The Iranian government, which the White House is now looking to as a possible partner to help counter the insurgency threatening to split Iraq, was cited just months ago by the Obama administration's own State Department as a prime instigator in that country.

This is the lead paragraph in a Fox News article. Now let me see if I have a grasp on this. You are working on your farm and are bitten by a rattlesnake and almost die. You place sanctions on the nasty snakes and say bad things about them. Then your neighbor's farm starts to have a rat problem. So you invite the snakes in to your home for dinner and drinks and plan a strike against the rats.

Is this close to what is happening in the middle east?

"My enemy's enemy is my friend."

That's what it's called. Hey, didn't we buddy up with the Russians to fight the Germans? Who are we buddies with now? And why am I driving a Japanese truck? Didn't we nuke them a few years back? I'll be damned, this shirt I am wearing was made in Viet Nam. And I'll bet most of the crap I buy is made in China.

Cwazy world...

Libs want to make peace with our muslim brothers and sing cumbaya.

"... what is the Oompa Loompa thinking"

That is what the police wondered.

Beware of green haired Trolls.

If the Iranians send in several thousand troops (they already have anyway) to kill terrorists there is not a lot of down side. So they don't leave? Do we really care? We are at odds with them anyway.

Maybe the Sunnis should have a country, the Shiites, and the Kurds too!

Part of the problem is the artificial boundaries set after WWI.

Good News;
President of Iran indicated that Iran would be willing to offer support in the Iraqi government’s fight against the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which has made significant territorial gains in the country over the last week.

Today the Sunnis and the Shiites, and even the Kurds are fighting against ISIL

It's just like when the Iranians helped Israel during their airstrike mission to destroy Iraq's Nuclear facility. They provided a distraction and an exit plan to Israel that included Israel fighters refueling in Iran.

Hopefully the Iranian's and the ISIS kill each other off. Then we go in and finish the job on both of them. Oh wait, or Coward in Chief is to gutless to do that.

Here is an interesting article:

WORLD
CounterPunch / By Thomas Harrington 120 COMMENTS
Did the U.S. and Israel Want Open-Ended Chaos in the Mideast?
They might have quite coldly and consciously fomented conflict in order to achieve their strategic objectives in the region.
120 COMMENTS120 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print

US President Barack Obama speaks on June 10, 2014 in Washington

June 17, 2014 |




During the last week we have seen Sunni militias take control of ever-greater swathes of eastern Syria and western Iraq. In the mainstream media, the analysis of this emerging reality has been predictably idiotic, basically centering on whether:

a) Obama is to blame for this for having removed US troops in compliance with the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated and signed by Bush.

b) Obama is “man enough” to putatively resolve the problem by going back into the country and killing more people and destroying whatever remains of the country’s infrastructure.

This cynically manufactured discussion has generated a number of intelligent rejoinders on the margins of the mainstream media system. These essays, written by people such as Juan Cole, Robert Parry, Robert Fisk and Gary Leupp, do a fine job of explaining the US decisions that led to the present crisis, while simultaneously reminding us how everything occurring today was readily foreseeable as far back as 2002.

What none of them do, however, is consider whether the chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in Washington and Tel Aviv.

Rather, each of these analysts presumes that the events unfolding in Syria and Iraq are undesired outcomes engendered by short-sighted decision-making at the highest levels of the US government over the last 12 years.

Looking at the Bush and Obama foreign policy teams—no doubt the most shallow and intellectually lazy members of that guild to occupy White House in the years since World War II—it is easy to see how they might arrive at this conclusion.

But perhaps an even more compelling reason for adopting this analytical posture is that it allows these men of clear progressive tendencies to maintain one of the more hallowed, if oft-unstated, beliefs of the Anglo-Saxon world view.

What is that?

It is the idea that our engagements with the world outside our borders—unlike those of, say, the Russians and the Chinese—are motivated by a strongly felt, albeit often corrupted, desire to better the lives of those whose countries we invade.

While this belief seems logical, if not downright self-evident within our own cultural system, it is frankly laughable to many, if not most, of the billions who have grown up outside of our moralizing echo chamber.

What do they know that most of us do not know, or perhaps more accurately, do not care to admit?

First, that we are an empire, and that all empires are, without exception, brutally and programmatically self-seeking.

Second, that one of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet.

Third, that the most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash the target country’s social matrix and physical infrastructure.

Fourth, that ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.

In short, what of the most of the world understands (and what even the most “prestigious” Anglo-Saxon analysts cannot seem to admit) is that divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse to the imperial game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.

To those—and I suspect there are still many out there—for whom all this seems too neat or too conspiratorial, I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:

Pages
12Next page »
View as a single page

Umea is one of the Iraqi women who fight against terrorists named ISIS, or as ISIL. She is Sunni. She killed three of terrorists before her martyrdom.