Is George W. Bush to blame for ISIS?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:12:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Is George W. Bush to blame for ISIS?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Is George W. Bush to blame for ISIS?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 65

Author Topic: Is George W. Bush to blame for ISIS?  (Read 7340 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 10, 2014, 03:27:28 PM »

Obviously.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2014, 04:41:32 PM »

Somewhat. Although ultimately ISIS is responsible for ISIS. I'm wearing of the far left urge to blame everything on America to the point of absolving the people who actually, you know, committing the acts.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2014, 04:43:44 PM »

No.
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2014, 05:05:07 PM »

Yes he is.

Saddam Hussein would have ruthlessly suppressed them.

I wonder if he feels any guilt about how his actions lead to what is happening in Iraq now or if he's too busy finger-painting like a 5 year old, since he's a "great" painter these days.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2014, 05:21:38 PM »

Somewhat. He probably does feel guilty.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2014, 05:33:42 PM »

Yes he is.

Saddam Hussein would have ruthlessly suppressed them.

I wonder if he feels any guilt about how his actions lead to what is happening in Iraq now or if he's too busy finger-painting like a 5 year old, since he's a "great" painter these days.

Just like Bashar al-Assad has?
Logged
PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald
Mr. Pollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2014, 06:03:55 PM »

No, Iran is.
Logged
OAM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2014, 06:39:49 PM »

Perhaps indirectly, in the same way that Wilhelm II is responsible for Stalin.  Sure, he's a link in the chain, but the rise of ISIS was hardly *inevitable* from his actions.  Instability in general could be more heavily attributed to him, and even then there's caveats that complicate things.  There's been ample chance for the course to have been diverted since then, and by that I don't mean undoing all the damage, but it's like a asteroid.  The further away it is, the less of a push you have to give it to avoid it hitting a very specific spot.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2014, 06:48:16 PM »

No -I blame primarily Presidents Nouri al-Maliki and Barack Obama for the rise of ISIS/ISIL.  As much as Bush screwed up by invading Iraq in the first place, and compounding that by his inept handling of its immediate aftermath, the surge (and Sunni Awakening) helped rectify many of his mistakes -for which I credit him.  And had President Obama followed through by securing a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, we wouldn't be in this position today.  Maliki would have been constrained by the presence of American troops from going after the Sunnis, and the ISIS would have been contained in Syria.  
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2014, 07:23:41 PM »

Perhaps indirectly, in the same way that Wilhelm II is responsible for Stalin.  Sure, he's a link in the chain, but the rise of ISIS was hardly *inevitable* from his actions.  Instability in general could be more heavily attributed to him, and even then there's caveats that complicate things.  There's been ample chance for the course to have been diverted since then, and by that I don't mean undoing all the damage, but it's like a asteroid.  The further away it is, the less of a push you have to give it to avoid it hitting a very specific spot.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2014, 07:26:05 PM »

Bush bears some responsibility for having toppled Saddam and put the Shias in power in the name of "democracy" rather than crafting a plan which allows the Sunnis substantial autonomy. Were the United States not to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, the US-installed Shia government would not have existed, much less radicalized the Sunnis. To blame Obama for failing to secure a Status of Forces Agreement neglects to mention that Maliki was threatened with armed uprising by al-Sadr if such an agreement were reached.

However, Obama does bear some blame as well (arguably to a similar extent as Bush's) for fomenting the rebellion in Syria that allowed ISIS to gain a foothold. Even if one argues that his administration has only been providing assistance to the "moderate" rebels (whose very existence is dubious), the fact that a similar policy was followed in Libya yet strengthened Islamist elements anyway merely serves as encouragement to the less savory elements of the Syrian rebellion. However, it is difficult to assign much blame to Obama for this, as a Sunni population in Iraq that was not maligned by the Maliki government probably would not have succumb as easily to a few ragtag radicals.

Much as I would like to blame Bush and Obama for creating ISIS as an unintended consequence of their meddling, it is possible that the courses of action not taken could have led to a similar outcome. If Saddam had been left in power, there remains the possibility that the Shia would have risen up against him anyway (as they did in 1991), and seized power, in which case they would have been unlikely to be friendly to their former Sunni oppressors.

While continuing to have U.S. troops in the region and bribing the Sunnis tribes to fight radicals may have prevented ISIS from taking over the Sunnis areas, I do not believe it would be responsible for American policy to expend American soldiers and money to die for a side in a sectarian conflict.
Logged
PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald
Mr. Pollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2014, 07:28:13 PM »

People keep talking about the Shias and the Sunnis and they fail to mention that people are fightning for their lives in the middle east: they don't care about semantics like that.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2014, 07:49:28 PM »

No. It's mostly Al-Maliki fault.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,086
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2014, 07:59:43 PM »

At most a tiny fraction of the blame....like less than 1%.  Anybody that thinks that the majority of blame goes to Bush the Lesser has some serious issues and shouldn't be taken seriously on the important topics of the day.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2014, 08:19:13 PM »

Of course not.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2014, 08:29:22 PM »

Maliki deserves most of the blame, as far as Iraq is concerned. I would hope everyone could agree on that much.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,086
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2014, 08:36:33 PM »

Well, more than W, but most of the blame should go to the actual bastards doing the horrible acts.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2014, 08:41:01 PM »

Maliki deserves most of the blame, as far as Iraq is concerned. I would hope everyone could agree on that much.

No, I'd say most goes to Saudi Arabia.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2014, 08:55:06 PM »


Mostly perhaps, but the fact that ISIS probably wouldn't exist without Bush's invasion is quite valid especially as everyone in the past couple years has come to agreement it was a major blunder and f**k up and the consequences are being reaped today. Another dark mark on Bush's legacy.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2014, 09:01:19 PM »

Well, more than W, but most of the blame should go to the actual bastards doing the horrible acts.

That's like saying that Neville Chamberlain and the Allied countries that imposed the terrible Treaty of Versailles terms shouldn't be blamed at all for Nazi Germany and all of the blame only goes to Hitler and the Nazis. Well of course the Nazis alone are primarily responsible for their actions, that much is obvious. But that hardly exonerates the other mentioned people whose actions both led to their rise and were quite obviously foolhardy, even at the time.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2014, 10:11:18 PM »

Eisenhower's fault for the 1953 Iranian coup, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution, Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Gulf War, Gulf War II, and the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq.

The fact that ISIS probably wouldn't exist without Eisenhower's Iranian intervention is quite valid especially as everyone in the past couple of decades has come to agreement it was a major blunder and f**k up and the consequences are being reaped today. Another dark mark on Ike's legacy.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2014, 10:14:54 PM »

Not this again...
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2014, 10:16:47 PM »

Well, more than W, but most of the blame should go to the actual bastards doing the horrible acts.

That's like saying that Neville Chamberlain and the Allied countries that imposed the terrible Treaty of Versailles terms shouldn't be blamed at all for Nazi Germany and all of the blame only goes to Hitler and the Nazis. Well of course the Nazis alone are primarily responsible for their actions, that much is obvious. But that hardly exonerates the other mentioned people whose actions both led to their rise and were quite obviously foolhardy, even at the time.

No, that's like saying Ralph Nader is to blame for ISIS because without him, Bush would never even have been elected to begin with.

Neville Chamberlain was directly involved in Hitler's military success because his Treaty of Munich allowed more time to Hitler to build up the Wehrmacht and invade Poland (btw, you've already lost this debate based on Godwin's law). When Bush left office, no one was talking about ISIS. They were an irrelevant, powerless group. The group's rise has occurred in the past two years, and Syria was instrumental. If the democratic forces in Syria had triumphed and Assad been overthrown, there would never be the vacuum of power in western Syria that allowed such a radical group to thrive.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2014, 10:21:14 PM »


Gavrilo Princip's fault for assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand.  Without that assassination, no World War I, dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, or the eventual establishment of Iraq as an independent state.  And thus, no ISIS.

The fact that ISIS probably wouldn't exist without the assassination of the archduke is quite valid especially as everyone in the past century has come to agreement it was a major blunder and f**k up and the consequences are being reaped today. Another dark mark on Princip's legacy.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2014, 10:30:48 PM »

If the democratic forces in Syria had triumphed and Assad been overthrown, there would never be the vacuum of power in western Syria that allowed such a radical group to thrive.

I think you mean eastern Syria.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 14 queries.