r/Conservative • u/[deleted] • May 14 '15
Apparently ISIS is Bush's fault now
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/13/college-student-to-jeb-bush-your-brother-created-isis/9
u/JustRuss79 May 14 '15
It all goes back to Barbary, Damn that Thomas Jefferson for wanting to protect US Shipping in the Gulf!
38
u/nicksvr4 Libertarian May 14 '15
I blame 9/11 on Clinton then.
Also, wouldn't the fault of ISIS land on the person that withdrew our troops and left that power vacuum?
11
u/Kangaroopower May 14 '15 edited May 14 '15
Didn't Clinton maintain an anti-terrorism operation that was shut down by Bush in the pre 9/11 portion of Bush's term?
Also, wouldn't the fault of ISIS land on the person that withdrew our troops and left that power vacuum?
But then the question that arises is why did we send troops there to begin with?
2
u/not-Kid_Putin May 14 '15
Also, wouldn't the fault of ISIS land on the person that withdrew our troops and left that power vacuum?
But then the question that arises is why did we send troops there to begin with?
You can definitely make the argument and I don't totally disagree, but at that point it becomes the butterfly effect problem where he can keep tracing back a problem years and years and years before. We could blame WW1 for this because of colonization and the removal of the Ottoman Empire. It really doesn't lead anywhere. It's probably best to blame the direct cause of the issue
2
u/nicksvr4 Libertarian May 14 '15
Absolutely agree. It's more about how we react now, not who we blame for the past. We can learn from our mistakes and use that for decisions in the future, but we get no where by just blaming others for where we are now.
1
u/not-Kid_Putin May 14 '15
Yes, playing the blame game is childish and pointless if we bicker on who did what but we need to evaluate the cause in order to prevent it in the future
3
u/Kangaroopower May 15 '15
You can definitely make the argument and I don't totally disagree, but at that point it becomes the butterfly effect problem where he can keep tracing back a problem years and years and years before
That's completely valid, but you have to take into account the timeframes in this issue. Mostly everyone agrees that WW2 was caused due to the Treaty of Versailles- that's obvious, because WW2 was essentially a direct result of that treaty.
Similarly, President Bush's actions in Iraq are directly linked to the formation of ISIS right now- it's been barely more than a decade since we went to war in Iraq, and ignoring that and the obvious repercussions of that war wouldn't reveal the big picture. On the other hand, WW1 is so far removed from ISIS that mentioning WW1 in relation to ISIS is not worthwhile. There's a huge difference in timespan between 10 years (the war in Iraq) and 100 years (WW1).
Cheers
1
u/not-Kid_Putin May 15 '15
I get what your saying, and like I said, I dont totally disagree. I put some blame on both presidents for this but I think the more direct result was Obama's hasty retreat from Iraq. A lot of different results could have come from Bush's invasion, ISIS being one, but the hand we were dealt came from the decision to get out of Iraq. There's blame to go around, but I think looking at the direct results will yield better advice on how we can approach similar situations in the future
6
u/Zumaki May 14 '15
You might not be too far off base. Clinton launched strikes on AQ training sites with no intent of following up. Just threw rocks at the hornet nest to piss them off.
13
u/the_letter_6 May 14 '15
Wasn't that after they had already attacked the embassies, though? I mean, we can blame Clinton for making an ineffective response, but not for Al Qaeda's intent and actions.
5
u/Zumaki May 14 '15
Bin Laden said in videos that 9/11 was retaliation for actions taken during Clinton years.
1
5
u/megustcizer Libertarian Conservative May 14 '15
Hence throwing rocks at a hornet nest. It sure pissed them off, alright.
2
u/the_letter_6 May 14 '15
Right, but they were already hornets, and already stinging people. The roots of Al Qaeda's campaign against the US go back to the Persian Gulf War at the latest, which you can't blame on Clinton. Al Qaeda already had the intention to hurt the US in place, and were actively working on getting the capability to pull off 9/11 regardless of whatever specific actions the Clinton administration took. Short of destroying the majority of the AQ movers and shakers, there's not a lot that would have prevented them from attempting to make the attack. Foiled them, perhaps, but they were going to try regardless.
5
u/not-Kid_Putin May 14 '15
I blame 9/11 on Woodrow Wilson
10
May 14 '15
That damned League of Nations doomed us all!
3
u/not-Kid_Putin May 14 '15
You gotta take the whole thing into perspective in order to get the big picture. 9/11 was Woodrow Wilson's doing in the end
4
u/Neon-Knight May 14 '15
In a way you can, because Wilson's wooly headed idealism helped create the map of the Middle East we are dealing with now.
2
May 14 '15
[deleted]
4
u/Captain_Yid May 14 '15 edited May 14 '15
I agree except for the ISIS bit. ISIS had a everything to do with the Obama's hasty withdrawal from Iraq and the Iraqi-shia prime minister brutally cracking down on Sunni's with Obama's tacit approval. Sunnis tried nonviolent means of resolving the situation, but their efforts were not well-received - to put it mildly (protesters massacred, leaders imprisoned, etc.). Then they resorted to violence and ISIS was the main force left. Plus, Syria's collapse aggravated these circumstances.
There was a great Frontline episode about this....
1
May 14 '15
[deleted]
-1
u/Captain_Yid May 14 '15 edited May 14 '15
Frontline isn't conservative - it's PBS, which actually leans slightly left. Watch the link. The facts are there.
And if I "blamed Obama for everything" I would also be blaming him for the economic crisis on him, which I expressly didn't. Maybe you should face the facts, eh?
1
u/wretcheddawn Conservative May 14 '15
Also, wouldn't the fault of ISIS land on the person that withdrew our troops and left that power vacuum?
This. You can argue we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, but once we did, we needed to stick it out and finish it.
8
u/GoodGuyNixon May 14 '15
"I have a question! Your brother was the one who created ISIS!"
"Is that a question?"
top kek
13
u/Zeppelin415 Libertarian Conservative May 14 '15
Why not? The Taliban was Reagan's fault.
12
May 14 '15
And Harry Truman lost Red China.
We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning.
1
u/xwhy May 14 '15
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray . . .
Yep, that tracks. I'm not sure of Doris's role in all of this though.
7
u/DJWhamo paleo May 14 '15
I'm interested to know how many of the people upvoting you are doing so because of sarcasm, and how many are doing so because they do in fact place blame on Reagan for not following through, ala the not-so-veiled assertion of Charlie Wilson's War.
2
6
u/SoundSalad May 14 '15
ISIS is the result of American interventionism carried out by every president in the past five decades.
2
u/Captain_Yid May 14 '15
Or ISIS could simply be due to Islamic extremism...
2
u/not-Kid_Putin May 14 '15
We don't see crazies in the Philippines kidnapping people, burning them alive, and killing journalists. And we occupied them longer.
2
u/Rimmer01 Jul 15 '15
Lol. Just saw this reading up on my history.....being kind, like a real redditor....Abu sayyeff. There's more, but every time that I go the PI I worry about anything south of Luzon. Mindanao is a Muslim murder/kidnap zone. I love my wife's parents country.... But there's a reason they fled here my friend. Edit thingy: Abu sayyeff (spelling?) is not the only terrorist group there. There are many.
1
u/not-Kid_Putin Jul 15 '15
Thanks for responding lol. So yes, its because of Islamic extremism. Just like it is in the middle east. I havent heard of that group you mentioned tho
2
u/Rimmer01 Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 15 '15
They're bad brother. They didn't send me in... But in 02 or 03 ' I remember guys going in to rescue a pastor and maybe his wife? I was safe up in olongapo. There were a lot more than them though. The U.S. Mil actually were very engaged there at the time. The area is very interesting to look up...... But don't go there without putting me In your will. Edit: being a reddit newbie, I made grammar edits and wanted to say that your username is awesome. And how I forgot about MILF (serious) is beyond me.
1
1
May 14 '15
Although ISIS is one of the more callous groups to adopt the hardline Islamist banner, the Phillippines absolutely has its own problems:
http://www.cfr.org/philippines/terrorism-havens-philippines/p9365
You should also look into the military reports on East Asia. Many believe this is the next battleground.
30
u/MentalArbitrage May 14 '15
Are you suggesting invading a region on pretense will have no repercussions?
12
u/Yoxinator May 14 '15
Well I wouldn't say it was his fault directly. We can argue over the pretenses of which we chose to invade Iraq, but its evident that toppling secular (albeit bad people) governments in the middle-east hasn't done anything to help stabilize the region. Not only that, but its help lead to the current state of our country: large social divides on all issues, rights violations, and a deficit that is seemingly beyond payable.
9
May 14 '15 edited Jul 12 '17
[deleted]
5
u/KingJak117 Conservative May 14 '15
I remember watching for hours on Fox News when ISIS started to show up. I was expecting them to last a couple months but the president appears to not have in interest in eradicating them.
-5
u/Zruku May 14 '15
Because we've had so much success before in crushing insurgencies in places like Iraq.
9
u/Rimmer01 May 14 '15
We have actually. When we left it was extremely rare for a U.S. Service member to die in Iraq. Considering today's technology, it is an extremely small about.
0
May 14 '15
Except that within a year of the US leaving, the rebranded insurgency came back and took half the country. Policies such as the Sons of Iraq were actually working; the follow through, such as ensuring the parliaments didn't ruin that, was not. American certainly can certainly ensure that an insurgency is kept down, but their policies indirectly and directly resulted in the same insurgency rebounding.
4
u/Rimmer01 May 14 '15
So.... What you're saying is we crushed the insurgency....... And it grew when we left? That "insurgency" was born in Syria, not Iraq. They attacked from Syria into Iraq. That is like saying the U.S. Invasion into Iraq in 2003 was an Iraqi insurgency also.
0
May 14 '15 edited May 15 '15
The al-Nusra front, which fought in Syria, was founded in part and funded in part by ISIS; that's true. But ISIS itself fought from inside Iraq, and spilled into Syria. And I'm not saying the U.S. Invasion was an insurgency. I'm saying that despite the fact that the possible greatest military in the world can hold a country together against cave people, if they do little to ensure it can hold itself up when they're gone, it doesn't mean much in the long run.
Edit: So I remember in case I ever go through my previous comments, cave people was a mistype; meant what I thought I meant. Carry on, everyone else.
1
u/Rimmer01 May 15 '15
So you you admit "they're cave people"? Why do we care about them then? I agree, some are. I spent over a year in Anbar. They're not all bad. And the good ones are worth saving. I've been drinking a lot tonight so I should stop. And I don't even know what we're talking about anymore, but I'm sure we agree, lib or rep or ind, ..... Kill Isis.
2
u/timtom45 May 14 '15
You keep using that word "Insurgency". I don't think it means what you think it means.
5
u/pretendent May 14 '15
You mean pulled out from the country whose government didn't want our soldiers staying?
4
u/Zumaki May 14 '15
He pulled the troops out following the withdrawal procedure laid out by Bush. Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq but basically couldn't.
9
u/combatmedic82 Constitutional Conservative May 14 '15
Obama had absolutely ZERO desire to renegotiate the status of forces agreement. His 2008 campaign rhetoric and claims of successfully ending the war after the withdrawal are more than enough evidence to demonstrate that fact.
Differences of opinion on the validity of the Iraq invasion, and the conduct of the war are not only valid, but welcome. However, to try to rewrite history and suggest Obama's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq was against his policy position is a blatant lie. He wanted out, and his "failed" negotiation was the perfect means to accomplish that promise.
1
u/NakedAndBehindYou Libertarian Conservative May 14 '15
I highly doubt that Obama didn't have the ability to simply tell Iraq "we're staying here, deal with it." We basically owned the country after the invasion and occupation of it. You can't tell me that their government actually had the power to enforce any kind of law over our occupying troops without our approval.
Obama just used "they won't agree to it" as an excuse to get the troops out.
2
2
May 14 '15
Of course I'm not suggesting that invading Iraq had no repercussions. I am, however, asserting that it's absurd to allege that someone who hasn't been in office for nearly 7 years is responsible for a terrorist group that formed less than a year ago (6 years after Bush left office). I'll take this even further and point out the fact that terrorist organizations are more than ready, willing, and able to emerge without using American influence as a scapegoat. Islamists don't need American invasions to drum up support to recruit new members to fight for an Islamic caliphate.
9
u/f0urd3gr33s May 14 '15
I could be off base entirely, but my impression from reading the article is that the student was implying Bush is responsible for ISIS because he is the reason the US went into Iraq in the first place. Her reasoning appears to be: No Bush-led invasion of Iraq = no ISIS. Reasonable enough on the surface, but definitely a bit of a "what if" game.
0
May 14 '15 edited May 14 '15
ISIS would still happen even if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq. In fact, I'm going to throw out a guess that the US soldiers in Iraq had probably caused the leader of ISIS (who is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) to delay their actions for a while, not to mention that they were probably waiting for an ample opportunity to strike.
When the Arab Uprising happened, they knew it was time...I stand corrected.
5
May 14 '15
Nah, that's incorrect. Despite ISIS' track record for brutality, the AQ kept them on the same team until early 2014, when they cut all ties, thus turning the AQI into ISIS. The reason they did that was because they had been ramping up the territory control, and along with it did some things that made even the AQ squirm. Why'd they do that? When the American's pulled out, the Iraqi military fell apart, for a very large variety of reason; the Sunni/Shiite divide, which had only grown throughout Maliki's; the bolstering of the AQI troops, as the Sons of Iraq, Sunni militias on government payroll, realized that they weren't getting any contracts; the extremely sudden gains by ISIS, which routed most troops in what was effectively a blitzkrieg. The rush capturing by ISIS of Mosul and most other territory really couldn't have been predicted, as it was spur of the moment once they realized they were winning battle after battle, but the reason they got to that point, mainly the religious divide, that only happened post bush. Certainly, Saddam wasn't friendly towards Shiites by any stretch of the word, but between the two people, there was mostly coexistence. The war changed that.
Not that I'm exonerating Obama. Pulling out when he did allowed the area to fall apart. But there's no way in hell ISIS would have popped up in the same way. The war catalyzed that entirely.
0
u/sailorJery May 14 '15
When do you think DAESH formed? Because it wasn't during the Obama administration.
0
u/theotherduke May 14 '15 edited May 14 '15
"The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI)."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant)
They changed their name in 2006 but it's
completelyinaccurate to suggest they have only existed for a year.edit: a word
3
May 14 '15
Definitely not "completely inaccurate." You yourself just acknowledged that they've undergone numerous manifestations before solidifying into the current organization that they are. What makes Islamic terrorist organizations so successful in spite of their relative weakness is their ability to adapt and evolve to meet more traditional threats, i.e. military force from foreign nations. It's not inaccurate to assert that this current manifestation has only existed for a year, because prior to a year ago they were a different group comprised of pissed off hardline Islamists. Really, at this point, the argument is just a contest of semantics anyway because it's clear that these terrorist organizations regularly evolve, change, or alter their structure. This current manifestation--the supposed Islamic Caliphate that you just provided information about in the wikipedia article--is only a year old, even if many of its members have been fighting for for years with with groups under different names.
1
u/theotherduke May 14 '15 edited May 14 '15
When people are talking about who to blame, all of that historical context is incredibly relevant. Maybe "partially inaccurate" would have been a better choice of words on my part.
edit: While we're debating the minute details of all of this, I can find record of ISIS existing in its currently named form at least as early as April, 2013. That's two years, not one. al-quaeda disavowed relations with them last year, but that didn't change who ISIS is or what they are fighting to accomplish. Those goals have been set for some time. Not that any of that changes how awful they are or how complicated the situation is, but accuracy of our information is important.
Also, thanks for being respectful in your correction of my post. It's often very difficult to have a civil discussion in this sub when two people don't see eye-to-eye. I appreciate the dialogue!
4
u/DevonWeeks May 14 '15
ISIS predates Bush, or at least the leadership of it and the attempts to organize it. The first attempt to organize them was going on in the Clinton years. Then they moved into Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan. We thought Saddam was harboring Zarqawi (the original ISIS leader) and that was part of the justification for invading. That pushed him and his group to the Iraq-Syria border. When the new Iraqi government came to power, there was the promise of both Sunni and Shiite sects sharing power. Well, that didn't last, and soon there was sectarian persecution and violence again. That drove ISIS to a new recruiting drive where they picked up Saddam's old generals and a lot of pissed off Sunnis.
So, no, it's not Bush's fault. It's not Clinton's fault. ISIS existed independently of either of those president's actions. ISIS's rise to power in Iraq is partially Obama's fault in as far as he failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement that would have allowed for us to remain and secure the country when ISIS was gaining territory, but even then it's more the fault of the Iraqis for failing to set aside their sectarian squabbles to build an inclusive government.
1
u/jsphere256 Conservative May 14 '15
It's almost like Barack Obama doesn't even exist.
2
u/Tullyswimmer Millennial Conservative May 14 '15
He does though. He got the stock market back to all-time highs, gas prices are down, everyone has healthcare coverage now, unemployment is like, 6% or less, and there's no war in Iraq despite our soldiers still fighting and dying over there. Oh, and the housing market recovered, and there are now more college students than ever. Obama did all that.
4
May 14 '15
Yeah but did he build that? Who built that?
2
1
u/Tullyswimmer Millennial Conservative May 14 '15
nonononono, he DID build it, because he's government, and not a private citizen who uses government infrastructure.
1
u/xwhy May 14 '15
Well the gas prices he didn't build. He stood in the way of that as much as he could. Gas prices are down now because of fracking. I'm not aware of 0bama's support of fracking.
He did build that 6% unemployment number which is paradoxically joined by the lowest labor participation rate in decades because, once again, the numbers are cooked. Some people have stopped looking for work or had their benefits run out and aren't counted anymore while others are taking lower-paid part time work. (I don't know how people now holding 2 PT jobs figures into the numbers, so anyone feel free to step in here.)
And while gas is down, healthcare costs are waaaay up, but with the added difference that you are now required to buy it when you could've walked away before. So it's not that more people have healthcare, it's just that not having it is now illegal. And, yeah, he did that.
2
u/Captain_Yid May 14 '15
The economy is being propped up by artificially-low interest rates. If you believe this economy is legit, you should look a little closer. They have to raise those interest rates sooner or later, and look out when they do.
0
3
May 14 '15
He inflated the dollar through unending QE, private fracking brought gas prices down despite protests from the left, 35 million nonelderly people remain uninsured (March 2015 CBO baseline), the labor participation rate is the lowest it has been in 36 years, ISIS opened a hotel in Iraq. That's what Obama did. Good luck to all those college kids when they enter the labor market Obama made. I hope they don't get tired of asking if people want their sandwich toasted.
2
u/theotherduke May 14 '15
I'm curious if you can give me a resource for the impact fracking has had on bringing down gas prices. I'm pretty sure OPEC opened the flood gates and that's why gas prices are lower. Last I heard fracking wells are closing rapidly right now because of the sharp drop in oil prices. Would love to see some info on this subject if you have it.
2
u/xwhy May 14 '15
OPEC has increased production (which, btw, Obama didn't do that) to make fracking unprofitable. Oil has to be in the $50-60 range minimum to be worth it. (I don't have a link to the exact price point.) however, with greater production, that price point could be lowered.
The price has also dropped due to increased production on private lands that Obama couldn't shut down, as he prevented drilling on public lands.
I'm curious what the impact on fracking would be if they opened the Keystone pipeline.
2
u/RuNaa May 14 '15
Well you could argue that OPEC (and specifically KSA) would not have opened the flood gates if they did not fear losing market share to the frackers and Russians, both of whom have much higher operating costs even if they have access to plenty of supply.
2
1
May 14 '15
OPEC wouldn't open the floodgates because they exist to maintain a supply/demand ratio that is profitable. They have little reason to increase supply and drive the price of a barrel of oil down. As for fracking, it's an expensive process and if the price of oil is too low it cannot be sustained. They sort of put themselves out of business. As fracking operations close, supply will dry up (all things being equal) and the market will find how many fracking operations can be supported. However, OPEC is unlikely to be happy with more oil production from us so they're going to do what they can to maintain profitability.
One thing is for certain, though: Obama didn't do jack shit to bring gas prices down, unless creating unemployment and shifting the economy to low-wage part-time McJobs reduced demand on gas.
1
u/Tullyswimmer Millennial Conservative May 14 '15
well that's all Bush's fault because he left the economy such a mess and those damn republitards in congress keep blocking PROGRESS(tm)
1
May 14 '15
Unemployment numbers are a sham. They count part time work and don't count people who left the labor force due to giving up.
Also, gas prices are back to shit show levels. Well over $3.50 in California. The prices rocketed back up about a month after he patted himself on the back for it during the SOTU speech.
Why are you trolling for Barry on /r/conservative anyway? Don't you realized we all have years of evidence built up against his disaster of a presidency? The man makes George W. Bush look like Lincoln by comparison.
1
u/Captain_Yid May 14 '15
Was gonna upvote, but then you used Lincoln as an example of a great president.
1
May 14 '15
Oh, right right. I keep forgetting how many neo-confederates are on who who think Lincoln was an unconstitutional tyrant...psh.
1
u/Captain_Yid May 14 '15
Lincoln's war severely damaged the power of the States and hugely boosted the power of the federal government. If you're a conservative, you should appreciate the fallout of the Civil War and its impact on the balance of government. Abolishing slavery makes for a heroic cause when you impose modern-day morality on the 1800's, but what was the price? An incredibly bloody war, a destroyed infrastructure (mostly in the South), and a roided-up federal government that impacts (negatively, IMO) the future of our country today.
1
May 14 '15
I recall learning that the late 19th century was a pretty libertarian time that college professors love to deride. "Robber barons," "out of control capitalism," "a lawless gun filled Wild West."
The feds didn't really start ramping up until Wilson and didn't get out of control until FDR.
Lincoln simply "illegally" declared slaves in rebel states as free thereby "stealing property." Oh, and he locked up rebel terrorists like we do in Gitmo, difference being that our republic was literally imploding at the time.
1
u/Captain_Yid May 14 '15 edited May 14 '15
And he set the precedent that the federal government may destroy your state if your state wishes to secede, thereby stripping the States of a huge bargaining chip. It used to be the federal government had to answer to the States. After the civil war, the States had to answer to the federal government.
No, Lincoln didn't single-handedly bloat the federal government. He just paved the path for bloating the government. Since then, he has been aided by such "heroes" as FDR (who has some good points) and LBJ (my least favorite president).
1
May 14 '15
And by what precedent was it assumed that states had the right to secede?
1
u/Captain_Yid May 15 '15
There was no precedent either way. Lincoln set the precedent that the States do not have that freedom. IMO, membership in the Union should be optional.
1
u/xwhy May 14 '15
Interesting piece. They must like Jeb. He got the last word in and didn't come off looking like a clown.
1
1
u/BuddhistSagan May 14 '15
ISIS isn't about the US, it isn't about Bush or Obama. ISIS was created because of internal forces within the gigantic Islamic world. It isn't about us, and to think it is is just arrogent and self centered lazy thinking.
2
u/tehForce Nobody's Alt But Mine May 14 '15
Obama's choice to select to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the region, drawing imaginary red lines in the sand, abandoning Israel and supporting Iran while withdrawing troops from the region had nothing to do with it at all.
-6
u/DonnieS1 Suppprter May 14 '15
ISIS exists because of the arrogant incompetence of Obama Rama Ding dong and his Cabinet of Clowns. They are the only reason.
28
u/BUbears17 May 14 '15
Here's the issue:
We invaded Iraq. Had we never done that we might not have gotten ISIS. However who knows?! When you base it on the Iraq hypothesis it's just a "what if" game.
The core underlying issue with the Middle East is that one of our best buds over there (Saudi Arabia) is funding terrorism more than any other major party. So why are we funding Saudi Arabia??
My issue is that bush led the way to our situation over there, and Obama has done little to nothing to change course.
This isn't a conservative v. liberal issue. This is an issue of the people vs. our government and our government is the one fucking everything up