• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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'

CRUE CAB said:
Sure it does. Its actually a straight line from leaving with no residual troops to now.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. Not leaving a residual force behind may explain how ISIS managed to gain traction IN Iraq and subsequently spread OUTSIDE of Iraq, but it does NOT explain HOW ISIS came to be, how it formed, what are its origins, its genesis. That's the issue at hand that most posters get confused - ISIS' origin story -vs- its expansion story.
 
KLATTU said:
And why is that? Because it failed so miserably in Europe and Japan?

Are you one of those bigots who believe the Arab people are too stupid to rule themselves?
Click to expand...
.
I thought 'progressives' ( choke gag) were supposed to believe the best in people ,not the worst.
Click to expand...



They're doing a great job in the countries that they rule, eh?

:lamo
 
CRUE CAB said:
I believe there is a direct connection between us leaving Iraq and the formation of ISIS. I have stated that here before.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you may want to reconsider how your dots are connected. Again, drawing a line from one dot - "no residual force" - to the next dot - "the strengthening and spread of ISIS" would make sense. But connecting the first dot - "how did ISIS come into existence" to the dot that would explain "how did ISIS gain in strength and expand outside Iraq's borders" would be a very wild and squiggly line to draw!...like a Bugs Bunny Acme Acres road map.
 
Objective Voice said:
Then perhaps you may want to reconsider how your dots are connected. Again, drawing a line from one dot - "no residual force" - to the next dot - "the strengthening and spread of ISIS" would make sense. But connecting the first dot - "how did ISIS come into existence" to the dot that would explain "how did ISIS gain in strength and expand outside Iraq's borders" would be a very wild and squiggly line to draw!...like a Bugs Bunny Acme Acres road map.
Click to expand...
ISIS came into existence through the disintegration of Syria. It was able to move easily into Iraq because there was nothing and no one to stop them. It is expanding now beyond the boarders of Iraq for the same reason.
 
Ummm...yeah. She's not 'right'. She's lost.

I seem to recall A certain seated president declaring victory in Iraq. Pulling resources. Ignoring...hell...not just ignoring terrorism but refusing to even speak the WORD terrorist.

Sorry...The guy thats been seated behind the desk for the last 7 years gets the credit for the JV team thats kicking his ass.
 
Fletch said:
No it didn't. The idea to create an Islamic state in the Levant didn't just appear in the Obama years.
Click to expand...

You're right, it didn't. And I'm glad to see some even on the Libertarian side was brave enough to admit that. But the issue here isn't whether or not radical Islam had been festering in the ME for years even without Western influence nor is it how ISIS grew and expanded in a post-GWB foreign policy world. The issue is how did ISIS come to be. As such, there is no denying that this radical off-shoot of Al Quaeda would not have come to be had we not invaded Iraq, removed Saddam from power and left a puppy government in power. Anything that's happened after these events would only prove to explain how ISIS managed to grow in power and expand outside of Iraq. They would NOT explain their origin.
 
iguanaman said:
Hmm. Maybe it was who the question was asked to? Or don't you think Jeb is newsworthy?
Click to expand...

I don't think he is but most people do.
 
Objective Voice said:
I strongly disagree. Not leaving a residual force behind may explain how ISIS managed to gain traction IN Iraq and subsequently spread OUTSIDE of Iraq, but it does NOT explain HOW ISIS came to be, how it formed, what are its origins, its genesis. That's the issue at hand that most posters get confused - ISIS' origin story -vs- its expansion story.
Click to expand...

Its origin is Islam. ISIS really isn't a threat to anyone other than innocent civilians in the areas they dominate. They are not numerous or powerful, they are just brutal and evil. There are more people that attend the average pro football game than exist in the ranks of ISIS. Their existence is due to nothing more than a power vacuum. The only thing keeping them from being defeated is the will to defeat them.
 
They fanned the flames of the Arab Spring. They have been spinning like a top on Syria, they called ISIS the 'JV'...and then THIS beauty pretty much explained it all...



And they want to blame someone else.

aiiiiight.

:roll:
 
shrubnose said:
That fails when her mama turns out to be skinny.

Truth beats fiction.
Click to expand...

:lamo You're really not up on Yo Mama jokes are you? The idea is not accuracy, but insulting the subject's mother.
 
iguanaman said:
We still have troops in Afghanistan because their Govt. wants them and is willing to sign a SOFA to prove it. The Iraqi's had the chance to sign a long term agreement with GW Bush but flatly refused. That is what you refuse to remember.
Click to expand...

Greetings, iguanaman. :2wave:

The SOFA that was agreed upon by Iraq was left by Bush for Obama to implement during his term. Maliki tried to change the agreed-upon terms by his predecessors by haggling a bit, which they love to do, and Obama said no and walked away rather than negotiate the number of our boots on the ground and their protection, which he wasn't willing to do. Both countries lost, IMO, and the vacuum that resulted is now plainly evident, since terrorists eagerly jumped in, and Maliki has now had to beg for our assistance.
 
Fletch said:
Its origin is Islam. ISIS really isn't a threat to anyone other than innocent civilians in the areas they dominate. They are not numerous or powerful, they are just brutal and evil. There are more people that attend the average pro football game than exist in the ranks of ISIS. Their existence is due to nothing more than a power vacuum.
The only thing keeping them from being defeated is the will to defeat them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Tell that to those who have died fighting them.
 
Objective Voice said:
I strongly disagree. Not leaving a residual force behind may explain how ISIS managed to gain traction IN Iraq and subsequently spread OUTSIDE of Iraq, but it does NOT explain HOW ISIS came to be, how it formed, what are its origins, its genesis. That's the issue at hand that most posters get confused - ISIS' origin story -vs- its expansion story.
Click to expand...
ISIS 'more dangerous than people realize' - CNN.com
Find the vid on CNN, it lays it all out. If you refuse to believe it. Forget it and wallow in your blame Bush mentality and leave it at that.
 
iguanaman said:
I agree. The fact that Jeb is the front runner proves it. I hope they don't change their minds. It is a losing cause.
Click to expand...

Front runner? I think the nation is weary of dynasties, which certainly is challenging the liberal/progressive front runner.
 
iguanaman said:
I agree. The fact that Jeb is the front runner proves it. I hope they don't change their minds. It is a losing cause.
Click to expand...

Never been afraid to talk about it. We went for a good cause. It was a cause set up by the first Bush administration when Saddam sent people to kill Bush the elder.
Someone comes close to killing your father, what are you going to do?
 
jet57 said:
I saw that video this morning, that girl was relentless and Jeb couldn't handle her. One that has been mentioned that conservatives say that GW Bush 'was in the past' and they don't want to talk about him, but they always talk about Ronald Reagan...

Isn't that interesting.
Click to expand...

No, thats pretty common in both parties. Remember the good, forget the bad.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, iguanaman. :2wave:

The SOFA that was agreed upon by Iraq was left by Bush for Obama to implement during his term. Maliki tried to change the agreed-upon terms by his predecessors by haggling a bit, which they love to do, and Obama said no and walked away rather than negotiate the number of our boots on the ground and their protection, which he wasn't willing to do. Both countries lost, IMO, and the vacuum that resulted is now plainly evident, since terrorists eagerly jumped in, and Maliki has now had to beg for our assistance.
Click to expand...

Actually, Maliki isn't even leading Iraq anymore, that's how much it cost him / us.
 
eohrnberger said:
Actually, Maliki isn't even leading Iraq anymore, that's how much it cost him / us.
Click to expand...

Why do Republicans keep defending Maliki, who insisted on Sharia Law for our Soldiers?
And defending Maliki allowing Iraq to became a puppet for Iran?

Look to the Bush/Cheney puppet Maliki's treatment of the Sunnis to see why Iraq disintegrated !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom