Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FrodosPet

(5,169 posts)
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 11:05 PM Aug 2014

Did Bush and Cheney have a time machine to go back to the 7th Century to cause the Islamic schism?

Bush and Cheney are supreme assholes, but there is blame here going back to the earliest days of Islam.

The biggest thing B&C did was move the timetable, but this crap has been brewing for centuries.

I fukkin hate fundy religionists!

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did Bush and Cheney have a time machine to go back to the 7th Century to cause the Islamic schism? (Original Post) FrodosPet Aug 2014 OP
Both Iraq and Syria were secular states admittedly repressive TexasProgresive Aug 2014 #1
Absolutely ProfessorGAC Aug 2014 #2
Saddam was hardly suppressing a nascent ISIS. He was out to slaughter as many Kurds as ISIS. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2014 #3

TexasProgresive

(12,153 posts)
1. Both Iraq and Syria were secular states admittedly repressive
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 06:43 AM
Aug 2014

What the Iraq war and the rebellion in Syria did is to break a stable system to be replaced by chaos. This generally happens in revolutions. There is a coalition of groups to throw out the king, dictator whatever and once that happens there is a fight among the various parties to gain control. It is the Pottery Barn rule, "you break it, you own it."

'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.' Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule


The destabilizing of Iraq created all kinds of unintended consequences including the destabilization of the whole area. It is like the US arming the Mujahedin against the Soviets indirectly empowered bin Ladin and al-Qaeda.

ProfessorGAC

(64,787 posts)
2. Absolutely
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 06:48 AM
Aug 2014

Getting rid of Saddam was the dumbest thing we could do in that region.

No doubt he was a really bad guy, but it was not an unstable situation. If there was a dictator in the world who knew not to fuck with the US, it was Saddam. His "4th biggest military in the world" got their assess handed to them in Desert Storm. The Republican Guard was in shambles in a week or so.

None of this happens if we don't target the wrong bad guy.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
3. Saddam was hardly suppressing a nascent ISIS. He was out to slaughter as many Kurds as ISIS.
Thu Aug 21, 2014, 08:30 AM
Aug 2014

And the Arab Spring was also destabilizing, i.e. the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

ISIS is Assad's Frankenstein's monster. Syria was a waypoint for jihadists going to Iraq. They stayed and capitalized on the populist protests since they were better organized than the people.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did Bush and Cheney have ...