Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[NotfooledbyW]

001

They have lost one third of their country have they not?

EconChick is also one who exaggerates crisis in the favor of the terrorists. The Iraqis have not lost one third of their country to the IS terrorists when calculated in either population or square miles or both.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

Since ISIS was spawned in Syria...and Bush had ZERO to do with what's happening there...how is it that Bush is somehow responsible for ISIS? Is Libya Bush's fault as well? Iran? Afghanistan? Liberia? the Sudan? What pray tell...is Barry's fault? He's been in office for six YEARS! Surely HIS foreign policy must have kicked in by now?

The 'Arab Spring' is responsible for ISIS. You had brutal, oppressive, and largely agnostic'ish regimes that kept militant Islam is check. Most of which we supported, directly or tacitly. The 'Arab Spring' lead to a domino of collapsing leadership in the region or collapsing political stability and civil war. It was within this considerably chaos that militant islamic organizations like ISIS grew.

ISIS as a powerhouse in the region is a very recent phenomenon.....all post Arab Spring. WIth ISIS growing to real significance in the last 18 months or so.

One could argue that Bush is responsible for the Arab Spring if you took his 'promotion of democracy in the middle east' rhetoric seriously. If not, its a bit of a stretch. And Obama had little to do with either.

Since the "Arab Spring" took place after Bush left office, while Obama was President and conducting our foreign policy I find it astounding that you think Barack Obama had "little to do" with the growth of ISIS! How can you describe ISIS as a "recent phenomenon" and yet absolve Obama for it's successes in Iraq? I'm sorry, Skylar but I'm not following your line of reasoning here.

 

[Camp]

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

Anyone remember the photo's a video's of foreign Muslim troops coming over the Iraq border from Syria to hunt down and kill American troops? We had everything we needed to continue the push of our armored forces into Syria. We could have had tanks parked in his front yard in a matter of days. We had the air power on sight to oblivate

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

Since ISIS was spawned in Syria...and Bush had ZERO to do with what's happening there...how is it that Bush is somehow responsible for ISIS? Is Libya Bush's fault as well? Iran? Afghanistan? Liberia? the Sudan? What pray tell...is Barry's fault? He's been in office for six YEARS! Surely HIS foreign policy must have kicked in by now?

Do you misinform on purpose of is that just the way your mind works. Your post are some of the least credible on this board. You never give links to how you come up with your nonsense. Basically your comments are just a waste of time. The ideas that anyone who knows even the basic history of ISIS would claim it was spawned in Syria is just ridiculous. Do you really not comprehend that ISIL begat ISIS and eventually IS?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But the idea that conservatives are going to succeed in laying the blame for what's now happening in Iraq (ISIS is a Sunni-sponsored attempt at retaking the reigns of power) on Obama is laughable. They'll only succeed in formulating an argument which conservatives will accept because of their penchant to embrace revisionist history in all it's forms if and when it paints themselves as heroes or victims by blaming anyone and everyone else for their own policy failures.

The right wing propaganda and hate machine led by talk radio lies but consistent repeat after repeat has inflicted some damage on Obama's approval rating on foreign policy. Part of that is due to the unholy alliance between the right wing haters and the anti-war left wherein the latter don't like much of what Obama has done that is closer to what conservatives would do if they god forbid held the White House ever again. Such has surging troops in Afghanistan in 2009.

Obama has been as close to right as can be on Iraq. Maliki has stepped aside so perhaps the new Iraqi government and army can get drive out ISIS with US air support and whoever else in the world will step up as Obama has already done.

The sickest thing of all by these conservatives is there loving adoration for David Cameron juxtasposed against their contempt and cries of 'weakness' by Obama, when Obama is the only world leader that has been bombing ISIS targets for several weeks now and KILLING them.

Cameron is dropping food on Iraq and that its.


.

 

[Camp]

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

Since ISIS was spawned in Syria...and Bush had ZERO to do with what's happening there...how is it that Bush is somehow responsible for ISIS? Is Libya Bush's fault as well? Iran? Afghanistan? Liberia? the Sudan? What pray tell...is Barry's fault? He's been in office for six YEARS! Surely HIS foreign policy must have kicked in by now?

The 'Arab Spring' is responsible for ISIS. You had brutal, oppressive, and largely agnostic'ish regimes that kept militant Islam is check. Most of which we supported, directly or tacitly. The 'Arab Spring' lead to a domino of collapsing leadership in the region or collapsing political stability and civil war. It was within this considerably chaos that militant islamic organizations like ISIS grew.

ISIS as a powerhouse in the region is a very recent phenomenon.....all post Arab Spring. WIth ISIS growing to real significance in the last 18 months or so.

One could argue that Bush is responsible for the Arab Spring if you took his 'promotion of democracy in the middle east' rhetoric seriously. If not, its a bit of a stretch. And Obama had little to do with either.

Since the "Arab Spring" took place after Bush left office, while Obama was President and conducting our foreign policy I find it astounding that you think Barack Obama had "little to do" with the growth of ISIS! How can you describe ISIS as a "recent phenomenon" and yet absolve Obama for it's successes in Iraq? I'm sorry, Skylar but I'm not following your line of reasoning here.

Unless you learn how ISIS was created from ISIL and became IS you will just continue to view the issue like a uneducated fool and simply inject foolish comments. If you refuse to learn on the subject you will stay stupid on the subject. Unless you of course are attempting to purposely mislead people for some warped political agenda,

 

[Oldstyle]

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

But that was a nationalist+religious in its sense. If you ask them who they fought, they will not say catholics or orthodox, they will say Serbs vs Croats.

Nationalistic idea vs Religious idea.

Thats the difference.

Nationalistic idea belongs to a much later layers of our history, comparing to Religious ideas. But not too far from what we call "civilized"

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

There always have been a Serbia and a Croatia, but there have never been a Syria nor an Iraq.

Thats the reason why it is such a challenge to hold them together.

Because they never existed in the first place...

They are just a failed attempt of "Nation Building"..., a very disappointing one too...

Whoa...seriously? There have always been a Serbia and Croatia? Tell me you didn't just say that...

What is modern day Serbia has at various times been part of the Ottoman Empire as well as Yugoslavia. The same goes for Croatia and Bosnia.

Iraq has existed as a center of power under multiple names dating all the way back to the beginning of civilization in the Middle East. You can put any label you want on it.

Syria is another word for the Levant and has also been a seat of power under multiple titles since well before the birth of Christ.

All of the above areas were at one time part of the Ottoman Empire and were created when it was dissolved following WWI.

 

[Oldstyle]

But the idea that conservatives are going to succeed in laying the blame for what's now happening in Iraq (ISIS is a Sunni-sponsored attempt at retaking the reigns of power) on Obama is laughable. They'll only succeed in formulating an argument which conservatives will accept because of their penchant to embrace revisionist history in all it's forms if and when it paints themselves as heroes or victims by blaming anyone and everyone else for their own policy failures.

The right wing propaganda and hate machine led by talk radio lies but consistent repeat after repeat has inflicted some damage on Obama's approval rating on foreign policy. Part of that is due to the unholy alliance between the right wing haters and the anti-war left wherein the latter don't like much of what Obama has done that is closer to what conservatives would do if they god forbid held the White House ever again. Such has surging troops in Afghanistan in 2009.

Obama has been as close to right as can be on Iraq. Maliki has stepped aside so perhaps the new Iraqi government and army can get drive out ISIS with US air support and whoever else in the world will step up as Obama has already done.

The sickest thing of all by these conservatives is there loving adoration for David Cameron juxtasposed against their contempt and cries of 'weakness' by Obama, when Obama is the only world leader that has been bombing ISIS targets for several weeks now and KILLING them.

Cameron is dropping food on Iraq and that its.


.

The biggest "surge" in Afghanistan was implemented by none other than Barack Obama! Your ignorance on this topic is something to behold.

Obama has "stepped up"? Really? After creating the situation that ISIS exploited, Barack Obama has finally been shamed into taking some action by the horrible deaths of two American journalists and the murders of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq. Before that took place Barry was perfectly willing to look the other way while he patted himself on the back for "stopping" the war in Iraq.

 

[alpine]

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

But that was a nationalist+religious in its sense. If you ask them who they fought, they will not say catholics or orthodox, they will say Serbs vs Croats.

Nationalistic idea vs Religious idea.

Thats the difference.

Nationalistic idea belongs to a much later layers of our history, comparing to Religious ideas. But not too far from what we call "civilized"

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

There always have been a Serbia and a Croatia, but there have never been a Syria nor an Iraq.

Thats the reason why it is such a challenge to hold them together.

Because they never existed in the first place...

They are just a failed attempt of "Nation Building"..., a very disappointing one too...

Whoa...seriously? There have always been a Serbia and Croatia? Tell me you didn't just say that...

What is modern day Serbia has at various times been part of the Ottoman Empire as well as Yugoslavia. The same goes for Croatia and Bosnia.

Iraq has existed as a center of power under multiple names dating all the way back to the beginning of civilization in the Middle East. You can put any label you want on it.

Syria is another word for the Levant and has also been a seat of power under multiple titles since well before the birth of Christ.

All of the above areas were at one time part of the Ottoman Empire and were created when it was dissolved following WWI.

Good points, but as you already have said; there WERE civilizations on the mid east...

And where are they now?

Gone, right.

Buts Serbs were calling themselves Serbs under Ottomans, for 500 years. While me people were what? Not Mesopotamian, not Babylonian, not Assyrian, none of the above, but sunni and shia.

Serbia has always been there, although it was religion what divided it. Even under Yugoslavia, there was a Serbia. Ask any Serbs, they will tell you.

There was no Iraqi, or Syrian, before west draw the borders after the world war...

 

[Skylar]

Since the "Arab Spring" took place after Bush left office, while Obama was President and conducting our foreign policy I find it astounding that you think Barack Obama had "little to do" with the growth of ISIS!

Its only 'astonishing' if you assume that the US president is responsible for anything that happens in the middle east. Or has the type of control over such events that would have have allowed him to plausibly control the Arab Spring.

I'm not so inclined. Nor, it seems, is any US president. Or any world leader.

How can you describe ISIS as a "recent phenomenon" and yet absolve Obama for it's successes in Iraq? I'm sorry, Skylar but I'm not following your line of reasoning here.

If the successes came *after* our pullout per the SOFA that Bush negotiated, how then is it Obama's responsibility? Our involvement in Iraq ended before ISIS rose to power.

You've claimed that Obama should have 'forced' Iraq to ignore the SOFA and act against the will of the Iraqi people and their own policy positions. Um, somehow.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your reasoning. We agreed to leave at the end of 2011. We left at the end of 2011. How is abiding our agreements and following Bush's time line either a failure of policy or 'Obama's fault'?

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

Anyone remember the photo's a video's of foreign Muslim troops coming over the Iraq border from Syria to hunt down and kill American troops? We had everything we needed to continue the push of our armored forces into Syria. We could have had tanks parked in his front yard in a matter of days. We had the air power on sight to oblivate

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

Since ISIS was spawned in Syria...and Bush had ZERO to do with what's happening there...how is it that Bush is somehow responsible for ISIS? Is Libya Bush's fault as well? Iran? Afghanistan? Liberia? the Sudan? What pray tell...is Barry's fault? He's been in office for six YEARS! Surely HIS foreign policy must have kicked in by now?

Do you misinform on purpose of is that just the way your mind works. Your post are some of the least credible on this board. You never give links to how you come up with your nonsense. Basically your comments are just a waste of time. The ideas that anyone who knows even the basic history of ISIS would claim it was spawned in Syria is just ridiculous. Do you really not comprehend that ISIL begat ISIS and eventually IS?

ISIS tried to establish themselves in Iraq but were driven out of the country back in 2008 by the Awakening movement. They reformed in Syria, grew in strength because of the Syrian civil war's chaos and then once again attacked the western parts of Iraq, moving into the power vacuum created by the pull out of American forces.

 

[Oldstyle]

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

But that was a nationalist+religious in its sense. If you ask them who they fought, they will not say catholics or orthodox, they will say Serbs vs Croats.

Nationalistic idea vs Religious idea.

Thats the difference.

Nationalistic idea belongs to a much later layers of our history, comparing to Religious ideas. But not too far from what we call "civilized"

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

There always have been a Serbia and a Croatia, but there have never been a Syria nor an Iraq.

Thats the reason why it is such a challenge to hold them together.

Because they never existed in the first place...

They are just a failed attempt of "Nation Building"..., a very disappointing one too...

Whoa...seriously? There have always been a Serbia and Croatia? Tell me you didn't just say that...

What is modern day Serbia has at various times been part of the Ottoman Empire as well as Yugoslavia. The same goes for Croatia and Bosnia.

Iraq has existed as a center of power under multiple names dating all the way back to the beginning of civilization in the Middle East. You can put any label you want on it.

Syria is another word for the Levant and has also been a seat of power under multiple titles since well before the birth of Christ.

All of the above areas were at one time part of the Ottoman Empire and were created when it was dissolved following WWI.

Good points, but as you already have said; there WERE civilizations on the mid east...

And where are they now?

Gone, right.

Buts Serbs were calling themselves Serbs under Ottomans, for 500 years. While me people were what? Not Mesopotamian, not Babylonian, not Assyrian, none of the above, but sunni and shia.

Serbia has always been there, although it was religion what divided it. Even under Yugoslavia, there was a Serbia. Ask any Serbs, they will tell you.

There was no Iraqi, or Syrian, before west draw the borders after the world war...

Since Syria is another word for the Levant and the Levant existed before Christ was born, it's hard for me to see how you can say that they never existed. Is it a question of the "labels" placed upon the countries that were formed from the destruction of the Ottoman Empire? Since so many civilizations under so many names have called the Fertile Triangle home what would you have had them choose for names when doing the partition?

 

[Skylar]

But the idea that conservatives are going to succeed in laying the blame for what's now happening in Iraq (ISIS is a Sunni-sponsored attempt at retaking the reigns of power) on Obama is laughable. They'll only succeed in formulating an argument which conservatives will accept because of their penchant to embrace revisionist history in all it's forms if and when it paints themselves as heroes or victims by blaming anyone and everyone else for their own policy failures.

The right wing propaganda and hate machine led by talk radio lies but consistent repeat after repeat has inflicted some damage on Obama's approval rating on foreign policy. Part of that is due to the unholy alliance between the right wing haters and the anti-war left wherein the latter don't like much of what Obama has done that is closer to what conservatives would do if they god forbid held the White House ever again. Such has surging troops in Afghanistan in 2009.

Obama has been as close to right as can be on Iraq. Maliki has stepped aside so perhaps the new Iraqi government and army can get drive out ISIS with US air support and whoever else in the world will step up as Obama has already done.

The sickest thing of all by these conservatives is there loving adoration for David Cameron juxtasposed against their contempt and cries of 'weakness' by Obama, when Obama is the only world leader that has been bombing ISIS targets for several weeks now and KILLING them.

Cameron is dropping food on Iraq and that its.


.

The biggest "surge" in Afghanistan was implemented by none other than Barack Obama! Your ignorance on this topic is something to behold.

I think you may want to reread what you're responding to. Because you seem to be unclear on who the poster is attributing the Afghanistan surge to. And when.

Obama has "stepped up"? Really? After creating the situation that ISIS exploited, Barack Obama has finally been shamed into taking some action by the horrible deaths of two American journalists and the murders of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq.

No, the Arab Spring created the situation that ISIS exploited. Obama didn't create the Arab Spring, or even the conditions for it. Worse, the agreement that Obama followed was negotiated and signed by none other than GW himself.

Remember that whole 'shoe dodging' incident? That was when Bush was in Iraq to sign the very SOFA agreement that Obama was bound to. But its Obama's fault that we left at the end of 2011.....when it was Bush that signed the SOFA that mandated that we leave by the end of 2011?

Um, I'm not following your reasoning.

Before that took place Barry was perfectly willing to look the other way while he patted himself on the back for "stopping" the war in Iraq.

Actually, Obama fought to keep thousands of troops in Iraq beyond our end of 2011 deadline. The Iraqi government refused.

Your argument is literally that Obama should have forced Iraq to keep our troops against their will. And that's ridiculous.

 

[alpine]

Since Syria is another word for the Levant and the Levant existed before Christ was born, it's hard for me to see how you can say that they never existed. Is it a question of the "labels" placed upon the countries that were formed from the destruction of the Ottoman Empire? Since so many civilizations under so many names have called the Fertile Triangle home what would you have had them choose for names when doing the partition?

"Is it a question of the 'labels' "

No, it is a question of identity, what people identify themselves with..

There have always been people on this world, who identified themselves as Serbs, as far as the history of nationality idea is concerned.

Have you ever heard anybody identifying themselves as Levantians? To claim such would be silly, right?

There always have been a nationality of Serbian, but no Levantian, nor Syrian...

Makes sense?

Identity of a Middle Easterner at the moment doesn't have more than sunni or shia on it..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The right wing propaganda and hate machine led by talk radio lies but consistent repeat after repeat has inflicted some damage on Obama's approval rating on foreign policy. Part of that is due to the unholy alliance between the right wing haters and the anti-war left wherein the latter don't like much of what Obama has done that is closer to what conservatives would do if they god forbid held the White House ever again. Such has surging troops in Afghanistan in 2009. .

You should have taken a better look at what I wrote above before you accuse others of ignorance.

The biggest "surge" in Afghanistan was implemented by none other than Barack Obama! Your ignorance on this topic is something to behold.

Do you ever or admit you are wrong or do you just run away like EconChick does?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ISIS tried to establish themselves in Iraq but were driven out of the country back in 2008 by the Awakening movement. They reformed in Syria, grew in strength because of the Syrian civil war's chaos and then once again attacked the western parts of Iraq, moving into the power vacuum created by the pull out of American forces.

So you agree with me that AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists were driven out of the country prior to Bush leaving office in January 2009?

So you agree with me that AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists fighting and terrorizing Iraqis prior to 2009 were one of the groups engaged in combat with US Troops as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

So you agree with me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was for the purpose of taking the alleged stockpiles of WMD away from the Baathist regime in Baghdad under Saddam Hussein.

So you agree with me that IS terrorists moved to Syria and were formed and hardened in Syria?

And that formation of IS Terrorists in Syria had nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom and the national security matter involving Iraq and the UN inspection process and WMD being hid from UN inspectors in March 2003?

So you agree with me and the entire world that Operation Iraqi Freedom came to an end in December 2011?

So Obama and anyone else was correct to say in 2011 that the War Bush stupidly and dishonestly started regarding WMD in Iraq had come to an end for US combat troops. The war was over.

And since ISIS had not formed to the lethal levels of 2014 back in 2011 it is fair to accept that seeing something like a terrorist group far worse than AQ or AQI was not clear on anyone's radar. Do you agree and if not why not?

So you agree with me that the current military operation in Iraq consisting of advisers and airstrikes in close cooperation with the Iraqi government is a new war? It is not about WMD any longer.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since the "Arab Spring" took place after Bush left office, while Obama was President and conducting our foreign policy I find it astounding that you think Barack Obama had "little to do" with the growth of ISIS!

Its only 'astonishing' if you assume that the US president is responsible for anything that happens in the middle east. Or has the type of control over such events that would have have allowed him to plausibly control the Arab Spring.

I'm not so inclined. Nor, it seems, is any US president. Or any world leader.

How can you describe ISIS as a "recent phenomenon" and yet absolve Obama for it's successes in Iraq? I'm sorry, Skylar but I'm not following your line of reasoning here.

If the successes came *after* our pullout per the SOFA that Bush negotiated, how then is it Obama's responsibility? Our involvement in Iraq ended before ISIS rose to power.

You've claimed that Obama should have 'forced' Iraq to ignore the SOFA and act against the will of the Iraqi people and their own policy positions. Um, somehow.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your reasoning. We agreed to leave at the end of 2011. We left at the end of 2011. How is abiding our agreements and following Bush's time line either a failure of policy or 'Obama's fault'?

I'm amused by your willingness to assign someone who is routinely described as "the most powerful man in the world" no power at all, Skylar! The truth is...Barack Obama would have major influence in the Middle East IF HE SO CHOSE! His choice however was to abdicate that influence...something he did early on with his Cairo speech. Barack Obama made it the policy of his government to not use American influence.

As for our involvement in Iraq? It's obvious that it didn't end when we pulled out troops at the end of 2011 because we're back in Iraq with troops on the ground and air strikes from the air.

What you refuse to admit is that Barack Obama held huge sway over Iraq's policies because we were subsidizing the Maliki regime with billions of dollars in aid. If Obama had WANTED to play hardball with Maliki then he could have gotten just about any concession he wanted by threatening to cut off that aid. Obama didn't DO that however because he wanted to be out of Iraq. That was HIS decision.

 

[Oldstyle]

ISIS tried to establish themselves in Iraq but were driven out of the country back in 2008 by the Awakening movement. They reformed in Syria, grew in strength because of the Syrian civil war's chaos and then once again attacked the western parts of Iraq, moving into the power vacuum created by the pull out of American forces.

So you agree with me that AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists were driven out of the country prior to Bush leaving office in January 2009?

So you agree with me that AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists fighting and terrorizing Iraqis prior to 2009 were one of the groups engaged in combat with US Troops as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

So you agree with me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was for the purpose of taking the alleged stockpiles of WMD away from the Baathist regime in Baghdad under Saddam Hussein.

So you agree with me that IS terrorists moved to Syria and were formed and hardened in Syria?

And that formation of IS Terrorists in Syria had nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom and the national security matter involving Iraq and the UN inspection process and WMD being hid from UN inspectors in March 2003?

So you agree with me and the entire world that Operation Iraqi Freedom came to an end in December 2011?

So Obama and anyone else was correct to say in 2011 that the War Bush stupidly and dishonestly started regarding WMD in Iraq had come to an end for US combat troops. The war was over.

And since ISIS had not formed to the lethal levels of 2014 back in 2011 it is fair to accept that seeing something like a terrorist group far worse than AQ or AQI was not clear on anyone's radar. Do you agree and if not why not?

So you agree with me that the current military operation in Iraq consisting of advisers and airstrikes in close cooperation with the Iraqi government is a new war? It is not about WMD any longer.

Agree with you?

When did you say half of the stuff you just claimed to have said? Those were my statements. You're doing well not to drool on yourself when you come here to debate. Don't claim my thoughts as yours...

 

[idb]

One thing that no-one's addressed - going right back to the OP;
Why would anyone listen to GWB's predictions when he has been so spectacularly wrong on everything else to do with the Middle East?

 

[Oldstyle]

One thing that no-one's addressed - going right back to the OP;
Why would anyone listen to GWB's predictions when he has been so spectacularly wrong on everything else to do with the Middle East?

Are you making the case that he was wrong on what would occur if US troops were prematurely withdrawn from Iraq? I'm critical of many things about George W. Bush's Iraq policy but THAT particular call was pretty much spot on!

 

[Siete]

43 predicted it ?

sure he did, he signed off on the timeline.