Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's because we Americans decided to go into Iraq and obliterate the leadership structure. And it's because we Americans decided to pursue anti-government destabilization in the Syrian civil war.
Now, to be clear, both Saddam and Assad were/are horrible people running despicable and oppressive governments that are hostile to America. Both would have required continued containment no matter what. But when you take out a regional power structure in a volatile area, you create a power vaccum...and someone/something will come to fill that void and establish a new balance of power. As we've seen, pushing a new democratic pro-Western government in a place like Iraq only appears to work for so long as you keep boots on the ground and a gun to everyone's head. Once you try to step out, the whole house of cards quickly falls apart.
We now face the specter of having to put boots back on the ground to counter a force stronger than Al Quaeda with more sophistication and capability to cause destruction well beyond its regional borders. The danger to us may never have been higher than it is now.
This is the true cost and lesson of the US invasions: beware of who you choose to topple, because unless you have the resources and resolve to wage an indefinite occupation on the ground, the devil you didn't know just may end up being worse than the one you did...and then you'll find yourself back at square one - or worse.
ISIS has its roots in centuries old sectarian strife and warfare and abuse of religious minorities. While our intervention did upset the apple cart, it is by no means the only reason for the rise of ISIS. The meltdown of the ME is a long overdue development. It will sort itself out in time and the solution will be much more durable if the US stays out of it.
ISIS is on a roll, and will continue until they are defeated on the battlefield. They continue to get stronger and gain new recruits, many of whom have no choice but to join or die.
It's because we Americans decided to go into Iraq and obliterate the leadership structure. And it's because we Americans decided to pursue anti-government destabilization in the Syrian civil war.
Now, to be clear, both Saddam and Assad were/are horrible people running despicable and oppressive governments that are hostile to America. Both would have required continued containment no matter what. But when you take out a regional power structure in a volatile area, you create a power vaccum...and someone/something will come to fill that void and establish a new balance of power. As we've seen, pushing a new democratic pro-Western government in a place like Iraq only appears to work for so long as you keep boots on the ground and a gun to everyone's head. Once you try to step out, the whole house of cards quickly falls apart.
We now face the specter of having to put boots back on the ground to counter a force stronger than Al Quaeda with more sophistication and capability to cause destruction well beyond its regional borders. The danger to us may never have been higher than it is now.
This is the true cost and lesson of the US invasions: beware of who you choose to topple, because unless you have the resources and resolve to wage an indefinite occupation on the ground, the devil you didn't know just may end up being worse than the one you did...and then you'll find yourself back at square one - or worse.
My opinion, you are all wrong about what caused the ISIS sudden appearance. Yes, we probably should never have invaded Iraq; hindsight is a wonderful thing, but doesn't help after the fact. But they are not a new terrorist organization and they are totally inhuman. Regardless of whether we should or should not have been in Iraq they now need to be stopped. Or would most who oppose action prefer we wait until they do attack America. They are just like the Nazis, only if you believe the way they do can you live, as far as they are concerned.
What they are doing today, they would have done sooner or later, our involvement might have sped up their actions.
It's because we Americans decided to go into Iraq and obliterate the leadership structure. And it's because we Americans decided to pursue anti-government destabilization in the Syrian civil war.
Now, to be clear, both Saddam and Assad were/are horrible people running despicable and oppressive governments that are hostile to America. Both would have required continued containment no matter what. But when you take out a regional power structure in a volatile area, you create a power vaccum...and someone/something will come to fill that void and establish a new balance of power. As we've seen, pushing a new democratic pro-Western government in a place like Iraq only appears to work for so long as you keep boots on the ground and a gun to everyone's head. Once you try to step out, the whole house of cards quickly falls apart.
We now face the specter of having to put boots back on the ground to counter a force stronger than Al Quaeda with more sophistication and capability to cause destruction well beyond its regional borders. The danger to us may never have been higher than it is now.
This is the true cost and lesson of the US invasions: beware of who you choose to topple, because unless you have the resources and resolve to wage an indefinite occupation on the ground, the devil you didn't know just may end up being worse than the one you did...and then you'll find yourself back at square one - or worse.
It takes a crazy person to control crazy people.
No, we'd have been much better off if we had left the region be in the 80's.
Technically, the United States backed Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld meet him and shook his hand.
No, we'd have been much better off if we had left the region be in the 80's.
Technically, the United States backed Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld meet him and shook his hand.
Would have been possible if there was an acceptance that we started to stir the pot in the region immediately following WWII, and accelerating with the coup in Iran (1953). What followed was merely corrective action...
Craziness aside, Saddam was not going to live forever and he might never have survived the Arab Spring.
Assad seems to be doing pretty good. So did the Saudi's, and yes, there was a movement in Saudi Arabia, but they just squashed it. Like Saddam used to do.
No, I think Saddam would have been just fine for a good long while, and his sons would have probably taken over. Blood thirsty dictators can only be overthrown by their people
Assad seems to be doing pretty good. So did the Saudi's, and yes, there was a movement in Saudi Arabia, but they just squashed it. Like Saddam used to do.
No, I think Saddam would have been just fine for a good long while, and his sons would have probably taken over. Blood thirsty dictators can only be overthrown by their people
It would be a whole lot worse for him if the Islamist militants weren't fighting the secular.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
