• 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!

Would ISIS exist today if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

Would ISIS exist today if Saddam Hussein was still in power?

  • Total voters
    60
Montecresto said:
No. People's are never US interest unless that cause can be used to protect real interests.
Click to expand...

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds
They love George W. Bush for liberating them, but their region's relative stability might not last.....

But a tour through Iraq exposes what happens when America does, in fact, intervene militarily, and so it must have come as a relief to the amigos when they arrived in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. It's been ten years since the U.S.-led invasion, and most will observe the anniversary by remembering the dead and evaluating mistakes. Things are a little different in Iraqi Kurdistan, the northernmost autonomous region where the "invasion" is still referred to -- insistently -- as a "liberation."

It's a strange, parallel universe in which American ideals like freedom from tyranny and economic promise are more intact than they are in America, as is the belief that those ideals can be spread and won through war. Some say that admiration for Americans runs so high that among the younger generation are Kurds named "Bush." I've never met such a child (nor have I ever met anyone who has) but it's plenty surreal that, as the amigos gleefully tweeted, Iraqi Kurds like Americans.....snip~

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds - The Atlantic


:lol:
 
MMC said:
Heya SN. :2wave: What about the Kurds....
.do you think they were an interest?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Supposedly the idea was to restore freedom Kuwait, which never had real freedom to start with- it was and is a monarchy ruled by an emir.
 
This is like someone asking a drunk girl at a party a question. This question is to complicated for any of us to fully grasp.
 
MMC said:
The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds
They love George W. Bush for liberating them, but their region's relative stability might not last.....

But a tour through Iraq exposes what happens when America does, in fact, intervene militarily, and so it must have come as a relief to the amigos when they arrived in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. It's been ten years since the U.S.-led invasion, and most will observe the anniversary by remembering the dead and evaluating mistakes. Things are a little different in Iraqi Kurdistan, the northernmost autonomous region where the "invasion" is still referred to -- insistently -- as a "liberation."

It's a strange, parallel universe in which American ideals like freedom from tyranny and economic promise are more intact than they are in America, as is the belief that those ideals can be spread and won through war. Some say that admiration for Americans runs so high that among the younger generation are Kurds named "Bush." I've never met such a child (nor have I ever met anyone who has) but it's plenty surreal that, as the amigos gleefully tweeted, Iraqi Kurds like Americans.....snip~

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds - The Atlantic


:lol:
Click to expand...

There's always winners and losers in war. The couple hundred thousand that died during the Iraq war, certainly were not the winners. And I don't recall anything in Colin Powell's presentation before the UN, or anybody in BushCo, making the case for war in Iraq based upon any concern for the Kurds, short of exploiting those killed by Saddam with US supplied WMD.
 
apdst said:
That most probably means that Saddam would have allied with ISIS.
Click to expand...

No, he exterminated any threats. Even when they were not threats, just thought they could be.
 
Fenton said:
But prior to Obama's failure to negotiate a SOFA with Iraq who knew about them ?

And where they a threat ?
Click to expand...

Iraq refused to sign on to what the US wanted. That ended any agreement.
 
Montecresto said:
In some respects, the Islamic State is a new name on an old face, with a bit more extremism. But clearly, this group of organised criminals would not be going about the Middle East conducting the campaign that they are. Obviously though, this poll is another attempt to blame this very real problem completely on the Bush administration when the last few decades of USFP in the region has been contributing to the radicalisation and emboldenment of these groups, and the last 7 years in particular have undoubtedly been the most damaging to security and stability in the region. With Hussein, Mubarak Gaddafi and Assad, we had containment. Those figures are absent, and with that is the direct correlation in the rise of Islamic extremism.
Click to expand...
Not all at the feet of US Policy- Religious hatred- corruption- no legal system aside from an assured judgement of guilty - a host of issues that are laid at the feet of the respective dictatorships. And that is just a few.
US involvement is a small issue not the major issues that cause this.
 
JANFU said:
No, he exterminated any threats. Even when they were not threats, just thought they could be.
Click to expand...

He couldn't exterminate anything in the no-fly zone. How many times do in have to point that out?

Also, we have no idea that he wouldn't ally with ISIS.
 
iguanaman said:
ISIS cut their teeth on killing Americans in Iraq. There would be no upset balance of power between Sunni's and Shia, no revolution in Syria and no ISIS if we had left Saddam in power. Actions have consequences and Bush had no clue when he overthrew Saddam.
Click to expand...

That's nothing more than speculation. ISIS could have just as easily cut their teeth in Afghanistan.
 
JANFU said:
Not all at the feet of US Policy- Religious hatred- corruption- no legal system aside from an assured judgement of guilty - a host of issues that are laid at the feet of the respective dictatorships. And that is just a few.
US involvement is a small issue not the major issues that cause this.
Click to expand...

But, not the terrorists? They're in no way to blame?
 
eohrnberger said:
Err, didn't Obama draw a red line in the sand hemming in Syria's Assad? Up until then, wasn't ISIS in Syria pretty well contained and stalemated? Or even the Assad regime gaining ground?
Click to expand...

The Rubicon had already been crossed by that time.
 
Montecresto said:
Syrian regime change is a USFP that predates Obama.

Exclusive: President Obama plans to violate international law by launching airstrikes inside Syria without that government’s consent, even though Syria might well give it. Is Obama playing into neocon hands by providing a new argument for “regime change” in Damascus, asks Robert Parry.

Official Washington’s ever-influential neoconservatives and their “liberal interventionist” allies see President Barack Obama’s decision to extend U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State terrorists into Syria as a new chance to achieve the long-treasured neocon goal of “regime change” in Damascus.

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/11/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan/
Click to expand...

I find it so amazing how the militarist neoconservatives and that R2P liberal crowd seem to go together like hand and glove. Amazing.
 
shrubnose said:
It was also a mistake for the USA to invade Iraq in the First Gulf War.The USA had no vital interests there and should have stayed out of that kerfuffle.
Click to expand...

At least they had the sense to go in and get the hell out.
 
JANFU said:
Not all at the feet of US Policy- Religious hatred- corruption- no legal system aside from an assured judgement of guilty - a host of issues that are laid at the feet of the respective dictatorships. And that is just a few.
US involvement is a small issue not the major issues that cause this.
Click to expand...

There are other factors at work in the Middle East that are not under US control, true. But I speak to what is. The Bush era NIE concludes that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused a sharp increase in terrorism and made the US less safe. Argue with that if you will.
 
Montecresto said:
There are other factors at work in the Middle East that are not under US control, true. But I speak to what is. The Bush era NIE concludes that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has caused a sharp increase in terrorism and made the US less safe. Argue with that if you will.
Click to expand...

Speaking to one set of issues, well does not address all the problems. It is like blaming Bob, but John who was equally or more so at fault gets a pass.
 
apdst said:
Blaming the terrorists for...uh...terrorism is bait? :lamo
Click to expand...

Nope- because I missed mentioning them. Do you want a discussion or not.
Back to you.
 
JANFU said:
Nope- because I missed mentioning them. Do you want a discussion or not.
Back to you.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm here. Care to stop blaming everyone for terrorism, but the terrorists?
 
pbrauer said:
No
Yes
Other
Click to expand...

That is an interesting question. ISIS formed in Syria as a result of their civil war. I don't think if Saddam was still there the Iraqi Army would have beat feet like they did. They would have stood and fought and most likely ISIS would have been driven back into Syria. It definitely would be a whole different ballgame.

Getting rid of the competent leaders of Iraq's army in my opinion had more to do with today's situation than whether Saddam was still there or not. That coupled with Maliki's promoting his friends and fellow Shia, those loyal to him over competence. I think ISIS in Iraq has more to do with Maliki than whether or not Saddam was still around.

I think I will go with other.
 
pbrauer said:
No
Yes
Other
Click to expand...

Actually thinking about this, I would add that ISIS would exist today whether Saddam was still there or not. But probably would be confined to Syria. They wouldn't be in Iraq, but they would be flexing their muscle in Syria and Libya and probably a couple of other countries.
 
apdst said:
That's why I'm here. Care to stop blaming everyone for terrorism, but the terrorists?
Click to expand...

When have I ever not held them accountable.
Now prove your claim.
Or do you have the character to man up and say you made a mistake?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom