• 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!

Who's Responsible for ISIS?

Who's more at fault?


  • Total voters
    30

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is the rise of ISIS more of Bush's fault for invading Iraq, or more of Obama's for pulling out, then disregarding the countries direction?
 
Is the rise of ISIS more of Bush's fault for invading Iraq, or more of Obama's for pulling out, then disregarding the countries direction?
How can anyone else be held responsible for what Islamists do?
 
Is the rise of ISIS more of Bush's fault for invading Iraq, or more of Obama's for pulling out, then disregarding the countries direction?

If you want to point at the niche that enabled ISIS to thrive, I think I would look at the civil war that has grown out of the Damascus demonstrations. Sure, there were a couple of glowing enthusiasts before. But without the environment of incalculable war in
Syria they would have remained in their caves but for short forays of small damage.
 
How can anyone else be held responsible for what Islamists do?


Well, I've been watching the cable news outlets, opinions on what caused the rise of ISIS, and they continue to try and place blame. I have to say, it seems pointless because the situation is what it is now.

I would've never went into Iraq, though I would've pulled the troops out completely, like Obama did. And both those decisions were clearly not correct in hindsight. I, personally, don't blame either President for the ME radicals or the growing problem, and doubt anyone could've known what would occur.
 
How can anyone else be held responsible for what Islamists do?

Of course not.we can only try to figure out how they could have come so far so fast. And one thing to learn is that letting the civil war escalate in Syria was a bad idea. Our allies in the region failed miserably.
 
If you want to point at the niche that enabled ISIS to thrive, I think I would look at the civil war that has grown out of the Damascus demonstrations. Sure, there were a couple of glowing enthusiasts before. But without the environment of incalculable war in
Syria they would have remained in their caves but for short forays of small damage.

I believe Syria was to some degree inevitable, because of the Arab Spring uprisings. Russia backs Assad, because he supports their goals on keeping pipelines from providing gas to Europe. And the Turks wanted Assad out because of sectarian differences and aspirations of regional dominance. The whole thing is a sloppy mess now. Nobody really knows who to bomb and who to support?
 
I believe Syria was to some degree inevitable, because of the Arab Spring uprisings. Russia backs Assad, because he supports their goals on keeping pipelines from providing gas to Europe. And the Turks wanted Assad out because of sectarian differences and aspirations of regional dominance. The whole thing is a sloppy mess now. Nobody really knows who to bomb and who to support?

Even during the demonstrations the dangers of civil war were clearly written on the wall, which is why it was so inexcusable that the neighbors did nothing to stop Assad. Our allies flunked that test.
 
Even during the demonstrations the dangers of civil war were clearly written on the wall, which is why it was so inexcusable that the neighbors did nothing to stop Assad. Our allies flunked that test.

I agree completely, but they were all waiting for somebody else to take action. The Saudi's, who have the most to lose, always try to not get involved and risking their oil operations. It took someone to be right on their doorstep, to even act a little now.
 
I agree completely, but they were all waiting for somebody else to take action. The Saudi's, who have the most to lose, always try to not get involved and risking their oil operations. It took someone to be right on their doorstep, to even act a little now.

And it is a pity that our administration did not make it enough clear for the free riders in the Middle East and Europe to understand the consequences of free riding security.
 
And it is a pity that our administration did not make it enough clear for the free riders in the Middle East and Europe to understand the consequences of free riding security.

Our country never learns from our mistakes and keeps up the same rhetorical nonsense. They were saying on FOX today that Hong Kong protestors should keep it up, till they get democracy. I thought, how stupid can you be to keep giving the same self righteous advice that hasn't worked anywhere in the ME?
 
Our country never learns from our mistakes and keeps up the same rhetorical nonsense. They were saying on FOX today that Hong Kong protestors should keep it up, till they get democracy. I thought, how stupid can you be to keep giving the same self righteous advice that hasn't worked anywhere in the ME?

I am not sure that it is bad to fight the fight and am certainly glad our ancestors did.
 
I am not sure that it is bad to fight the fight and am certainly glad our ancestors did.

The problem is that they're not getting what they fighting for only something worse.
 
The problem is that they're not getting what they fighting for only something worse.

But look at us or our parents. Of course, one can die getting there. But if one allows ones government to suppress the population one is responsible for its suppression of ones own children. In one allows it to spend taxes on mass murder, one is an accessory to the crimes. That might not make any difference, of course. All depends on the way one sees these things. Personally, I think it is worth fighting.
 
But look at us or our parents. Of course, one can die getting there. But if one allows ones government to suppress the population one is responsible for its suppression of ones own children. In one allows it to spend taxes on mass murder, one is an accessory to the crimes. That might not make any difference, of course. All depends on the way one sees these things. Personally, I think it is worth fighting.

Many of those countries peoples are not favorable to our version of secular gov't and rule. They were operating on the highest level they probably could, before we invaded or encouraged all this change. The U.S. trying to reinvent the globe in it's own image is a little ridiculous and not working. If we didn't need the oil resources, and they had no capabilities of attacking us directly with weapons, other than some criminal terrorist attacks, we'd have been better off to leave them alone. We're definitely in it now, and not sure how to fight.
 
Many of those countries peoples are not favorable to our version of secular gov't and rule. They were operating on the highest level they probably could, before we invaded or encouraged all this change. The U.S. trying to reinvent the globe in it's own image is a little ridiculous and not working. If we didn't need the oil resources, and they had no capabilities of attacking us directly with weapons, other than some criminal terrorist attacks, we'd have been better off to leave them alone. We're definitely in it now, and not sure how to fight.

Sociologically poorly designed systems of government will always lead to poor results. Also it takes a long time to learn how a system works. So you have to stay a long time for the system to become stable. The more complicated the chosen Instrument for government is and the less force used to keep the direction in place, the longer this period will take. But there is no real question of whether democratic or systems at least similar to democracy are better or not, once a certain level of education and income is reached. But the transition is not always easy.
 
According to Leon Penetta, Obama's former Secretary of Defense, it's on Obama:

Fmr. Defense Secretary blames Obama - CNN.com

He basically said Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Though it's possible that a small contingency left behind might of helped, there's no way of telling if they could've prevented it. ISIS started out and was based in Syria, then they spread so fast, with no resistance from the Iraqi army. I believe leaving al-Maliki as PM so long was the real problem, but he was freely elected.

Sociologically poorly designed systems of government will always lead to poor results. Also it takes a long time to learn how a system works. So you have to stay a long time for the system to become stable. The more complicated the chosen Instrument for government is and the less force used to keep the direction in place, the longer this period will take. But there is no real question of whether democratic or systems at least similar to democracy are better or not, once a certain level of education and income is reached. But the transition is not always easy.

We'll never turn those people into any kind of democracy in the near future. We've been fighting over there for a decade and it hasn't happened. The whole ideology of spreading our governing concept to a fundamentally religious people is not sound reasoning.
 
...
We'll never turn those people into any kind of democracy in the near future. We've been fighting over there for a decade and it hasn't happened. The whole ideology of spreading our governing concept to a fundamentally religious people is not sound reasoning.

Germany was occupied for 50 years and is still more a popular bureaucracy than democracy. Culture is a very persistent thing. You are right there. That is why it is not the responsibility of one country to spread democracy by force. It must be a communal responsibility and serviced by the UN. That requires changing the UN considerably. But that must be done in any event, if we want to avoid a couple of Billions dead in a war later in this century.
 
Germany was occupied for 50 years and is still more a popular bureaucracy than democracy. Culture is a very persistent thing. You are right there. That is why it is not the responsibility of one country to spread democracy by force. It must be a communal responsibility and serviced by the UN. That requires changing the UN considerably. But that must be done in any event, if we want to avoid a couple of Billions dead in a war later in this century.


I simply don't see the imperative for us to push democracy, period. A big portion of the world has some form of it already and it's proven to work, so if they want change, let it come slowly and naturally, without the destabilizing affects that our involvement has been creating. Obama tried to extricate us out of that quagmire but it pulled us back in.
 
If you're a "librul" hating right-wing hack - everything bad that happens is Obama's/Democrats fault.

If you're a "****servatard" hating left-wing jackass - everything bad that happens is Bush's/Republicans fault.

It all depends on the poltical binders one wears as who they place the blame on.

I've stated in numerous threads now, the POTUS (regardless of who it is) can't control or influence what happens in Middle Eastern countries.
Nor any other foreign country for that matter.

The POTUS (regardless of who it is) is not the dictator of the entire planet. What individuals, and groups of individuals do in foreign lands is completely out of the realm of reasonable control when it comes to who the POTUS is.

Child sex-slave trafficing has been going on for decades, if not centuries. America's fault? What about genocide in African nations? Is that America's fault too?

Those who are diametrically opposed to whoever is in control of the White House will blame that person for anything, and everything imaginable. Sun spots. Hurricanes. Earthquakes.
It doesn't matter just as long as the finger of blame points to the person they "hate".

It's truly a destructive and divisive aspect of politics in America now. Rather childish in my opinion too.

I heard the North Koreans were digging tunnels under South Korea and heading for Seoul.
Yep - surely must be the fault of whichever political party you currently despise.
 
I simply don't see the imperative for us to push democracy, period. A big portion of the world has some form of it already and it's proven to work, so if they want change, let it come slowly and naturally, without the destabilizing affects that our involvement has been creating. Obama tried to extricate us out of that quagmire but it pulled us back in.

Democracies have a lower propensity to go to war or even be very aggressive in the international sphere; they normally are more liable to have more reliable legal systems and have fewer blowouts like in Syria or Libya. That reduces the risks of doing business and the costs for international security. From both we profit very strongly.
 
Is the rise of ISIS more of Bush's fault for invading Iraq, or more of Obama's for pulling out, then disregarding the countries direction?

There were no quarters save caves and under rocks for militant Islamic jihadist who wished for a caliphate before Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad were deposed. US foreign policy in the ME has been beneficial to these extremists. And the roots of the Islamic State are in Iraq after Bush arrived and threw Saddam out, as there was no AQI in Iraq prior to that.

The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following ISIL's involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria.[36] A caliphate was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State.[5]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
 
Is the rise of ISIS more of Bush's fault for invading Iraq, or more of Obama's for pulling out, then disregarding the countries direction?

It's neither - if you want to lay blame, it rests solely on the backs of radical clerics within the Muslim faith and with leaders/rulers in the Middle East who foster such radical views by ignoring or encouraging radical clerics within their midsts. Such views predate both Bush and Obama and it appears, at least to me, that it was only a matter of time before circumstances, such as the unrest in Syria, provided an opportunity for ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever other name they may call themselves to strengthen and secure a secondary cause to fight for that leads to their ultimate goal.

An IS type movement has been festering below the surface for decades in the Middle East.
 
Back
Top Bottom