# The current situation in Iraq and the rise of ISIS is Bush's fault.....



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

..... not so, according to David Petraeus.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Betray us would say that, wouldn't he.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Not that he's biased or anything.....


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Not that he's biased or anything.....


Who would you consider to be unbiased sources on Iraq?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Who would you consider to be unbiased sources on Iraq?


What does that matter, apart from deflecting attention from the subject? Do you really think that Petraeus is unbiased?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> What does that matter, apart from deflecting attention from the subject? Do you really think that Petraeus is unbiased?


It matters a great deal.

Speaking of deflection, if is an old (and not very effective) debate trick to attack the source.....


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Not sure if my memory is serving me well this AM and I certainly wouldn't want to question General Petraeus's conclusions, but didn't the US, through Paul Bremmer , almost force Prime Minister Maliki on the Iraqi people? In effect it seems we may have once again created our own evil! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> It matters a great deal.
> 
> Speaking of deflection, if is an old (and not very effective) debate trick to attack the source.....


Again, do you believe Petraeus to be unbiased?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Again, do you believe Petraeus to be unbiased?


I believe that I asked you first.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I believe that I asked you first.


But I haven't written an apologia, sorry, an account of an event in which I was a principal actor. So, as I've explained exhaustively to you elsewhere on a different subject, my opinion on a least biased source on Iraq is of no moment and has no relevance. 
To answer your question; do I know of an unbiased account? No. 
Do you think that Petraeus' account is unbiased?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> But I haven't written an apologia, sorry, an account of an event in which I was a principal actor. So, as I've explained exhaustively to you elsewhere on a different subject, my opinion on a least biased source on Iraq is of no moment and has no relevance.
> To answer your question; do I know of an unbiased account? No.
> Do you think that Petraeus' account is unbiased?


I think all accounts are biased. So I include that when thinking about them.

But even a biased source can be correct on the facts and wrong on the conclusion.

So, other than your views on Petraeus, do you have anything else to add?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Here is another U.S general:-






Seven countries in five years.

I do not think they gave much thought to what would happen after governments were toppled. Limited civil war might even suit for a while.

https://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

But that claim was not accurate, was it?

Obviously we invaded Iraq, but none of the others.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

to attack and *destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years - we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran*."

All those governments have been destroyed except Syria and Iran. Russia and China would not sanction the action the U.S. wished to take.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> to attack and *destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years - we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran*."
> 
> All those governments have been destroyed except Syria and Iran. Russia and China would not sanction the action the U.S. wished to take.


We didn't attack or destroy those governments. And unless you are accusing Obama of being part of the NeoCon movement, then you might want to move along.....


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

vpkozel said:


> We didn't attack or destroy those governments. And unless you are accusing Obama of being part of the NeoCon movement, then you might want to move along.....


Come off it.

There is more than one way to destroy a government. You do not have to have a formal invasion with its own special nickname.

You can add Ossetia and Ukraine to the list as well.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

This is an interesting and topical thread. Out of selfishness, I am interested in what all of the participants have to say and would like to learn something from the exchange of views, I would like it to continue. So please exert yourselves to keep it civil.

Sorry about the long sentence but it's late and been a long day.

Gurdon


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> This is an interesting and topical thread. Out of selfishness, I am interested in what all of the participants have to say and would like to learn something from the exchange of views, I would like it to continue. So please exert yourselves to keep it civil.
> 
> Sorry about the long sentence but it's late and been a long day.
> 
> Gurdon


I agree and was hoping that folks would have a discussion about the actual things that Petraeus had to say.

The bottom line is that there are so many misconceptions about Bush (and he is admittedly an easy target - Cheyney even more so) that people simply do not want to have factual discussions about him or his presidency.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I agree and was hoping that folks would have a discussion about the actual things that Petraeus had to say.
> 
> The bottom line is that there are so many misconceptions about Bush (and he is admittedly an easy target - Cheyney even more so) that people simply do not want to have factual discussions about him or his presidency.


Given that he seems to think that the problems were caused by the US policy post-invasion, rather than by the invasion itself, and that he appears to be writing a piece to explain why it was everybody else's fault, but especially not his, I think it not worth a great deal of my time. A politically motivated apologia.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Given that he seems to think that the problems were caused by the US policy post-invasion, rather than by the invasion itself, and that he appears to be writing a piece to explain why it was everybody else's fault, but especially not his, I think it not worth a great deal of my time. A politically motivated apologia.


That is amazingly disingenuous.

You can - or should - be able to decouple the two discussions. He was giving an interview as to what he thought happened after he left, so by definition, his influence on the events will be lessened.

But you seem to be, at best, missing the point. There were policy changes made after the surge, Iraqi elections, etc. and these changes may (or may not have) led to the growth of ISIS and the current situation.

You seem to want to blame cancer on birth. I mean, if you were never born you could never get cancer, right?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

It is also a fairly blatant plea to intervene in Iran and Syria.

The Shah was installed in the 1950s to prevent Iran nationalising it's own oil fields (as Britain had done with coal) and to maintain the profits of British Petroleum.

Plus ca change....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> That is amazingly disingenuous.
> 
> You can - or should - be able to decouple the two discussions. He was giving an interview as to what he thought happened after he left, so by definition, his influence on the events will be lessened.
> 
> ...


I'm suggesting that the precarious balance in Mesopotamia was being held by two Baathist leaders who were able to impose their will on the disparate ethnic and religious groups and maintain stability at the expense of what we in the West would describe as Civil Rights. Once Saddam was overthrown the precarious balance upset because the ruthless control mechanism was broken. The rising against al-Assad in Syria completed the situation.
A parallel, although not identical, could be Yugoslavia on the death of Tito. A brutal dictator who brought stability to an ethnically and confessionally divided region. Once his iron hand was removed the vicious rivalries and hatreds sprang into life.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

vpkozel said:


> There were policy changes made after the surge, Iraqi elections, etc. and these changes may (or may not have) led to the growth of ISIS and the current situation.


As in Afghanistan, the politics are a fig leaf to allow the instigators to save face. They can leave and say the country is in good hands.

When the local troops in training shoot their foreign comrades, something tells me things are not as orderly as our politicians claim.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> It is also a fairly blatant plea to intervene in Iran and Syria.
> 
> The Shah was installed in the 1950s to prevent Iran nationalising it's own oil fields (as Britain had done with coal) and to maintain the profits of British Petroleum.
> 
> Plus ca change....





Chouan said:


> I'm suggesting that the precarious balance in Mesopotamia was being held by two Baathist leaders who were able to impose their will on the disparate ethnic and religious groups and maintain stability at the expense of what we in the West would describe as Civil Rights. Once Saddam was overthrown the precarious balance upset because the ruthless control mechanism was broken. The rising against al-Assad in Syria completed the situation.
> A parallel, although not identical, could be Yugoslavia on the death of Tito. A brutal dictator who brought stability to an ethnically and confessionally divided region. Once his iron hand was removed the vicious rivalries and hatreds sprang into life.


Gentlemen,
Those are indeed interesting topics, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the situation as it existed after the surge and what happened between then and now.

If you want to start threads on Yugoslavia after Tito or the installation of the Shah, then by all means do so.

But if not, please add something to this topic or stay out of the thread.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

You cannot just pretend everything was tickety boo after "the surge" but the locals screwed up.

People are not dumb enough to believe that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Gentlemen,
> Those are indeed interesting topics, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the situation as it existed after the surge and what happened between then and now.


But they have everything to do with how Iraq and Syria broke up and how an extremist group gained power. To argue that nothing before the "Surge" had any impact, as you appear to be doing, is ridiculous. One can't draw a line on a timeline, as it were, and say that nothing before this point is relevant.



vpkozel said:


> If you want to start threads on Yugoslavia after Tito or the installation of the Shah, then by all means do so.
> 
> But if not, please add something to this topic or stay out of the thread.


What was it that Gurdon said about civility? What was the famous quote about people not learning from history?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> But they have everything to do with how Iraq and Syria broke up and how an extremist group gained power. To argue that nothing before the "Surge" had any impact, as you appear to be doing, is ridiculous. One can't draw a line on a timeline, as it were, and say that nothing before this point is relevant.


Why stop at the invasion? Let's go back further and then none of this is Bush's fault - it is the fault of the Brits for drawing these fake lines in the sands......

What you and Kingstonian are trying to do is like trying to blame Dunkirk on Chamberlain.



> What was it that Gurdon said about civility? What was the famous quote about people not learning from history?


How was I uncivil? Politely asking the two of you to stop trying to derail the thread is not being uncivil at all. Actually, if you really want to point to uncivil behavior, I would say it is continually trying to derail the thread while adding absolutely nothing of value.

Since the two of you seem to think you are being clever, why don't you tell me your opinions of what the situation was in Iraq after the surge and perhaps detail a bit of how you think ISIS came to be - preferably with some cites?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

vpkozel said:


> How was I uncivil? Politely asking the two of you to stop trying to derail the thread is not being uncivil at all. Actually, if you really want to point to uncivil behavior, I would say it is continually trying to derail the thread while adding absolutely nothing of value.


"Derail" is an interesting choice of word. You obviously get upset when a discussion is not going in the direction you want it to.

You prefer to keep your head buried in the Arabian sand.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Why stop at the invasion? Let's go back further and then none of this is Bush's fault - it is the fault of the Brits for drawing these fake lines in the sands......
> 
> What you and Kingstonian are trying to do is like trying to blame Dunkirk on Chamberlain.


The Brits or the League of Nations? Easy for an American to blame the League, as they wouldn't join! Of course the redesigning of the Middle East after the break up of the Ottoman Empire is a problem and a factor. However, where was the ethnic and religious violence in Iraq and Syria in the 1920's, 1930's, up to the 2000's? It wasn't important, because these regions were under firm control. The religious violence in Palestine and Lebanon was controlled by effective military force, as it was in Syria and Iraq post independence. So how far was the British and French Mandates of Iraq and Syria factors in the rise of ISIS?



vpkozel said:


> How was I uncivil? Politely asking the two of you to stop trying to derail the thread is not being uncivil at all. Actually, if you really want to point to uncivil behavior, I would say it is continually trying to derail the thread while adding absolutely nothing of value.


Writing "_please add something to this topic or stay out of the thread"_ creates an impression of uncivility. It implies that what has been written lacks relevance, when it is, actually, very aposite to the thread. It creates an impression of irritation that people are daring to argue in a way that you don't like. It suggests that you are trying to shut down opinion. It suggests that you think such comments are pointless. None of these views appear to be civil; they all appear to be dismissive, even contemptuous.



vpkozel said:


> Since the two of you seem to think you are being clever,


Do you think that this comment is civil?



vpkozel said:


> why don't you tell me your opinions of what the situation was in Iraq after the surge and perhaps detail a bit of how you think ISIS came to be - preferably with some cites?


Why? You mind appears to be fully made up!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Kingstonian said:


> "Derail" is an interesting choice of word. You obviously get upset when a discussion is not going in the direction you want it to.
> 
> You prefer to keep your head buried in the Arabian sand.





Chouan said:


> The Brits or the League of Nations? Easy for an American to blame the League, as they wouldn't join! Of course the redesigning of the Middle East after the break up of the Ottoman Empire is a problem and a factor. However, where was the ethnic and religious violence in Iraq and Syria in the 1920's, 1930's, up to the 2000's? It wasn't important, because these regions were under firm control. The religious violence in Palestine and Lebanon was controlled by effective military force, as it was in Syria and Iraq post independence. So how far was the British and French Mandates of Iraq and Syria factors in the rise of ISIS?
> 
> Writing "_please add something to this topic or stay out of the thread"_ creates an impression of uncivility. It implies that what has been written lacks relevance, when it is, actually, very aposite to the thread. It creates an impression of irritation that people are daring to argue in a way that you don't like. It suggests that you are trying to shut down opinion. It suggests that you think such comments are pointless. None of these views appear to be civil; they all appear to be dismissive, even contemptuous.
> 
> ...


None of the posts that you have made are remotely on topic at all. None of them have addressed the situation after the surge at all. I was trying to have a discussion about specific events that occurred post surge - what lead up to that surge has no bearing at all on that. At some point you have to be able to decouple things to discuss specific starting points, but neither of you seem willing (or capable) of doing that.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The fault lies with fanatical muslims who have their minds stuck in the 12th century!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

vpkozel said:


> None of the posts that you have made are remotely on topic at all. None of them have addressed the situation after the surge at all. I was trying to have a discussion about specific events that occurred post surge - what lead up to that surge has no bearing at all on that.


Yeah right.

Dream on mate.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> None of the posts that you have made are remotely on topic at all. None of them have addressed the situation after the surge at all. I was trying to have a discussion about specific events that occurred post surge - what lead up to that surge has no bearing at all on that. At some point you have to be able to decouple things to discuss specific starting points, but neither of you seem willing (or capable) of doing that.
> 
> Have a nice day.


But you can't isolate events pre and post surge, as if what happened pre-surge had no impact.


----------

