Hawks Created ISIS

[Chizzang]

It sounds like we all agree then..
The only good that came of the Iraq war was defense contractors won the lottery
oh and China got to split the winnings and have the oil

[kalm]

This.

Gannon and Cluck…blow me.

I never said anything about conks, I simply posted what Rand Paul said. It's an interesting political tactic to differentiate from the rest of the field and acknowledge your own party's mistakes.

Oh the butthurt when conks don't go in lock step.

Kudos to Paul.

Kudos for what? Making a false assertion?

What's false? You may not like his opinion because he's actually being a true conservative in this but that doesn't necessarily make it false. Would we have gone into Iraq without Republican support?

[OL FU]

Hawks?

We should bomb Atlanta.

I vote yes

[Baldy]

Hawks?

We should bomb Atlanta.

I vote yes

St. Louis as well for giving Atlanta the Hawks.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I think the Hawks bombed big enough in the playoffs...................too soon?

[Baldy]

I think the Hawks bombed big enough in the playoffs...................too soon?

As expected.

[BDKJMU]

Kudos for what? Making a false assertion?

What's false? You may not like his opinion because he's actually being a true conservative in this but that doesn't necessarily make it false. Would we have gone into Iraq without Republican support?

I already told you: Pay attention..
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 08#p977465" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

What's false? You may not like his opinion because he's actually being a true conservative in this but that doesn't necessarily make it false. Would we have gone into Iraq without Republican support?

I already told you: Pay attention..
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 08#p977465" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh. Well if something called the Isis Study Group says it...

Just like you with the question I asked, they ignored Paul's basic point that we've been intervening for decades. Rather than consider what would have happened had we not invaded Iraq, you and the ISIS Study Group choose to primarily blame the other side.

Whatta .

[YoUDeeMan]

I already told you: Pay attention..
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 08#p977465" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh. Well if something called the Isis Study Group says it...

Just like you with the question I asked, they ignored Paul's basic point that we've been intervening for decades. Rather than consider what would have happened had we not invaded Iraq, you and the ISIS Study Group choose to primarily blame the other side.

Whatta .

This is Paul's quote:

"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," Paul said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." He continued: "They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved -- they loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. They just wanted more of it."…………..

In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as "a failed state" and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak.

"Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise," Paul said.

The problems with Paul's statements, among many, are that he limits the issue to 20 years, and he then makes the assumption that ISIS would not exist without our indiscriminate distribution of arms.

Yeah, and the Mujaheddin did not exist without our arms.

You, by giving Paul kudos in a previous post, and he, obviously have not been paying attention to reality. That's OK...facts don't matter much in some people's worlds.

[kalm]

Oh. Well if something called the Isis Study Group says it...

Just like you with the question I asked, they ignored Paul's basic point that we've been intervening for decades. Rather than consider what would have happened had we not invaded Iraq, you and the ISIS Study Group choose to primarily blame the other side.

Whatta .

This is Paul's quote:

"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," Paul said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." He continued: "They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved -- they loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. They just wanted more of it."…………..

In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as "a failed state" and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak.

"Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise," Paul said.

The problems with Paul's statements, among many, are that he limits the issue to 20 years, and he then makes the assumption that ISIS would not exist without our indiscriminate distribution of arms.

Yeah, and the Mujaheddin did not exist without our arms.

You, by giving Paul kudos in a previous post, and he, obviously have not been paying attention to reality. That's OK...facts don't matter much in some people's worlds.

The mujaheddin would not have beat the soviets without our support and then, as Charlie Wilson stated "we fucked up the end game." So nice analogy there.

Republicans pushed for Iraq going back to the Clinton years (see neocons and Partnership for a New American Century). I agree that our history there goes much further back but there is no ISIS without Republican support for interventionism. The Democrats would have never done it on their own.

Chickens coming home to roost.

Reality.

[YoUDeeMan]

The mujaheddin would not have beat the soviets without our support and then, as Charlie Wilson stated "we fucked up the end game." So nice analogy there.

Republicans pushed for Iraq going back to the Clinton years (see neocons and Partnership for a New American Century). I agree that our history there goes much further back but there is no ISIS without Republican support for interventionism. The Democrats would have never done it on their own.

Chickens coming home to roost.

Reality.

Do you really think the Soviets would still be in Afghanistan if we didn't intervene in that country...and that the Mujaheddin would not have existed? Poof...gone?



We didn't fuck up the end game...there was no game to have won. The backass tribal clowns have been doing the same thing for centuries...and you, like Paul, decide to focus on the last few decades.

And you somehow think that Saddam would still be holding onto power in a really peaceful place if we had not gone in.

C'mon, klam...you are simply reaching for straws.

With or without our help, Saddam and Iraq were going to tailspin into a shit hole...one where the Muslin hardliners would hate America (surprise) and fight among themselves (surprise) for power. There was never a good way around that result.

Why? Well, certainly not because of recent Republican American interventionism.

History, kalm, history.

Anytime you have a majority of people oppressed by their minority leaders, the damn will eventually break. You can play silly games and try to blame one particular issue for the eventual uprising...but it really is disingenuous to do so. Their civil war was just a matter of time...and there certainly were enough Soviet arms in Iraq to arm each side of the conflict. Syria, anyone? Lebanon?

Paul is certainly trying to separate himself from the Republican pack....but he doesn't need to limit the time and scope of his separation from the Republicans. That makes him look small. Interventionism is not simply a Republican tool....it is used by everyone, everywhere.

[GannonFan]

This is Paul's quote:

"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," Paul said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." He continued: "They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved -- they loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. They just wanted more of it."…………..

In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as "a failed state" and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak.

"Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise," Paul said.

The problems with Paul's statements, among many, are that he limits the issue to 20 years, and he then makes the assumption that ISIS would not exist without our indiscriminate distribution of arms.

Yeah, and the Mujaheddin did not exist without our arms.

You, by giving Paul kudos in a previous post, and he, obviously have not been paying attention to reality. That's OK...facts don't matter much in some people's worlds.

The mujaheddin would not have beat the soviets without our support and then, as Charlie Wilson stated "we **** up the end game." So nice analogy there.

Republicans pushed for Iraq going back to the Clinton years (see neocons and Partnership for a New American Century). I agree that our history there goes much further back but there is no ISIS without Republican support for interventionism. The Democrats would have never done it on their own.

Chickens coming home to roost.

Reality.

It's like you agree there's all this history, going back centuries, but then you whitewash it in the same sentence and say that what's going on there now is our fault. You can't have it both ways. Maybe ISIS itself would not exist, that's arguable, but substantial conflict and religious strife would certainly exist, as it has well before we were even a nation. The backpedaling on your part is admirable, but in the end, you've simply missed the point. The chickens have been coming home to roost for centuries now, that's the reality you seem to be avoiding.

[kalm]

The mujaheddin would not have beat the soviets without our support and then, as Charlie Wilson stated "we **** up the end game." So nice analogy there.

Republicans pushed for Iraq going back to the Clinton years (see neocons and Partnership for a New American Century). I agree that our history there goes much further back but there is no ISIS without Republican support for interventionism. The Democrats would have never done it on their own.

Chickens coming home to roost.

Reality.

It's like you agree there's all this history, going back centuries, but then you whitewash it in the same sentence and say that what's going on there now is our fault. You can't have it both ways. Maybe ISIS itself would not exist, that's arguable, but substantial conflict and religious strife would certainly exist, as it has well before we were even a nation. The backpedaling on your part is admirable, but in the end, you've simply missed the point. The chickens have been coming home to roost for centuries now, that's the reality you seem to be avoiding.

Huh?

If I seem all over the place it's because Middle East politics, Islam, and our foreign policy is too.

Thanks for playing.

[GannonFan]

It's like you agree there's all this history, going back centuries, but then you whitewash it in the same sentence and say that what's going on there now is our fault. You can't have it both ways. Maybe ISIS itself would not exist, that's arguable, but substantial conflict and religious strife would certainly exist, as it has well before we were even a nation. The backpedaling on your part is admirable, but in the end, you've simply missed the point. The chickens have been coming home to roost for centuries now, that's the reality you seem to be avoiding.

Huh?

If I seem all over the place it's because Middle East politics, Islam, and our foreign policy is too.

Thanks for playing.

That's the message board equivalent of punting the ball away. Well done.

[kalm]

Huh?

If I seem all over the place it's because Middle East politics, Islam, and our foreign policy is too.

Thanks for playing.

That's the message board equivalent of punting the ball away. Well done.

Ok Weisenheimer, list my backtracks and points missed and let's review. Oh, and whatever you do, be careful not to take a side.

[bluehenbillk]

For a rare time I fully agree with Rand Paul.

Bush started the whole mess by going in there without a post-war strategy for what many have said has been going on for long before we've been around & will continue long after we're gone.

Obama didn't help the situation over there AT ALL, and has made it worse.

The only thing positive is that we don't have troops over there & shouldn't send anytime soon.

IMO - you either contain the violence to where it is, or you just nuke it.

[CID1990]

I have to say if there was a candidate who was Rand Paul on foreign policy and civil liberties, with Bill Clinton's pragmatism and Paul Ryan's (claimed) fiscal conservatism I'd likely vote for him/her regardless of party.

But I think I just described a pure libertarian so nevermind

[YoUDeeMan]

For a rare time I fully agree with Rand Paul.

Bush started the whole mess by going in there without a post-war strategy for what many have said has been going on for long before we've been around & will continue long after we're gone.

Obama didn't help the situation over there AT ALL, and has made it worse.

The only thing positive is that we don't have troops over there & shouldn't send anytime soon.

IMO - you either contain the violence to where it is, or you just nuke it.

We don't have troops over there in the same way that anyone hit by our bombs is an enemy combatant.

A rose is a rose by any other name...advisers, Mr. Kennedy, call them advisers.

And Bush in no way started this thing. Maybe Chapter 20, but it is ridiculous to say Bush started this thing.

"Throughout most of the period of Ottoman rule (1533-1918) the territory of present-day Iraq was a battle zone between the rival regional empires and tribal alliances. Iraq was divided into three vilayets:
Mosul Province
Baghdad Province
Basra Province"

The more things change...

And C'mon, Saddam came to power in 1979, almost immediately went to war with Iran for nearly a decade, then invaded Kuwait in 1990. Ever since his beginning until his end, he was literally fighting to maintain his control over a fractured country.

Even before Saddam, you'd be hard pressed to find a single decade where the made up country of Iraq wasn't at war with themselves or someone else.

Iraq's been near the center of the trade world since the beginning...they get arms from anyone and everyone...and the surrounding countries try to exert their influence on Iraq. Saddam was going to fall, just like his predecessors, and this internal power struggle was going to happen with or without Bush.

[kalm]

For a rare time I fully agree with Rand Paul.

Bush started the whole mess by going in there without a post-war strategy for what many have said has been going on for long before we've been around & will continue long after we're gone.

Obama didn't help the situation over there AT ALL, and has made it worse.

The only thing positive is that we don't have troops over there & shouldn't send anytime soon.

IMO - you either contain the violence to where it is, or you just nuke it.

We don't have troops over there in the same way that anyone hit by our bombs is an enemy combatant.

A rose is a rose by any other name...advisers, Mr. Kennedy, call them advisers.

And Bush in no way started this thing. Maybe Chapter 20, but it is ridiculous to say Bush started this thing.

"Throughout most of the period of Ottoman rule (1533-1918) the territory of present-day Iraq was a battle zone between the rival regional empires and tribal alliances. Iraq was divided into three vilayets:
Mosul Province
Baghdad Province
Basra Province"

The more things change...

And C'mon, Saddam came to power in 1979, almost immediately went to war with Iran for nearly a decade, then invaded Kuwait in 1990. Ever since his beginning until his end, he was literally fighting to maintain his control over a fractured country.

Even before Saddam, you'd be hard pressed to find a single decade where the made up country of Iraq wasn't at war with themselves or someone else.

Iraq's been near the center of the trade world since the beginning...they get arms from anyone and everyone...and the surrounding countries try to exert their influence on Iraq. Saddam was going to fall, just like his predecessors, and this internal power struggle was going to happen with or without Bush.

I prepared a thoughtful point by point reply to this on the Mac and then our wifi went down so I'll summarize...

What in the fuck...why in the fuck...who in the fuck are you even arguing with here?

[YoUDeeMan]

Your wifi fell apart as easily as your argument.

Here's your quote:

This.

Gannon and Cluck…blow me.

I never said anything about conks, I simply posted what Rand Paul said. It's an interesting political tactic to differentiate from the rest of the field and acknowledge your own party's mistakes.

Oh the butthurt when conks don't go in lock step.

Kudos to Paul.

Kudos to Paul?

For what? Not knowing history? For focusing on the wrong issue?

Pointing out his party's complicity in some of the Middle East turmoil for the last 20 years, without proper context, is similar to saying a parent's decision to allow their kids to watch television shows for a couple years is the reason for their participation in teenage sex.

Total abstinence in the Middle East won't solve the problem.

[kalm]

Your wifi fell apart as easily as your argument.

Here's your quote:

This.

Gannon and Cluck…blow me.

I never said anything about conks, I simply posted what Rand Paul said. It's an interesting political tactic to differentiate from the rest of the field and acknowledge your own party's mistakes.

Oh the butthurt when conks don't go in lock step.

Kudos to Paul.

Kudos to Paul?

For what? Not knowing history? For focusing on the wrong issue?

Pointing out his party's complicity in some of the Middle East turmoil for the last 20 years, without proper context, is similar to saying a parent's decision to allow their kids to watch television shows for a couple years is the reason for their participation in teenage sex.

Total abstinence in the Middle East won't solve the problem.

Paul's remarks were initially in response to Lindsey Graham saying ISIS is around because of people like Rand Paul. Paul fires back with "it's the opposite". He then goes on to throw hawks in general under the bus for their actions over the last 20 years.

So ummm yeah…as you mentioned a few posts ago…context.

I thought you were against intervention in Libya and Syria and our hypocrisy in who we've backed in the ME but if you'd like to continue defending the track record of neocons on here, by all means, be my guest. Christ, even OLFU comes out of the woodwork to smack around Graham's saber rattling.

So yes, kudos to Paul on multiple fronts.

[YoUDeeMan]

Paul's remarks were initially in response to Lindsey Graham saying ISIS is around because of people like Rand Paul. Paul fires back with "it's the opposite". He then goes on to throw hawks in general under the bus for their actions over the last 20 years.

So ummm yeah…as you mentioned a few posts ago…context.

I thought you were against intervention in Libya and Syria and our hypocrisy in who we've backed in the ME but if you'd like to continue defending the track record of neocons on here, by all means, be my guest. Christ, even OLFU comes out of the woodwork to smack around Graham's saber rattling.

So yes, kudos to Paul on multiple fronts.

They're both wrong...so why are you still kudoing Paul?

And who is defending the neocons?

You continue to ignore that the Middle East is a complete shithole, and would be with or without the neocons that you seem so fixated on.

Paul gave no response as to what his plan would be to deal with the Middle East...he just pointed his finger at the neocons of the last 20 years.

How stupid is that? But hey, it is good enough for you. Kudos and participation trophies for everyone...as long as you can link something bad to the so-called neocons!

Graham is a cartoon figure...NPR was focused on him yesterday as a major player.

The neocons in the Republican party (Paul's focus, and yours) didn't create ISIS/ISL/DAIISH, or whatever you want to call them, so Paul is wrong. If we left the Middle East 20 years ago, there is a very good chance that Saddam would have been toppled and that there would be major civil wars going on in the exact same places as their are today. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been on a collision course ever since Iran toppled the Shah. Sure, we provide some guns...but if you think Russia, China, France, Korea, and a host of other countries would not have filled the gap, you simply don't understand history and business.

I'm glad Paul has a different foreign policy menu than most candidates...but if he is going to differentiate himself, he should be more articulate and accurate as to what he plans to do. If Paul's plan is to create simple, inaccurate memes for people to parrot, then he is no better than the rest of the bullshitters on the circus tour.

[kalm]

Paul's remarks were initially in response to Lindsey Graham saying ISIS is around because of people like Rand Paul. Paul fires back with "it's the opposite". He then goes on to throw hawks in general under the bus for their actions over the last 20 years.

So ummm yeah…as you mentioned a few posts ago…context.

I thought you were against intervention in Libya and Syria and our hypocrisy in who we've backed in the ME but if you'd like to continue defending the track record of neocons on here, by all means, be my guest. Christ, even OLFU comes out of the woodwork to smack around Graham's saber rattling.

So yes, kudos to Paul on multiple fronts.

You continue to ignore that the Middle East is a complete shithole, and would be with or without the neocons that you seem so fixated on.

Paul gave no response as to what his plan would be to deal with the Middle East...he just pointed his finger at the neocons of the last 20 years.

Do I need to constantly preface every remark with "I agree the ME is a shithole" to make you feel OK?

The ME is a shithole that goes back centuries AND Neocons are primarily responsible for our recent fuck ups there (you know…the current history within our lifetimes) including providing arms to bad guys, creating a power vacuum, and allying with bad actors. Oh and Democrats like Obama and Clinton are guilty as well.

Walk, chew, walk, chew, walk, chew…walk and chew walk and chew, walk and chew. C'mon Cluck, I know you can do it!

The neocons in the Republican party (Paul's focus, and yours) didn't create ISIS/ISL/DAIISH, or whatever you want to call them, so Paul is wrong. If we left the Middle East 20 years ago, there is a very good chance that Saddam would have been toppled and that there would be major civil wars going on in the exact same places as their are today. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been on a collision course ever since Iran toppled the Shah. Sure, we provide some guns...but if you think Russia, China, France, Korea, and a host of other countries would not have filled the gap, you simply don't understand history and business.

Perhaps, but that's the difference between our arguments. We KNOW that ISIS didn't exist and accumulate power before the Iraq War. What would have happened had we not go in is your hypothesis. Whether inaction would have had a negative affect on us is also purely hypothetical.

[YoUDeeMan]

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.

[Ibanez]

Wait...all this over a JV team???