• 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
JANFU said:
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?
Click to expand...

The terrorists are 100% responsible, not The United States.
 
JANFU said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not giving anybody a pass, did you see one. I'm just pointing out that our NIE concludes that what WE'RE doing, is exacerbating the problem, and that we're less safe for it. Now if you want to go have a summit with the other folks that you believe are contributing to the Islamic State problem, you have my support, knock yourself out.
 
MildSteel said:
The Rubicon had already been crossed by that time.
Click to expand...

So even in his failures, he's late and fails yet again? A double failure? (Akin to double face palm?)

Imagine that.
 
apdst said:
That's nothing more than speculation. ISIS could have just as easily cut their teeth in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Except that they were Iraqi Sunni's who would have had no interest in anything but supporting their leader Saddam but noooo. Georgi boy Said Saddam's been a bad man. And he was, the question is was he that much "badder" then when this was taken? There is no wiggling out of it there would be no ISIS, no war in Syria and a much less radical ME had GW used his head instead of his butt. You need to come to grips with that. Bush was warned this would happen and laughed it off. Speaking of laughing, I wonder what those two are thinking?

tumblr_msmxpyfSBX1rncbh7o1_500.jpg
 
iguanaman said:
Except that they were Iraqi Sunni's who would have had no interest in anything but supporting their leader Saddam but noooo. Georgi boy Said Saddam's been a bad man. And he was, the question is was he that much "badder" then when this was taken? There is no wiggling out of it there would be no ISIS, no war in Syria and a much less radical ME had GW used his head instead of his butt. You need to come to grips with that. Bush was warned this would happen and laughed it off. Speaking of laughing, I wonder what those two are thinking?

tumblr_msmxpyfSBX1rncbh7o1_500.jpg
Click to expand...

Yall arent tired of posting those yet?
 
iguanaman said:
Except that they were Iraqi Sunni's who would have had no interest in anything but supporting their leader Saddam but noooo. Georgi boy Said Saddam's been a bad man. And he was, the question is was he that much "badder" then when this was taken? There is no wiggling out of it there would be no ISIS, no war in Syria and a much less radical ME had GW used his head instead of his butt. You need to come to grips with that. Bush was warned this would happen and laughed it off. Speaking of laughing, I wonder what those two are thinking?

tumblr_msmxpyfSBX1rncbh7o1_500.jpg
Click to expand...

What a great picture! Sometimes one picture really can covey more clarity in a situation than volumes written to explain or explain away the history of what really took place.
 
pbrauer said:
No
Yes
Other
Click to expand...

I voted "other." The group that became ISIS was originally a Jordanian group, so it could have existed as a low-level terrorist network. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar group would have developed in Syria as a result of the civil war there. Additionally, if Iraq descended into a Syria-esque civil war, it's highly likely that a jihadist movement would enter or form in order to fight on behalf of Saddam's Sunni regime - he'd ally with whoever was available to maintain power, and many high-ranking military officials in ISIS are former Baathist toadies.

However, I admit that this is nothing more than inference on my part. What I do know was that de-Baathification was a far greater mistake than the invasion itself. More importantly, al-Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS' predecessor) was virtually extinguished by friendly Sunnis when 2008 came around. The sectarian Shia government of Maliki idiotically decided not to integrate these Sunni forces - known as the Awakening Councils or Sons of Iraq - into the security forces and basically told them to go **** themselves. Hence, there were no more local partners in Sunni Iraq to prevent ISIS from spreading. What's essential is that the US keeps such things in mind in any strategy to beat ISIS.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
So even in his failures, he's late and fails yet again? A double failure? (Akin to double face palm?)

Imagine that.
Click to expand...

What was the first failure? With regards to the red line, Assad got rid of his chemical weapons. So what are the two failures about which you speak here? Yes, like any other President and person he has had failures, but here I don't know exactly what you are talking about.
 
pbrauer said:
Saddam Hussein was evil, but he was contained and ISIS is not contained.
Click to expand...
Hindsight is 20/20. .During WWII no one knew that sticking up for the Chinese against the Japanese that China would bite us in the ass a decade or so later.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
I voted "other." The group that became ISIS was originally a Jordanian group, so it could have existed as a low-level terrorist network. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar group would have developed in Syria as a result of the civil war there. Additionally, if Iraq descended into a Syria-esque civil war, it's highly likely that a jihadist movement would enter or form in order to fight on behalf of Saddam's Sunni regime - he'd ally with whoever was available to maintain power, and many high-ranking military officials in ISIS are former Baathist toadies.

However, I admit that this is nothing more than inference on my part. What I do know was that de-Baathification was a far greater mistake than the invasion itself. More importantly, al-Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS' predecessor) was virtually extinguished by friendly Sunnis when 2008 came around. The sectarian Shia government of Maliki idiotically decided not to integrate these Sunni forces - known as the Awakening Councils or Sons of Iraq - into the security forces and basically told them to go **** themselves. Hence, there were no more local partners in Sunni Iraq to prevent ISIS from spreading. What's essential is that the US keeps such things in mind in any strategy to beat ISIS.
Click to expand...


Heya Madlib. :2wave: That's pretty much what Hassan and Weiss has out there on them.




The authors also emphasise that IS is not new, but rather emerged from the ashes of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), one of the most brutal foes of the Americans following their 2003 invasion. AQI was largely defeated after the US convinced local tribes to rise up against them -- a strategy known as "The Awakening", which has deeply influenced IS strategy.

"From the beginning, they've been obsessed with the Awakening," said Hassan. "They've done everything to prevent it happening again: built sleeper cells, bought loyalty, divided communities. "They've succeeded in making internal resistance practically impossible. No tribe will fight them, because they will find themselves fighting their own brothers and cousins."

Although the Baathists were originally a secular movement, Saddam introduced a "Faith campaign" in the 1990s that sought to Islamise society. "Very few people have focused on the impact of that campaign," said Hassan. "It radicalised many Baathists and they combined the violence of the regime with that of jihadism, making them even worse than Al-Qaeda." "But they have combined religion, geopolitics, economics and much more in their ideology.....snip~


IS has built near-impregnable base and mass appeal: new book
 
MildSteel said:
What was the first failure? With regards to the red line, Assad got rid of his chemical weapons. So what are the two failures about which you speak here? Yes, like any other President and person he has had failures, but here I don't know exactly what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Obama's first failure WRT Syria is to make such a ridiculous 'red line' statement in the first place.
Obama's second failure was to make this statement in public, without knowing that he could back it up and make it stick.
Obama's third failure was that he couldn't make it stick.
Obama's fourth failure was that Russia got pulled into it, and in the end, an increase in Russian prominence on the world stage and reduction in US prominence on the world stage.

So, from what I'm seeing, failures all around. It's pretty clear that Obama (or those advising him on this) are complete rubes when it comes to international politics. Give me Kissinger anytime over this lot.
 
eohrnberger said:
Obama's first failure WRT Syria is to make such a ridiculous 'red line' statement in the first place.
Obama's second failure was to make this statement in public, without knowing that he could back it up and make it stick.
Obama's third failure was that he couldn't make it stick.
Obama's fourth failure was that Russia got pulled into it, and in the end, an increase in Russian prominence on the world stage and reduction in US prominence on the world stage.

So, from what I'm seeing, failures all around. It's pretty clear that Obama (or those advising him on this) are complete rubes when it comes to international politics. Give me Kissinger anytime over this lot.
Click to expand...

OK, I see what you are saying. And although I think you have made legitimate criticism here I only agree with you on the first two items. With regards to the third he got rid of Assad's chemical weapons. In regards to the last, it was not a mistake to pull Russia in and although it did give Putin some points, it did not result in the reduction of U.S. prominence. That said, I understand what you are saying.
 
MildSteel said:
OK, I see what you are saying. And although I think you have made legitimate criticism here I only agree with you on the first two items. With regards to the third he got rid of Assad's chemical weapons. In regards to the last, it was not a mistake to pull Russia in and although it did give Putin some points, it did not result in the reduction of U.S. prominence. That said, I understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

I try to keep my criticisms legitimate. Sometimes they are not legitimate, but that's usually related to me not understanding some specific aspect, of which I'm more than willing to learn. Yes, I do change my opinion / position when new information or considerations come to the fore. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom