Hawks Created ISIS

[kalm]

But you can't say that the neocons created ISIS. Again, that is similar to blaming TV for a teenager having sex.

And stop focusing on the Republicans while whimsically tossing in a tidbit about Obama and Clinton. Democrats have been in the White House for 12 of the last 20 years...and 12 of the last 22 years. That is no small part...especially the way our CIA operates.

After Saddam's war with Iran, which began before the 20 year window, Saddam went into Kuwait...what was the world supposed to do in 1991? That is a pretty important question.

So, we kicked his ass, crippled him, but left him in power. How nice.

But, even then, Iraq was falling apart. The Kurds were fighting Saddam, the Kurds were fighting themselves, and Saddam was executing anyone who opposed him...which was a whole shitload of people in his own country (see modern day Syria).

However, you seem to forget that it was under Clinton (not a Republican) that we really ramped up our efforts to destabilize Saddam. You should read about what our CIA was doing in Iraq...under Clinton. For 8 years, under a Democrat, we constantly tried to get rid of Saddam through proxies. Clinton was in office in 1994, so that is just outside of Paul's 20 year window.

Obama has been in office for 6 years (you know, 30% of Paul's 20 year window). During that time Obama has turned Libya into another shithole controlled by extremist nut jobs, bounced Egypt into and out of extremist hands (but not without consequences), continued to feed the corrupt monster in Afghanistan, destabilized Syria (directly leading to the ability for ISIS/ISIL to control large swaths of sand), allowed Bahrain to use Saudi forces to crush Bahrain's people's protests, and allowed Saudi Arabia & Friends to launch attacks on Yemen and Libya. Oh, and Obama withdrew our forces from Iraq...leaving the vacuum.

ALL of the above played, and continue to play, a MAJOR role in the creation and continuum of modern day ISIS.

So, while it is cute for Paul and you to focus on the Republicans and neocons and say they created ISIS...it is a false and partisan argument.

And it leaves out the really important part: Iraq would have been a shit hole of extremism anyway...just under a different name.

You can say that is hypothetical...but you'd be ignoring history...especially recent history.

Yep. Me and Rand Paul...two hacks in a partisan pod!

[CID1990]

Paul's wrong about the weapons and equipment.

ISIL just overran Ramadi while being outnumbered 20 to 1 by Iraqi forces. Prior to the attack they had excellent opsec, radio and social media silence, and very good tactics. They have all these things because they are motivated and fearless. Their weapons are conventional, but at the end of the day they are a small arms and crew served weapon army, just as the Iraqis are.

ISIL would be in the same position now even if we had not shipped them a single bullet.

What enabled ISIS is a large combination of things- not the least of which were (and in no particular order):

a failed and dysfunctional government in Baghdad that turned their Army into a spoils system the minute we left

porous borders between Syria and Iraq

US support for the Arab "Spring" across the board

creation of two new failed stAtes resulting from alternating direct action and then inaction by the US

the Islamic schism

Withdrawal of tacit support for brutal but stabilizing Arab dictatorships by the West

radicalization of three generations of middle eastern males by a combination of internal conflicts and western wars in the region

increased Iranian influence in areas with Sunni-Shia friction

(this last one is going to get much worse very soon and it will be 110% the fault of the current US government)

Giving ISIL AK-47s (that already exist in numbers as great as most national populations over there) has nothing to do with their rise

Paul would be correct if he said that a combination of hawkishness alongside feckless foreign policy is PARTIALLY to blame for the rise of ISIL- but at the end of the day, this was going to happen as soon as the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq folded - and fold the would have eventually - even with no "helping hand" from the US

[GannonFan]

Paul's wrong about the weapons and equipment.

ISIL just overran Ramadi while being outnumbered 20 to 1 by Iraqi forces. Prior to the attack they had excellent opsec, radio and social media silence, and very good tactics. They have all these things because they are motivated and fearless. Their weapons are conventional, but at the end of the day they are a small arms and crew served weapon army, just as the Iraqis are.

ISIL would be in the same position now even if we had not shipped them a single bullet.

What enabled ISIS is a large combination of things- not the least of which were (and in no particular order):

a failed and dysfunctional government in Baghdad that turned their Army into a spoils system the minute we left

porous borders between Syria and Iraq

US support for the Arab "Spring" across the board

creation of two new failed stAtes resulting from alternating direct action and then inaction by the US

the Islamic schism

Withdrawal of tacit support for brutal but stabilizing Arab dictatorships by the West

radicalization of three generations of middle eastern males by a combination of internal conflicts and western wars in the region

increased Iranian influence in areas with Sunni-Shia friction

(this last one is going to get much worse very soon and it will be 110% the fault of the current US government)

Giving ISIL AK-47s (that already exist in numbers as great as most national populations over there) has nothing to do with their rise

Paul would be correct if he said that a combination of hawkishness alongside feckless foreign policy is PARTIALLY to blame for the rise of ISIL- but at the end of the day, this was going to happen as soon as the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq folded - and fold the would have eventually - even with no "helping hand" from the US

That doesn't fit kalm's partisan viewpoint so it can't be true. Bush did it.

[kalm]

Paul's wrong about the weapons and equipment.

ISIL just overran Ramadi while being outnumbered 20 to 1 by Iraqi forces. Prior to the attack they had excellent opsec, radio and social media silence, and very good tactics. They have all these things because they are motivated and fearless. Their weapons are conventional, but at the end of the day they are a small arms and crew served weapon army, just as the Iraqis are.

ISIL would be in the same position now even if we had not shipped them a single bullet.

What enabled ISIS is a large combination of things- not the least of which were (and in no particular order):

a failed and dysfunctional government in Baghdad that turned their Army into a spoils system the minute we left

porous borders between Syria and Iraq

US support for the Arab "Spring" across the board

creation of two new failed stAtes resulting from alternating direct action and then inaction by the US

the Islamic schism

Withdrawal of tacit support for brutal but stabilizing Arab dictatorships by the West

radicalization of three generations of middle eastern males by a combination of internal conflicts and western wars in the region

increased Iranian influence in areas with Sunni-Shia friction

(this last one is going to get much worse very soon and it will be 110% the fault of the current US government)

Giving ISIL AK-47s (that already exist in numbers as great as most national populations over there) has nothing to do with their rise

Paul would be correct if he said that a combination of hawkishness alongside feckless foreign policy is PARTIALLY to blame for the rise of ISIL- but at the end of the day, this was going to happen as soon as the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq folded - and fold the would have eventually - even with no "helping hand" from the US

That doesn't fit kalm's partisan viewpoint so it can't be true. Bush did it.

On the contrary, I appreciated his post. He delivered the goods as he often does. It's a part of being open minded. Try it out sometime.

[YoUDeeMan]

That doesn't fit kalm's partisan viewpoint so it can't be true. Bush did it.

On the contrary, I appreciated his post. He delivered the goods as he often does. It's a part of being open minded. Try it out sometime.

The goods were already delivered...you just didn't like the messengers.

[kalm]

On the contrary, I appreciated his post. He delivered the goods as he often does. It's a part of being open minded. Try it out sometime.

The goods were already delivered...you just didn't like the messengers.

I like you Clucky but you were all over the place.

[YoUDeeMan]

The goods were already delivered...you just didn't like the messengers.

I like you Clucky but you were all over the place.

All that and more.

It was necessary...Paul needs to be beaten over the head with my info...and then guided back to Earth with CID's synopsis.