Iranian Shi'ite expansionism update from The Australian, with thanks to JE:
BAGHDAD: Voting results from Iraq's election show that Sunnis, who ran Saddam Hussein's security apparatus, have been all but expunged from the nation's police and military.The New York Times has reported that in contrast to the remarkable surge in Sunni participation in the political process, partial voting results made public yesterday show the group is severely under-represented in the new security forces.
This is certainly probematic from a political point of view, but since the insurgency is almost exclusively Sunni, it is a measure of pragmatism and prudence to prevent them from infiltrating the security forces.
The Sunnis of Iraq as a block are more educated and secular than the Shiites who are the hillbillies of the Gulf. Despite the insurgency, the Shiites must not be allowed to form their theocratic state, even if that meant assisting some of the Sunnis. I would rather the Sunnis and the Shiites duke it out in drawn out fight that will keep the region busy. Too bad, the Shiites now control all the military and security forces.
If it was not for the War between the Sunni Ottomans and the Shiite Shahs of Iran, a minuscule principality called Moscovoy, most likely, would not have survived to form one of the biggest counter-weights to Islam; vigorously fighting its spread, and suppressing its ideology, and coming to the aid of oppressed Christians under Muslim rule.
The American government should not stop holding back the civil war, an effort that is costing an enormous price in blood and treasure. However, the U.S foreign policy visa-vie Iraq has been set in stone by the Bush moronic administration. Imagine the impact that the Islamic war would have on the global Jihad world-wide. Such war would cost Iran and Saudi Arabia billions of zakat money that would otherwise goes to da’wa and terrorism.
However, a civil war might trigger the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees who would breed into tens of million in a couple of generations.
"a civil war might trigger the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees who would breed into tens of million in a couple of generations"
-- from a posting above
Why would any Infidel country feel obligated to take anyone in? Sunnis can go to Sunni lands, Shi'a to Shia. End of story.
Hugh:
Why would any Infidel country feel obligated to take anyone in? Sunnis can go to Sunni lands, Shi'a to Shia. End of story.
Why indeed! However, “Why” is not the proper question because it requires a logical answer, and there is none. Infidels are saps with bleeding hearts for only Muslims. The Kurdish gas attacks in the 80’s and the uprising in the 90’s filled Europe and America with legions of marauding Kurds. Since there is a much bigger spot light on and media coverage of the region and since the U.S. foreign policy and prestige seems to be tied to it, the outbreak of a civil war would trigger the ferrying of hundreds of thousands of Muslims to infidel lands by Western governments, international aid organizations, and Christian charities.
“Sunnis can go to Sunni lands, Shi'a to Shia..”
I was told that by former Kurdish refugees: yes, they went to the neighboring countries when they fled Sadam however, they were left to wallow in the cold on rain soaked and snow caped mountains by their follow Muslims… Christian Charities tried to help them because the UNHCR was not doing such a good job by their standards, and then these catholic organizations decided that must take them to Europe as either a final destination or a transit stop to the U.S. They were given apartments or houses, monthly stipends for a year, sent to school, and given jobs… And yes, they are not grateful to the infidels… They may hate the Arabs, but they love Islam and their faith was renewed by “their victory” (I thought it was ours!)..