We note that the latest news from Iraq is that radical Muslims, the ISIS, ISIL, or whomever, in natty Black uniforms, and Nissan pickup trucks mounted with 50 caliber machines guns, are the latest terrorists in Iraq and fighting Assad in Syria.
This rag-tag bunch of well-uniformed men have defeated the Iraqi army, (which was trained at great expense by the US military,) and have taken Mosul, an unimportant town in Iraq. Exxon and Chevron are up in arms (not literally, they’d prefer other people’s children not their own, die in some unGodly desert).
Why do Exxon and Chevron care? Mosul is the oil pipeline hub of Iraq. If this were some other country, for example Mali, Exxon and Mobil would probably leave it to the French, but in a country with the second largest oil reserves, Mosul is of gripping interest to Exxon and Chevron, who could take the Iraqi oil and sell it to the Chinese for a profit, then Bank the profits in Switzerland or the Bahamas, and then demand ordinary taxpayer both pay for the arms needed to “save Iraq,” and send their children to die there. No Fortunate Son gets sent to die far away.
Paying taxes on their profits, to protect their profits? Why that’s socialism, and shall not be permitted. One might ask Rex Tillerson to buy his OWN
gold golf balls. Everyone knows it's the Government's job to send military enforcers to preserve US economic hegemony. What have taxes got to do with it? If corporations had to pay their own way, how would they ever make a profit?
Using the Air Force to “avoid boots on the ground” to ensure delivery of oil is beyond ironic. The US Air Force is the single largest consumer of liquid hydrocarbons in the world; keeping their planes on the ground would do more for the world and the environment than actually flying them, and this before they drop bombs.
However, such reasoning would require actual intelligence in Washington, and we all know they get their intelligence from others, to save themselves the effort of actually thinking. Some say they pull their intelligence out of the asses, but we believe that gives asses a bad name.
We know the intelligence used in Washington is delivered in Koch Drop$.
We also question the US’ support of ISIS in their opposition to Assad in Syria; they seem to be having some trouble keeping ISIS in Syria and out of Iraq, where the US’ puppet regime continues to be in nominal control. We see a caliphate rising out of the ashes of Syria, Iraq, and regions roundabout. ISIS seems to be the spearhead for that “New Arabian Century” caliphate. Maybe that caliphate will sell Iraqi oil to China, if Exxon and Chevron fail to get the US government involved in protecting the oil that some Bushes sent US troops to save and protect in 1993 and 2003.
In Obama’s sudden speech on Thursday, he referred to the situation in Iraq; while he had grave concerns, he completely failed to illuminate three rather significant questions:
- Why are we supporting opponents of Assad in Syria when they include ISIS, and why are we opposing them in Iraq? At the very least, it's inconsistent. At worst, it's a waste of money, manpower, and lives.
- Who is funding ISIS? And, Why?
- ISIS are considered extreme Sunni Muslims, and one of the most extreme Sunni Muslim countries is one of the US’ BFFs: Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi government, our puppet, is BFFs with Shia Iran, who are our deadliest enemy on the planet, and the harbingers of all that’s Un-American (and therefore automatically wrong) in the world (except when it's Putin in Russia, or the Chinese interfering with Oil profits by subsidizing solar panels).
So we’d ask again. Where is intelligence being applied in Washington, and who are our allies? Better yet, who are our enemies?
We suspect that many events were the consequence of consuming too much Wahhabi with one’s meals in some quarters.
We’d note for the illumination of our leaders that Wahhabi is not Japanese horseradish.