Ignorance can be cured by education, but there's no cure for stupidity.
Not even close.In an odd way, she is right.
In an odd way, she is right.
ignorant people will always be ignorant people.
GWB is living proof of that statement.
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.
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 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.
umm what she said wasn't truth it was a lie, but I guess if you repeat a lie long enough as they say.
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.
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.
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.
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.
they did find WMD.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
yep you should take your own advice.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?