• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jeb Bush Confronted By College Student: 'Your Brother Created ISIS'

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ignorant people will always be ignorant people.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
23,433
Reaction score
20,562
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In an odd way, she is right.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ignorance can be cured by education, but there's no cure for stupidity.

evidently that college isn't doing a good job, of course most college aren't learning institutions anymore they are political spin machines.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In an odd way, she is right.

For just 19 years old, she is a brave young woman.

Not necessarily accurate in her assessment of the origin of ISIS, but very brave in speaking truth to power. And yes, she might be very accurate.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For just 19 years old, she is a brave young woman.

Not necessarily accurate in her assessment of the origin of ISIS, but very brave in speaking truth to power. And yes, she might be very accurate.

umm what she said wasn't truth it was a lie, but I guess if you repeat a lie long enough as they say.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
77,949
Reaction score
53,306
Location
New England
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Wow. Not THE Ivy Ziedrich.

Well, if a 19 year old said it, it must be true.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
23,433
Reaction score
20,562
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not even close.

Sure she is, it just comes down to a point of view based on conditions.

We have had this debate before, several times. The point of view comes down to the basic reality that during Saddam's rule, and frankly because of that method of rule, there were not pockets of Islamic Extremism or Terrorist Organizations using Saddam's government for safe haven. Saddam viewed any source of leadership outside of his own as competition and a threat over being some sort of makeshift alliance. The real history here is Saddam was such a brutal ideological and paranoid dictator, and there was no real room for an association to al-Qaeda or their activities. Which would have brought even more outside attention to Iraq at the time already dealing with the US and various European nations concerning Kuwait, and dealing with the many attempts by the UN to inspect them for one reason or another. Where al-Qaeda did flourish at the time was Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other pockets in the Middle East.

That does not mean Saddam was not evil and the world is better off without those tyrants. Problem is the region subscribes to a religious ideology, of some flavor, where baked into the text is a government ideology with no aptitude for freedoms, tolerances, self determination, etc. All of those western ideological positions are difficult to take root in a culture where "authority" has such tone. In that context then removing Saddam and installing a weakened government over an even weaker military was bound to cause problems. I've said it this way before, ISIS became successful because of being able to take advantage of weakness. On one side of the border they had Syria in a multiple way long term civil war, and on the other side they had Iraq with such a weak force it became unrealistic to expect them to be able to control all of their borders. ISIS took hold, probably more concerned with the Kurds than the Iraq forces at the time.

Now I will stipulate we accelerated that weakness by pulling out of Iraq leaving behind only enough to train. A residual force might have made a difference but as Jeb Bush himself said it would have become the next South Korea. Where at our expense, we would be there indefinitely as the showing of strength that the current Iraqi government cannot or will not show. The Iraq government did not want that, and we did not obtain the necessary agreements to stay there in a manner we usually want. Namely, impunity from local law.

So, when looking at the entire picture of Iraq (not just Obama's time) then a good argument can be made that Bush 43's actions in Iraq made it possible for ISIS (or someone like them) to take charge of a large portion of the country. So much so that Obama became the 4th President... in a row... to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another. If you would rather blame the entire thing on Obama to make political points against someone you do not like or agree with, so be it. But it would be devoid of the entire history of Iraq and all we did to date.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
38,393
Reaction score
17,193
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sure she is, it just comes down to a point of view based on conditions.

We have had this debate before, several times. The point of view comes down to the basic reality that during Saddam's rule, and frankly because of that method of rule, there were not pockets of Islamic Extremism or Terrorist Organizations using Saddam's government for safe haven. Saddam viewed any source of leadership outside of his own as competition and a threat over being some sort of makeshift alliance. The real history here is Saddam was such a brutal ideological and paranoid dictator, and there was no real room for an association to al-Qaeda or their activities. Which would have brought even more outside attention to Iraq at the time already dealing with the US and various European nations concerning Kuwait, and dealing with the many attempts by the UN to inspect them for one reason or another. Where al-Qaeda did flourish at the time was Afghanistan, Pakistan, and pockets of the Middle East.

That does not mean Saddam was not evil and the world is better off without those tyrants. Problem is the region subscribes to a religious ideology, of some flavor, where baked into the text is a government ideology with no aptitude for freedoms, tolerances, self determination, etc. All of those western ideological positions are difficult to take root in a culture where "authority" has such tone. In that context then removing Saddam and installing a weakened government over an even weaker military was bound to cause problems. I've said it this way before, ISIS became successful because of being able to take advantage of weakness. On one side of the border they had Syria in a multiple way long term civil war, and on the other side they had Iraq with such a weak force it became unrealistic to expect them to be able to control all of their borders. ISIS took hold, probably more concerned with the Kurds than the Iraq forces at the time.

Now I will stipulate we accelerated that weakness by pulling out of Iraq leaving behind only enough to train. A residual force might have made a difference but as Jeb Bush himself said it would have become the next South Korea. Where at our expense, we would be there indefinitely as the showing of strength that the current Iraqi government cannot or will not show. The Iraq government did not want that, and we did not obtain the necessary agreements to stay there in a manner we usually want. Namely, impunity from local law.

So, when looking at the entire picture of Iraq (not just Obama's time) then a good argument can be made that Bush 43's actions in Iraq made it possible for ISIS (or someone like them) to take charge of a large portion of the country. So much so that Obama became the 4th President... in a row... to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another. If you would rather blame the entire thing on Obama to make political points against someone you do not like or agree with, so be it. But it would be devoid of the entire history of Iraq and all we did to date.

Except that ISIS came from the Syrian civil war that was a product, not of the Iraq War, but of the Arab Spring. So no, Bush had nothing to do with it. And, frankly, neither did Obama. Not everything that happens in the globe can be traced back to our action or inaction. ISIS is the product of a religion that has yet to emerge from the Dark Ages.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
umm what she said wasn't truth it was a lie, but I guess if you repeat a lie long enough as they say.

Amen Bro--there are people about who still believe Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the US. A good friend of mine is an ardent Obama Hater, but he is easily fooled and still believes the Legend of Abbottabad. What can we say? People are funny and easily deceived.

It is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. ;)
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,637
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
A college student told likely presidential candidate Jeb Bush that his brother, former President George W. Bush, was to blame for the rise of the Islamic State.

Read the article here: Jeb Bush Confronted By College Student: 'Your Brother Created ISIS'

G.W. Bush also helped Iran by putting their Shia brothers in charge in Iraq.

It was certainly the result of history, where we stand today. Sure Bush should have been more brutal in Iraq. And the Shah in Shah fell, because we were weak and the French gave Khomeini asylum. And had Reagan not won the Cold War, the Russians would not have had to snatch Crimea back. ;)

Had We stopped Assad, when he started shooting at demonstrating students, IS would not have formed in Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sure she is, it just comes down to a point of view based on conditions.

We have had this debate before, several times. The point of view comes down to the basic reality that during Saddam's rule, and frankly because of that method of rule, there were not pockets of Islamic Extremism or Terrorist Organizations using Saddam's government for safe haven. Saddam viewed any source of leadership outside of his own as competition and a threat over being some sort of makeshift alliance. The real history here is Saddam was such a brutal ideological and paranoid dictator, and there was no real room for an association to al-Qaeda or their activities. Which would have brought even more outside attention to Iraq at the time already dealing with the US and various European nations concerning Kuwait, and dealing with the many attempts by the UN to inspect them for one reason or another. Where al-Qaeda did flourish at the time was Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other pockets in the Middle East.

That does not mean Saddam was not evil and the world is better off without those tyrants. Problem is the region subscribes to a religious ideology, of some flavor, where baked into the text is a government ideology with no aptitude for freedoms, tolerances, self determination, etc. All of those western ideological positions are difficult to take root in a culture where "authority" has such tone. In that context then removing Saddam and installing a weakened government over an even weaker military was bound to cause problems. I've said it this way before, ISIS became successful because of being able to take advantage of weakness. On one side of the border they had Syria in a multiple way long term civil war, and on the other side they had Iraq with such a weak force it became unrealistic to expect them to be able to control all of their borders. ISIS took hold, probably more concerned with the Kurds than the Iraq forces at the time.

Now I will stipulate we accelerated that weakness by pulling out of Iraq leaving behind only enough to train. A residual force might have made a difference but as Jeb Bush himself said it would have become the next South Korea. Where at our expense, we would be there indefinitely as the showing of strength that the current Iraqi government cannot or will not show. The Iraq government did not want that, and we did not obtain the necessary agreements to stay there in a manner we usually want. Namely, impunity from local law.

So, when looking at the entire picture of Iraq (not just Obama's time) then a good argument can be made that Bush 43's actions in Iraq made it possible for ISIS (or someone like them) to take charge of a large portion of the country. So much so that Obama became the 4th President... in a row... to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another. If you would rather blame the entire thing on Obama to make political points against someone you do not like or agree with, so be it. But it would be devoid of the entire history of Iraq and all we did to date.

I quit reading at "point of view". Bush administration warned of not just leaving with no residual force in place. Obama administration insisted that we just bail. Period.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
I would have to agree to an extent. Was it an "intentional creation"? No. It was an unintentional consequence of the Iraq War. ISIS grew out of the destabilization, the de-ba'athification, and the all around conflict in Iraq. If we most likely did not invade Iraq, and turn the whole Iraqi state and social society on its head, ISIS would most likely not be around.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Amen Bro--there are people about who still believe Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the US. A good friend of mine is an ardent Obama Hater, but he is easily fooled and still believes the Legend of Abbottabad. What can we say? People are funny and easily deceived.

It is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. ;)

they did find WMD.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

yep you should take your own advice.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,984
Reaction score
3,830
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I would have to agree to an extent. Was it an "intentional creation"? No. It was an unintentional consequence of the Iraq War. ISIS grew out of the destabilization, the de-ba'athification, and the all around conflict in Iraq. If we most likely did not invade Iraq, and turn the whole Iraqi state and social society on its head, ISIS would most likely not be around.

What a stunning lack of knowledge about radical Islam.
The basic premise of the invasion of IRaq has been proved correct. There were some who thought" Well , Bin Laden was behind 9/11, so let's just go after him"
Some saw a bigger picture- that the problem was radical Islam,and wiping ou one giut and his little group will be akin to whack a mole. They have been proved correct.

The solution- establishing functioning Democracies- has proven to be elusive thus far, but tha tdoesn't neagte the initial premise.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
What a stunning lack of knowledge about radical Islam.
The basic premise of the invasion of IRaq has been proved correct. There were some who thought" Well , Bin Laden was behind 9/11, so let's just go after him"
Some saw a bigger picture- that the problem was radical Islam,and wiping ou one giut and his little group will be akin to whack a mole. They have been proved correct.

The solution- establishing functioning Democracies- has proven to be elusive thus far, but tha tdoesn't neagte the initial premise.

What "initial premise"? The Bin Laden premise?
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
23,433
Reaction score
20,562
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I quit reading at "point of view". Bush administration warned of not just leaving with no residual force in place. Obama administration insisted that we just bail. Period.

You quit reading because the head in the sand approach to partisan politics trumps the actual history of the situation. Trust me we get it.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
23,433
Reaction score
20,562
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Except that ISIS came from the Syrian civil war that was a product, not of the Iraq War, but of the Arab Spring. So no, Bush had nothing to do with it. And, frankly, neither did Obama. Not everything that happens in the globe can be traced back to our action or inaction. ISIS is the product of a religion that has yet to emerge from the Dark Ages.

What you are not keeping in mind is those that make up ISIS in Iraq were already there, just not called ISIS. These splintered ideologies under one religion have been fighting for a very long time in one regard or another.

The problem is it took a brutal dictator to keep the various factions in check (well, at least in check to a point.) We removed that, and put in place a government at least somewhat influenced by western ideologies of government. The region does not do well with those ideologies. If you don't believe me go check the government type for those nations we call allies, like Saudi Arabia. They may not be as brutal but they still have that merger of religious and governmental views on "authority" which is baked into that religious text.

Understand I am not supporting Saddam in any regard, just pointing out the obvious history of the region when it comes to governments and the population's response.

Syria then was just an opportunity to jump start ISIS into something we talk about today, Iraq presented an even bigger opportunity. I am not trying to discount the Arab Spring either, just suggesting that ISIS was a product of opportunity and we cause part of that opportunity in Iraq.

Basically because our wants for Iraq trumped what history tells us of this region and the aptitude of the people in it for that sort of change.
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A college student told likely presidential candidate Jeb Bush that his brother, former President George W. Bush, was to blame for the rise of the Islamic State.

Read the article here: Jeb Bush Confronted By College Student: 'Your Brother Created ISIS'

G.W. Bush also helped Iran by putting their Shia brothers in charge in Iraq.

This college student must have read the 2006 Bush era NIE report too! It only concluded that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase to global terrorism, and made America less safe.
 
Top Bottom