https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

US Congressman suggests alliance with ISIL against Iran

Dana Rohrabacher is a Republican Representative from the affluent coastal district of Orange County, California. [1]

He also seems to think that terrorism is a good thing, if it's terrorism against people we don't like, like the Iranians. And that while ISIL are a bunch of mean guys, hey, if we can support them in committing terrorism against a nation that is itself a sponsor of terrorism, then, go, ISIL, go!

Of course, that would further establish the US as a sponsor of terrorism, but our terrorism would be Good Terrorism, even if done by Bad Terrorists because it would be against Bad Terrorists and because we're the Good Guys. Everyone wins, amirite?

The good people of Huntington Beach should be so proud.

——

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_48th_congressional_district

View on Google+

36 view(s)  

6 thoughts on “US Congressman suggests alliance with ISIL against Iran”

  1. We always get in trouble when we get involved in kingmaking.

    The Shah of Iran was criticized for human rights abuses, and luckily he was removed from power. That went well for us.

    In fact, it went so well that we had to counter the power of the Ayatollah by supporting the leader of Iraq. That went well for us.

    Meanwhile, as the Soviet Union was engaging in some kingmaking of their own, we countered the move to assisting Afghan freedom fighters. That went well for us…

    Now there are some cases in which our intervention was a net plus – allying with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis comes to mind. But more often than not, we blow it when we muddle in affairs that frankly we don't understand all that well.

  2. +John E. Bredehoft Oh, yes, I forgot to note that Rohrabacher suggested supporting Joseph Stalin in WWII as a precedent for this.

    Of course, what we were assisting Stalin with was, explicitly, fighting and defeating Germany, not his own internal evils. And the stakes were far far greater for the US (and more so for the UK) than the War on Terror is today.

    And, of course, "that went well for us," too.

    Intervention is sometimes necessary and even morally justifiable. The inevitable blowback doesn't necessarily change that, but willfully ignoring or handwaving or pretending that everything will turn out puppies and unicorns and the public will come out and throw ticker-tape parades for us and we'll all live happily ever after … well, that's where the real trouble begins.

  3. I just don't get the animosity against Iran in the West. As far as I know, all terrorist attacks in the West were commited by Sunni muslims. If there is one country we should get mad at for sponsoring terrorism, it is Saudi-Arabia, yet we continue to be BFF with them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *