Ironically, one can look back at Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait as setting in motion much of what you are predicting might transpire. Had that invasion not occured, Iraq would likely have remained Sunni dominated (albeit with a restive Shiite majority), acting as a counterweight to Iranian (Shia) ambitions and extending some military muscle to the Saudis. In addition, Iraq would have likely facilitated the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria by Takfiri forces as there wouldn't have been the existence of Iraqi Shiite militias to come to his aid.
Putting it another way, American neocons might ultimately be to blame for losing Mecca to the Shiites.
Interesting observation. One clarification since I was not clear enough - the issue is not, for the West, Shiite vs Sunni per se - but the radical Shiism of the Islamic Republic of Iran vs the more moderate Sunnism of the Lebanese, Jordanians, Moroccans, Indonesians and non-Brotherhood Egyptians. ISIS is a fanatical Sunni group, much as the Taliban are.
The theory way back when was that Iraqi Shiites were the moderate balance to Iran (they were but had no experience of political power) and that putting them in charge in Iraq would hopefully cancel out Iranian-Shiite fanaticism.
That didn't happen for various reasons and ISIS took over Iraq after the Obama withdrawal. They were so scary that Obama invited the Russians into Syria and allowed the Iranians into Iraq.
In hindsight of course, Saddam was the balance to Iran that would have stopped the spread of Iranian influence. This was the arrogance of the West in thinking that under the right circumstances all cultures can adopt Western ways of governing.
My recollection is the neocons believed that the historical enmity between Arabs & Persians would prevent the Shiite Iraqis from aligning with Iran.
Rather than it being completely Western arrogance (although there is usually some of that), it was primarily ignorance or misunderstanding of the Arab world in believing that Iraq could be transformed into a Western democracy.
Absolutely. I have to admit I also thought Western style democracy could be established - but after 30 years in the middle east, I realize that is not do-able. And to tell you the truth, I am not sure it would be good for the world. Not everyone wants to live as a free person.
In what the late Saddam Hussein once dubbed “the great Satan,” roughly two-thirds of the United States enlisted military corps is white . . . The fat, bulbous U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin once confirmed in a 93-2 vote of the U.S. Senate, immediately embarked on a whirlwind media tour of duty, telling the pseudo-secular sycophants in the state-controlled tabloid press and state-controlled television talk show circuit about how the U.S. Army is full of bad racist white men.
Senior Defense Department leaders celebrating yet another Pride Month at the Pentagon sounding the alarm about the rising number of state laws they say target the LGBTQ+ community, warned the trend is hurting the feelings of the armed forces . . . “LGBTQ plus and other diverse communities are under attack, just because they are different. Hate for hate’s sake,” said Gil Cisneros, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for personnel and readiness, who also serves as DoD’s chief diversity and inclusion officer.
And now the U.S. Army is doing ads begging for more young white males? What happened?
Even with a full-on declaration of war from Congress, and even if Gavin Newsome could be cheated into the Oval Office by ZOG somehow, with Globohomo diversity brigades going door-to-door looking to impress American children into military service, they will be met with armed, well-trained opposition, the invasion at the Southern border is going full tilt, and the drugs are flowing in like never before.
Get ready for it . . . the fat old devil worshipping fags on Capitol Hill, on Wall Street, in Whitehall, and in Brussels are in no shape to fight a war themselves, and most Americans are armed to the teeth with their own guns . . . NATO hates heterosexual white men . . . they said so themselves . . .
Ironically, one can look back at Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait as setting in motion much of what you are predicting might transpire. Had that invasion not occured, Iraq would likely have remained Sunni dominated (albeit with a restive Shiite majority), acting as a counterweight to Iranian (Shia) ambitions and extending some military muscle to the Saudis. In addition, Iraq would have likely facilitated the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria by Takfiri forces as there wouldn't have been the existence of Iraqi Shiite militias to come to his aid.
Putting it another way, American neocons might ultimately be to blame for losing Mecca to the Shiites.
Interesting observation. One clarification since I was not clear enough - the issue is not, for the West, Shiite vs Sunni per se - but the radical Shiism of the Islamic Republic of Iran vs the more moderate Sunnism of the Lebanese, Jordanians, Moroccans, Indonesians and non-Brotherhood Egyptians. ISIS is a fanatical Sunni group, much as the Taliban are.
The theory way back when was that Iraqi Shiites were the moderate balance to Iran (they were but had no experience of political power) and that putting them in charge in Iraq would hopefully cancel out Iranian-Shiite fanaticism.
That didn't happen for various reasons and ISIS took over Iraq after the Obama withdrawal. They were so scary that Obama invited the Russians into Syria and allowed the Iranians into Iraq.
In hindsight of course, Saddam was the balance to Iran that would have stopped the spread of Iranian influence. This was the arrogance of the West in thinking that under the right circumstances all cultures can adopt Western ways of governing.
My recollection is the neocons believed that the historical enmity between Arabs & Persians would prevent the Shiite Iraqis from aligning with Iran.
Rather than it being completely Western arrogance (although there is usually some of that), it was primarily ignorance or misunderstanding of the Arab world in believing that Iraq could be transformed into a Western democracy.
Absolutely. I have to admit I also thought Western style democracy could be established - but after 30 years in the middle east, I realize that is not do-able. And to tell you the truth, I am not sure it would be good for the world. Not everyone wants to live as a free person.
In what the late Saddam Hussein once dubbed “the great Satan,” roughly two-thirds of the United States enlisted military corps is white . . . The fat, bulbous U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin once confirmed in a 93-2 vote of the U.S. Senate, immediately embarked on a whirlwind media tour of duty, telling the pseudo-secular sycophants in the state-controlled tabloid press and state-controlled television talk show circuit about how the U.S. Army is full of bad racist white men.
Senior Defense Department leaders celebrating yet another Pride Month at the Pentagon sounding the alarm about the rising number of state laws they say target the LGBTQ+ community, warned the trend is hurting the feelings of the armed forces . . . “LGBTQ plus and other diverse communities are under attack, just because they are different. Hate for hate’s sake,” said Gil Cisneros, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for personnel and readiness, who also serves as DoD’s chief diversity and inclusion officer.
And now the U.S. Army is doing ads begging for more young white males? What happened?
Even with a full-on declaration of war from Congress, and even if Gavin Newsome could be cheated into the Oval Office by ZOG somehow, with Globohomo diversity brigades going door-to-door looking to impress American children into military service, they will be met with armed, well-trained opposition, the invasion at the Southern border is going full tilt, and the drugs are flowing in like never before.
Get ready for it . . . the fat old devil worshipping fags on Capitol Hill, on Wall Street, in Whitehall, and in Brussels are in no shape to fight a war themselves, and most Americans are armed to the teeth with their own guns . . . NATO hates heterosexual white men . . . they said so themselves . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/138320669/nato-an-anti-white-and-anti-family-institution