green, thoroughly infiltrated, untested Iraqi army, the Revolutionary Guard troops are well trained and disciplined. So yes, sports fans, two of the groups who have been fighting us for decades have drawn swords on each other. Both are well armed--the Iranians much more so, but remember ISIS has just picked up a Billion dollars worth of arms we'd given to the government of Iraq, so they're starting to close that gap. And they're *really* highly motivated.
To see how motivated you really need to see ISIS fighters in action. Please note that this link is totally gruesome, so don't click on it if you're queasy. These guys are a civilized person's worst nightmare. Also be warned there's a beheading around 50 minutes in, and if you're normal all violent acts will haunt your dreams. But if you're a guy, you need to know what we're up against.
If anyone thinks these people will negotiate in good faith, or compromise, this vid will cure you of that delusion. These guys are like the Japanese army in WW2...before two small atomic bombs (and believe me, those were *very* small bombs compared to what we have today) convinced them that surrender was preferable to the death of every last Japanese on the planet.
In conclusion...it's so unfortunate that the Iraqis are gonna have to lose so many people and suffer so much needless destruction. Especially since it could have easily been avoided had they not been so pissy about not having any American troops in the country after 2011.
Of course I'm sure the Times--and Slate, and HuffPo, and AlterNet and Daily Kos--will find a way to blame it all on the Republicans and Bush.
Meanwhile I've got a lot of popcorn stocked up. And I'm gonna enjoy watching the Times backpedal after someone else on the Left realizes they just called for U.S. military intervention in Iraq to defeat a bunch of bloodthirsty savages who are killing...other Iraqis.
Wait, is this deja vu? Isn't that really the main reason the U.S. invaded back in 2003?
====
Footnote to my speculation that the Times doesn't have a ghost of a clue on how to proceed in Iraq: Buried about ten 'grafs down in the story is this gem:
No, Times morons, when people show the kind of merciless savagery clearly displayed in the ISIS propaganda clip, you can't persuade 'em. You can't "rehabilitate" 'em. You either kill them or they kill you.
Maybe the Lightworker can successfully bullshit Americans and congress, but it's not gonna work with Islamic killers. "Period."
The Obama administration must help the Iraqi government retake the city of Mosul from Islamists and stem their march toward Baghdad.You may want to read that again...cuz unless the Times thinks the "Islamists" who have taken Mosul--Iraq's second-largest city--and a dozen other cities can be driven out with unicorn farts and pixy-dust, I think they just pushed ("must help retake") for the U.S. go to war in Iraq!
Now if you're under 27 or so you may not know that the Times was vehemently against the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003--an effort that was approved by the United Nations after a dozen openly-debated votes and months of discussion and study, but which the Times always called George Bush's war.
Before Bush replaced Clinton all Democrat party leaders--including Bill and Cankles--agreed that Saddam Hussein was a bloodthirsty tyrant who was torturing and killing dissenters, had used poison gas on his own people as well as on Iranians (it's a fact--killed five thousand or so; google it.) and was a clear and present danger to civilization. If Bush had just gone with that argument, much of the opposition would have been left dangling because it would have been the Democrats' war as well.
Unfortunately someone added the international consensus intel conclusion that Hussein--that would be Saddam, not Buraq--was also "developing WMDs" (which of course he had already used). And that was the poison apple. Because now the Times could get away with calling the military action "Bush's war," which meant they could be (and were) dead-set against it.
And they didn't let a day go by without shrieking to the American people about what a ghastly thing this "illegal" war--a "war of choice," they called it--was.
But now--well, see, now things are different. Cuz, you know, Obama. Lightworker. Bill Clinton but with a better speaking voice and more affirmative-action support. And none of what were slanderously referred to as "bimbo problems."
Now, I don't expect that a single person at the Times has even the ghost of a fucking clue about what it would take to defeat ISIS. [See end note on this.] From what I've seen (video) and know about weapons and tactics I'm pretty sure the only way ISIS could be stopped is by American firepower (whether air-only or air and ground) or its equivalent--and I'm pretty sure the Times isn't seriously suggesting we send in troops.
Instead I think the Times editors are simply posturing. They've suddenly realized that an ISIS takeover of Iraq would not only be an utter bloodbath but would deliver billions of oil dollars to Islamic terr--uh..."extremists." (To the reporters and editors of the Times there are no such thing as Islamic terrorists, merely "freedom fighters" or "militants," who are actually just like the men who fought the American revolution.)
The Times doesn't quite know how the whole "beheading" thing fits into this narrative, but no matter.
So they're not serious, just posturing. And I think an even more important reason for their posturing is because they've concluded this is a great way to bash Bush and the Republicans for going into Iraq in the first place. "See, all the lives and expense was for nothing." They know no one will recall that while Clinton was in office every last Democrat leader not only said but actually signed letter attesting to the fact that they regarded Hussein as a danger who should be taken out.
And of course in that last, at least, they're absolutely right. You've never seen the letters the top Dems wrote. I have, and posted them some years ago. I'll go find the post and link it later.
But first, here's a revolutionary thought--one that would leave a huge impression on heads of state around the globe: Every spokesperson in the U.S. government should wring hands, sadly touch back of hand to forehead and say this:
Wow, we are just sick about the fact that ISIS is killing so many Sunnis and civilians, and we really wish we could help y'all beat 'em. But sadly, your prime minister--egged on by religious extremists--refused to allow any American troops in Iraq after December 31, 2011.
You were adamant that you wanted all Americans to leave, and since this was never about conquest, we left. And now--so sorry but you're on your own. We tried to train your troops but with the short time available it just wasn't possible to get enough seasoned troops into the field.
We're really sorry you're about to see your country destroyed, and we do hope you survive. But if you should get surrounded and see you're facing certain death from ISIS, you need to remember that you could have avoided this harsh result if you'd been more flexible six years ago in 2008, when you were so pissy about negotiating a Status of Forces agreement. You hard-dealt us then, and we obligingly turned our bases over to you and flew home.
But it gets better: For the last two years rebel forces in Syria have been trying to overthrow the regime of Bashir Assad. (Remember Syria? It's the place Obozo wanted to send air-strikes to, to help overthrow the Assad regime.) Among these rebel groups is...ISIS. You almost certainly never heard this but for the last 18 months at least, Obama has been sending U.S. weapons and other aid to these rebel groups. So Obama has been supporting...ISIS--the same group that's now threatening to turn Iraq into a totalitarian Islamic state.
But in an unbelievable twist, the Assad regime--members of the Alawite sect of Islam--has found a strong supporter in the Shiite regime of...Iran. Yes, the same Iran that's been calling America "the great satan" for about four decades now.
So why would Iran support the Assad regime? Well, did I mention that ISIS are Sunnis? And that the ruling factions in both Iraq and Iran are Shia?
And you should know that Sunnis and Shia are mortal enemies.
You can probably see where this is going, right?
Yep, Iran has already sent units of the Revolutionary Guard toward Baghdad, to help stop the Sunni pigs of ISIS. And unlike the green, thoroughly infiltrated, untested Iraqi army, the Revolutionary Guard troops are well trained and disciplined. So yes, sports fans, two of the groups who have been fighting us for decades have drawn swords on each other. Both are well armed--the Iranians much more so, but remember ISIS has just picked up a Billion dollars worth of arms we'd given to the government of Iraq, so they're starting to close that gap. And they're *really* highly motivated.
To see how motivated you really need to see ISIS fighters in action. Please note that this link is totally gruesome, so don't click on it if you're queasy. These guys are a civilized person's worst nightmare. Also be warned there's a beheading around 50 minutes in, and if you're normal all violent acts will haunt your dreams. But if you're a guy, you need to know what we're up against.
If anyone thinks these people will negotiate in good faith, or compromise, this vid will cure you of that delusion. These guys are like the Japanese army in WW2...before two small atomic bombs (and believe me, those were *very* small bombs compared to what we have today) convinced them that surrender was preferable to the death of every last Japanese on the planet.
In conclusion...it's so unfortunate that the Iraqis are gonna have to lose so many people and suffer so much needless destruction. Especially since it could have easily been avoided had they not been so pissy about not having any American troops in the country after 2011.
Of course I'm sure the Times--and Slate, and HuffPo, and AlterNet and Daily Kos--will find a way to blame it all on the Republicans and Bush.
Meanwhile I've got a lot of popcorn stocked up. And I'm gonna enjoy watching the Times backpedal after someone else on the Left realizes they just called for U.S. military intervention in Iraq to defeat a bunch of bloodthirsty savages who are killing...other Iraqis.
Wait, is this deja vu? Isn't that really the main reason the U.S. invaded back in 2003?
====
Footnote to my speculation that the Times doesn't have a ghost of a clue on how to proceed in Iraq: Buried about ten 'grafs down in the story is this gem:
the United States must compel the Iraqi Army to adopt a sensitive, population-centered approach to reversing the militants’ conquests. If the Iraqi Army sends Shiite militant groups or Kurdish forces to the heart of Sunni-dominated Mosul, or if it carpet-bombs the city and arbitrarily arrests or kills groups, it will alienate the hearts and minds essential to winning this battle.Oh yes, Times editors, let's compel the Iraqi army to adopt a sensitive approach to "reversing the militants' conquests." Sort of like how we sensitively persuaded the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese army to "reverse" their conquests? Like that? Or maybe you'd prefer the kind of sensitive approach the Union used to persuade the Confederacy. No arbitrary arrests or--heaven forbid!--arbitrary killing.
No, Times morons, when people show the kind of merciless savagery clearly displayed in the ISIS propaganda clip, you can't persuade 'em. You can't "rehabilitate" 'em. You either kill them or they kill you.
Maybe the Lightworker can successfully bullshit Americans and congress, but it's not gonna work with Islamic killers. "Period."
posted by SF at
8:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home