Absolutely bad idea. With more arms and funds in hand these guys not going to stop at some sort of borders. Iran is strong and organized but the rest of the Middle East and North Africa are in shambles and much easier to conquer. They will spread and with their local branches they will pretty much overrun the half of the world, from the Caucasus down to fuckin' Congo in few decades. I guess this idiot will keep writing stupid blog posts somewhere far far away, when the savages start banging our doors here in Europe.
Edit: Do you guys breeding these retards somewhere, or they are just occurring naturally?
I would just like to point out that what Chef Ramsay posted is originally from Thomas L. Friedman, in an Op-Ed in the New York Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/opinion/go-ahead-ruin-my-day.html), not the blogger he linked to in his post - but yes, apart from that, I agree that Friedman is an idiot.
O.K., so we learn to live with Iran on the edge of a bomb, but shouldn’t we at least bomb the Islamic State to smithereens and help destroy this head-chopping menace? Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?
In 2002, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in Afghanistan (the Taliban regime). In 2003, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein). But because we failed to erect a self-sustaining pluralistic order, which could have been a durable counterbalance to Iran, we created a vacuum in both Iraq and the wider Sunni Arab world. That is why Tehran’s proxies now indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad.
ISIS, with all its awfulness, emerged as the homegrown Sunni Arab response to this crushing defeat of Sunni Arabism — mixing old pro-Saddam Baathists with medieval Sunni religious fanatics with a collection of ideologues, misfits and adventure-seekers from around the Sunni Muslim world. Obviously, I abhor ISIS and don’t want to see it spread or take over Iraq. I simply raise this question rhetorically because no one else is: Why is it in our interest to destroy the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq? Because the Shiite militias now leading the fight against ISIS will rule better? Really?
More..
http://digbysblog.blogspot.de/2015/03/objectively-pro-isis.htmlDespite the awful background in his blog, I agree with digby - arming ISIS more than they are already, and have in the past been by the West, is insane. In my view, a better strategy would be to support the regional powers in handling the situation - within limits of course - because, after all, it's those regional powers that will have to live with the mess, if they screw up.
Also, how exactly is Iran "on the edge of a bomb"? Other than Netanyahu, no one believes they will have a nuclear weapon "next week" (or whatever was the nonsense he came up with) - not even the CIA or Mossad believe that; in fact, to the best of anyone's knowledge, they really aren't working on one - and, with the current nuclear negotiations being successful, won't ever be.
