>> Because ISIS wasn't a problem until things went to pieces in Syria.
Okay, I get it.
No you don't get it.
Bush created the problem in 2003-2008, but it wasn't a problem from 2009-2012, then it was a problem.
No, it was a problem right along.......the car bombings and other terrorist attacks continued on during 2009-12 but we had become inured to those attacks. Its when Syria fell into chaos and ISIS migrated to Syria that it caught our attention again.
And it is all Bush's fault.
Not entirely but he played a big role. Try to follow and understand:
The Brits carved up the ME in a way that didn't make a lot of sense. They put the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, a very unhappy marriage...........the Sunni minority ascended to power and were led by Hussein. The Sunnis had white privilege........were the elite and held most of the power and wealth of Iraq outside of the Kurdish region. The Sunnis and Shia have a long unhappy history with the Shia being the blacks of the ME. Hussein was an asswipe but friendly with the Reagan administration. He kept things together in Iraq for decades. HW Bush chose to leave him alone instead of deposing for that very reason.
Then deranged Cheney and milquetoast Bush came along and decided without any good reason to remove Hussein from power. Like I have said to you in the past that was the equivalent of opening Pandora's Box. Because they are clueless douchebags, they had no real plan on how to replace Hussein. The majority Shiite with the backing of Iran quickly ascended to power under the guise of democratic reform.............they were corrupt and nearly as abusive as the Sunnis. The Kurds had a lot of the oil and started pulling away. The Sunnis became pissed and disfranchised. They started working with ISIS, creating a disastrous mess that only got worse when Assad screwed up in Syria.
So yeah, Bush/Cheney, are major culprits behind the formation of ISIS. I regret now that Obama didn't bring charges against Bush/Cheney.........but of course the Great Recession that was enabled by Bush/Cheney was wracking the nation and he had enough trouble on his hands.
If you had one ounce of objectivity you would recognize how illogical is that claim. It is just absurd.
Its you who doesn't have any objectivity. You really don't understand the ME and its history, and you are way too American to ever get it.
I don't think Obama is going to be able to lay this mess off on Bush. He can argue that Bush started the war and he wouldn't have done that. But the truth is that it doesn't get him off the hook at all: We cannot know, and have no reason to suspect at all, that ISIS would not have existed in Syria either way.
History, unblemished by partisanship and ideology, will lay the blame at Bush's feet.
You can argue that Saddam wouldn't have permitted the incursion into Iraq in serious numbers but you really can't confidently claim that Saddam would even be dictator in Iraq today even had Bush not removed him. It is likely one of the sons would have taken over -- and that it would have been even more brutal than under Saddam.
So what? You are just babbling now. |
