War in Iraq Spawn ISIS?

[DeletedUser24821]

Is the USA Republican led government of 2001-2009 to blame for the destabilization of Iraq, consequences of which perhaps spawned ISIS?

Be reminded that the motives were to disarm Iraq of WMD, which evidence shows they never existed prior to or after the war, and to overthrow the government led by Saddam Hussein.

 

[DeletedUser18851]

Yes, it is mostly America's fault... but can't blame it all on the republicans. Our invasion, destabilization and susequent de-Ba'athification, along with our continued support for al-Maliki (Obama's fault), has launched and solidified Iraq into a quagmire of sectarian violence that created the perfect spawning pool for ISIS.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is NOT the US fault.
Did US involvement in the region contribute quite possibly, however like many parts of the world there have been extremists and radical groups for centuries there. ISIS is just the latest and currently most visible one much as Alquida (sorry about spelling) was in 2000.

While I won't argue that the US motives for our actions were morally pure I do firmly believe that the intent was to create a safer world for everyone and improve the conditions for those who live in the region.

As the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Arguments about methods and results asside we tried to give the people of Iraq a chance at a better way of life without a tyrannical dictator.
Unfortunately instead of seeing this as a chance for improved peaceful society, radical leaders have seen it as their chance to become the next dictator and kill or terrify anyone who doesn't agree to their specific views.

Again these type people have been in that region for centuries, US involvement didn't create them, the culture did and the effects of our involvement allowed them to flourish as it were in a manner they possibly wouldn't have otherwise.

 

[DeletedUser24821]

It is NOT the US fault.

Again these type people have been in that region for centuries, US involvement didn't create them, the culture did and the effects of our involvement allowed them to flourish as it were in a manner they possibly wouldn't have otherwise.

So you say that because of the destabilization, caused by the USA Iraq War, ISIS was able to flourish, and if USA had not invaded Iraq then ISIS wouldn't exist at its level and potentially never gained such power? So how is it "NOT the US fault"?

I do firmly believe that the intent was to create a safer world for everyone and improve the conditions for those who live in the region.

That is if you believe it is perfectly "moral" to invade a country you suspect has WMD, though there is ZERO evidence to prove so. Also NATO members: France, Germany, Canada, and non-NATO member Russia were opposed to military intervention "due to high level of risk to the international community's security, and defend disarmament through diplomacy."

So concerning WMDs, there was no threat to the world, perhaps only to those who live in the region. Argueable however as conditions have only become worse.

• Child Malnutrition rate rose to 28%.
• 60-70% of Iraqi children were reported to be suffering from psychological problems in 2007
• As many as half of Iraqi doctors left the country between 2003 and 2006
• The use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus by the U.S. military has been blamed for birth defects and cancers
• Nearly 3 million Iraqis have been displaced
• Coalition forces cause deaths of civilians as a result of bombing and missile strikes
• U.S. Army personnel used torture and prisoner abuse

This goes on, however I think this points that the conditions for those who live in the region have improved.

I believe the U.S. led coalition didn't seek diplomatic resolutions, as France proposed to the U.N., and used far excessive military action along with violating human rights abuse.

Perhaps the intent was there, but they terribly failed. They also have no evidence of WMDs which I believe is the main cause of the Iraq War. They USA went in there and nourished ISIS's growth.

 

[DeletedUser]

None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
Obviously Zeltchoron you have your own personal view and aren't interested in actual open discourse that might not fit with your entrenched opinion.

Think my post was pretty clear, yet you want to try twisting my words.
Whatever, I'm not really interested in engaging in a debate with someone who is only interested in getting support for their own narrow view of the world.

Have a good day

 

[Algona]

Is the USA Republican led government of 2001-2009 to blame for the destabilization of Iraq, consequences of which perhaps spawned ISIS?

Interesting idea. If you had stopped with just asking that question, it could have led to an interesting debate.

'Tis a pity, we'll never see that conversation.

----------

A little because I'm pissed off at the Bush and Obama Administrations incompetence re Iraq, and a little because I feel like venting this AM...

I think we screwed the pooch royally in Iraq. We went in without having a firm idea of what to do when we won and with no exit strategy.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Being the world's bully ain't that bad, it beats the hell out of being the countries being destroyed. Being a stupid incompetent bully though? Frikkin' disastrous.

Dear USA

If we are gonna do criminal things, please be competent criminals.

kthnxbye, random.US.citizen

Once we were in Iraq, take over the whole country. Herd everyone out. Set up interdiction around the oil wells, pump them dry immediately. Bribe countries we give a damn about with the oil money. Leave. No money, no terrorists, no army, no problems. Everyone in the world goes, 'Hmmm, best not mess with USA'. Hire all the broke starving Iraqis as the armies to take on the next idiots, (NKorea, looking at you!) stupid enough to futz with us.

That's how the mafia does stuff. Who messes with the mafia?

----------

Of course the alternative, the US not do stupidly criminal things, should be mentioned. Not because that will happen, the US has a long proud history of doing stupid criminal things.

But gosh, it could happen?

Don't be silly. About a week after we quit being the assholes of the world some other bunch of assholes will decide they want to run the world. Think about some of the groups in history that tried to rule the world.

----------

Which leads to a fun question, if you could choose what group, present or past to rule the world, who would you choose? I'd go either Roman Republic circa 150 BC or British Empire circa 1880.

 

[DeletedUser24821]

Being the world's bully ain't that bad.

I am so glad you mentioned this. I do think it is that bad. USA shouldn't be stickin' its nose in every armpit of the world. USA has many internal affairs it should attend to first. There are consistent, monthly, mass shootings across the country in which people, mostly republicans, attempt to .blame it is mental health issues, if the person is white; or racism, if the person is black; or terrorism, if the person is Muslim. Republicans go up in arms as soon as a Democrat ushers the word "gun control", citing the second amendment - however gun control doesn't take away their guns only increase the difficulty, for criminals or those mentally ill, of obtaining it for those kinds of individuals. Please America, sort your own issues out instead of causing more. Btw, you don't see any other country, besides arguable Russia, policing the world.

Which leads to a fun question, if you could choose what group, present or past to rule the world, who would you choose? I'd go either Roman Republic circa 150 BC or British Empire circa 1880.

I would agree with the Roman Republic, I've always loved them.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

There were huge problems with the roman republic by that time and those problems were the seed for the civil wars leading to the principate.

 

[Algona]

There were huge problems with the roman republic by that time and those problems were the seed for the civil wars leading to the principate.

True dat. Who would you choose?

Zeltchoron, please don't snip quote a partial sentence of mine, it gives the wrong meaning to what I said. To wit:

I am so glad...that...USA... should... be stickin' its nose in every armpit of the world...I've always loved them.

I'd appreciate it.

 

[DeletedUser24821]

@Algona You said it isn't bad that USA is the world's policeman, though you mentioned these actions are stupid and ridiculous. I agree. However I don't agree USA should be the world's policeman, that is a job for the UN. I didn't give your words a wrong meaning as far I as I am aware, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Algona]

@Algona You said it isn't bad that USA is the world's policeman, though you mentioned these actions are stupid and ridiculous. I agree. However I don't agree USA should be the world's policeman, that is a job for the UN. I didn't give your words a wrong meaning as far I as I am aware, please correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong. Partial sentence quoting changed the meaning and nuances of what I wrote. You compounded it by adding the period to make it seem like it was a complete sentence.

I demonstrated this by partial quoting you. If someone just reads that quote they would get the idea that you love the US. I get the feeling that may not be the case.

So I'll ask again, please don't snip quote a partial sentence of mine. I think that's a reasonable request.

Oh, and when you paraphrase someone, you should verify the person agrees with what you think they are saying, you may not have understood.

For example, I never said the US was the world's policeman. You seem to think I did. I used the exact words I wanted to give the exact meaning I wanted.

 

[Mustapha00]

Is the USA Republican led government of 2001-2009 to blame for the destabilization of Iraq, consequences of which perhaps spawned ISIS?

Be reminded that the motives were to disarm Iraq of WMD, which evidence shows they never existed prior to or after the war, and to overthrow the government led by Saddam Hussein.

If you read the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In Iraq, WMD is mentioned in one (possibly two) of the more than a dozen justifications for going to war. Far more of them rely on various UN Resolutions, passed after the first Gulf War and constantly violated by Saddam Hussein.

On the issue of WMDs themselves, we actually did find a sizable amount of munitions and materials which Saddam was not permitted to own and which should have been verified as destroyed. For example, we found thousands of tons of yellowcake uranium and hundreds of artillery shells with chemical agents in them. It is true that the chemical munitions were 1980s vintage, but the age of them is irrelevant: Saddam Hussein was required to account for all the weapons he possessed as a condition of the First Gulf War cease fire. He did not, and thus the US and it's coalition partners were entirely justified in invasion and regime change.

And speaking of regime change....it became the official policy of the United States to seek regime change in the 1990s under Democrat President William Jefferson Clinton. Many of the same Democrats who turned against the war when it began to go bad under Bush enthusiastically supported missile attacks and more under Clinton.

The deplorable conditions in Iraq and the rise of ISIS/ISIL is the fault of President Barack Hussein Obama and his feckless national security team (including the failed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton). Before he left office in 2009, George W. Bush's implementation of the Surge strategy and the con-current Anbar Awakening had produced a largely pacified and generally peaceful (when judged by the standards of the region) Iraq. All that was left to do was to negotiate and sign a Residual Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq which would have allowed the US to station some number of troops in the country, as we do in many other countries (South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.) in order to pursue remaining terrorists and otherwise "keep the peace". The Bush Administration negotiated it but left it for Obama to sign....and he failed to do so, preferring to keep a campaign promise to his rabid base rather than attempt to continue to ensure peace in Iraq. If you want to refer to a "power vacuum" in Iraq, there it is....and ISIS, backed by Iran, happily moved to fill it. This is what you get when you elect a "community organizer" who has a record of next to no accomplishment.

 

[Mustapha00]

@Algona You said it isn't bad that USA is the world's policeman, though you mentioned these actions are stupid and ridiculous. I agree. However I don't agree USA should be the world's policeman, that is a job for the UN. I didn't give your words a wrong meaning as far I as I am aware, please correct me if I am wrong.

The UN is not capable of policing a convention of senior citizen Mormons on a field trip to see Yellowstone, much less a region of the world fraught by combat.

Further, UN 'peacekeepers' have a disturbing tendency to rape the native populations where they are deployed. But what else could one reasonably expect of such a fatally corrupt organization such as the United Nations?

 

[DeletedUser13838]

True dat. Who would you choose?

Assuming I can't choose the present I may go with augustan rome (after the purges if I was a senator). Maybe the tang or song dynasties in china.