Posted on 08/09/2014 6:15:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I must offer this premise. There is no easy way out nor an easy path to follow. But we are indeed down a path, one that attacks the Sunni backed ISIS. We now have picked sides in a religious war.
What must be realized in this region of the world, the Mideast, is that borders drawn by westerners are of little matter to they who live in the region. And that is precisely what the national delineations are, lines drawn by westerners.
From the Sykes–Picot Agreement which in a fatigued fog resulting from WW I drew up the borders of several countries of the Mideast, to the Balfour Declaration which established Israel, these border formalities come in a distant second to the religious sect affiliations of the Sunnis, Shites and Kurds.
It will be ever thus, a continuation of what has been… ever thus. Yet somehow we believe we must intervene to build a nation or control an area. Folly.
Humanitarian concerns create the complication. What one must ask is why any intervention on our part is not coupled with the Red Cross or the UN. Coupled and complimentary only to the saving of those trapped in the situation.
To insert personnel into regions of religious conflict, then declare we must involve militarily to protect those same people is reminiscent of the Putin game of “we must defend our people”, therefore we must invade.
ISIS is clearly backed by someone with deep pockets. Logic would lead one to those who are Sunni and those who have the cash to sponsor such activities. Saudi Arabia leaps to mind.
The Sunnis may now gather to create a new enemy of the United States. And when, exactly, does the bombing of ISIS not create the “new terrorists” that Obama so fears?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That’s not the religious war that counts. This is geopolitical, though—Iran versus the Saudis, and Obama picked Iran (again).
Dear Mr. Longstreet,
Islam picked civilization as its enemy 1,300 years ago.
Please excuse us as we finally start fighting back again.
Sincerely,
The Civilized World
RE: This is geopolitical, though—Iran versus the Saudis, and Obama picked Iran (again).
If not Iran, then who? The Saudis are better?
We once had the wherewithal to not have to choose between those two. We should have picked Israel, naturally.
Charles Martel fought off the invading barbarian Muslims to save Europe. It seems lately that everyone wants to give up and give in to the barbarians.
Every war is a religious war.
The Barbarians are beheading children.
Stop with the “religion” nonsense already. When a mob of well-funded savages are beheading children, it’s no longer a “religious” war. It’s a will-you-please-stop-them-now-before-I-tear-all=my-hair-out war.
This is how these monsters are winning the PR battle, by calling their ideology of world dominance a religion.
Let’s put it this way, we are bombing ISIS in order to save innocent lives and to prevent this so called Caliphate from over-running our friends, the Kurds.
If it just so happened to benefit Iran, so be it. This is temporary.
We don’t have to let our guard off when it comes to Iran.
“The Howeitat do not carry water”.
So we never picked a side before?
To BenLurkin - Indeed, Islam picked civilization as its enemy - and the Catholic Church. It has always been so.
‘Everyone wants to give in to the barbarians.’ Not only give in to the barbarians - embrace them and ‘love’ the evil right out of them.
Excellent, succinct reply!
That's because all religions are equal, right?
This is a religious war and we must never lose sight of that fact. We are not at war with "Terrorism" as George Bush tried to pretend. Islam is in a war against all non Muslims and the end game is the elimination of everyone who isn't a fundamentalist Muslim.
When the world is ready to acknowledge that politically incorrect fact, then we may be able to mount a meaningful campaign to stop them. But as long as we pretend that these Muslims are the exception rather than the rule, we have no chance of turning this war around.
I think we pretty much have to step in to prevent genocide—especially because our actions have helped bring it about. The best way to do that is a question mark. Right now it seems like we’re doing the absolute minimum to be able to claim we’re helping.
The Mideast is such a mess that I almost think you need to have a war for the parties to exhaust themselves and, finally, establish a new normal and make peace. The only problem is that Obama seems to have a soft spot of the Muslim Brotherhood and the knife out for our traditional allies, including Israel.
Not bloody likely, at least not the government, which means the Royal Family.
ISIS claims to be a caliphate. There is and can be only one caliph. If ISIS were to take over Saudi, the royals would be slaughtered to the last man. (The women would get to be sex slaves for the caliph and his buds.)
Which doesn't mean there aren't wealthy and powerful non-royals inside Saudi who might be supporting ISIS.
If not Iran, then who? The Saudis are better?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.