Saturday, April 13, 2013

Never enough blood

How shocking from a National Review asshole, and there's no bigger one than Daniel Pipes.

Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar Assad.

Here is my logic for this reluctant suggestion: Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict.
The death of's good for my decrepit soul.



winky popo said...

The very ideas that got us in to our middle eastern messes for years.

StonyPillow said...

Surely such a Machiavellian genius would have loudly protested the Iraq war, in order that Saddam Hussein would remain a counterbalance to the Iranian mullahs. Oh, wait.

pansypoo said...

how imperialist.

Montag said...

Funny, the Iraq-Iran war went on for nearly nine years, at tremendous monetary cost and a loss of life of approximately 600,000 on each side, and was pretty much fought to a standstill.

In that time, the U.S. played both sides, selling arms to Iran and giving intelligence and selling dual-use technology and chemical weapons precursors to Iraq.

Did it make any difference? No. It helped create the circumstances that led to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (with some assistance and no small amount of remote puppeteering from James Baker III), and certainly the Iraq-Iran war prompted the Iranians to a) accelerate research into nuclear weapons as a countervailing threat against Hussein and, b) to bury their research facilities deeply to prevent their detection and destruction during the war.

So, what Pipes actually seems to be saying--without just coming out with it--is that we ought to encourage such civil and local wars because they make those countries in the Middle East so much easier for us to invade and occupy or to dominate neocolonially (economically, with threats of military force). It's our economic interests that are of ultimate importance in such matters, not the lives of perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians.

And these morons are still wondering why they hate us, or worse, saying that they hate us for our freedoms?

ETC technology said...

Ehmm.. Nice share.. Thx..

Monte Davis said...

Not to mention the runup to WWII, when a significant number of Western policy makers were hoping for a Hitler-Stalin war. They got it, but not as they'd hoped.

Anonymous said...

This is the putz who told USA Today that the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was "just the beginning" of an offensive by Islamic fundamentalists. Good one, Dan. You were really on top of that one.

When Pres. A. Wol McDodger nominated Pipes, one of the most virulent Islamophobes in America, to the board of United States Institute of Peace, the institute already had war hawks Douglas Feith, then undersecretary of defense, and Harriet Zimmerman of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. (AIPAC, you say? Take note Ms. Rubin.) Pipes was so hated Pres. A.Wol had to resort to a recess appointment to get this liar on the institute's board, a recess appointment that is good politics when a Rethuglican does it, but a violation of the Constitution and precursor the the fall of the Republic when Obama does the same damn thing.