The Middle East is 'Bush's' Fault !

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Conflict in Iraq Follows Centuries of Shiite-Sunni Mistrust



The Sunni insurgency raging through Shiite-ruled Iraq has added fresh fuel to a centuries-old feud.




"The Iraq conflict plays out on several levels between Sunnis and Shiites. First and foremost, it's about how to share power in a 21st century state. The prime minister, a Shiite, has failed abysmally in creating a formula to share power with the Sunnis, the traditional political masters in Iraq," said Robin Wright, a joint fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center, non-partisan institutions.


www.nbcnews.com...



The divide between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam is both ancient and still highly consequential today. In Syria, a Sunni-majority country dominated by members of a Shiite sect, fighting that began as anti-government has taken on sectarian overtones. That has spilled over to Iraq, which is Shiite-majority and has a predominantly Shiite government but is increasingly troubled by Sunni rebels. And the region's major powers have long pushed sectarian interests, with Shiite-majority Iran on one side and Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia on the other.




www.washingtonpost.com...

www.npr.org...



The division of Islam into Sunni and Shiite branches goes far back in Muslim history to the aftermath of the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Its repercussions have rippled through history, with periods of peace and periods of war. With the recent turmoil, the conflict between Shiite and Sunni is once again a driving force behind events in the Middle East. Read a chronology:


This thread was created because quite a few people are going around 'blaming Bush' for the current crap in Iraq.

And how if the US had left the middle east 'alone' it would be all rainbows, and unicorns over there.

Neither Bush or Obama have 'helped' things over there.

Because it's the same crap,different, day,different year, oh, look at that time. It's 2000 years later.

You can worship at the alter of demagoguery.

You can take a drink from the fountain of knowledge.

The choice is yours.
edit on 16-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Just a quick question, are you a Bush supporter?



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: neo96

Just a quick question, are you a Bush supporter?


There's one for the alter of demagoguery.

Poor choice.


+3 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The Middle East.


Where Mubarak was ousted in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, backed by the Obama Administration.

Where the US is backing rebels against Assad, ironically where ISIS began.

Where we are now talking with Iran to help fight against ISIS.

Yet this is Bush's fault.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So...? Yes?


+7 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
The world reacted poorly to 911 and invaded Afghanistan. Including Canada(so there). Iraq was a different game. The "Coalition of the willing" was, um, not UN sanctioned and let's face it, without the US and UK, limp. So quoting thousands of years of infighting there doesn't absolve BUSH from this mess.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: neo96

So...? Yes?


I distinctly remember saying this:




Neither Bush or Obama have 'helped' things over there.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: neo96

The Middle East.


Where Mubarak was ousted in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, backed by the Obama Administration.

Where the US is backing rebels against Assad, ironically where ISIS began.

Where we are now talking with Iran to help fight against ISIS.

Yet this is Bush's fault.




This began long before either guy was elected.

Was the point.

We went in then we shirked our responsiblities.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I really wish people would research things before they comment on this one.
Unfortunately you gave them the Bush argument straight away.

I hope you get intelligent responses to this thread, although I doubt it, especially with school out.

Search my friends, search. The truth is there.

Eta... I usually shy away from your threads Neo, but you're right on this one.
edit on 6 16 2014 by tvtexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Okay, I asked because when it comes to bashing Obama you have no problem so I'm curious if you feel the same way about Bush because lets face it, the current problem in Iraq is a direct result of Bush & friends. Sure problems have been brewing in the ME since forever but to absolve Bush from any wrong doing is, well, ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: neo96

Just a quick question, are you a Bush supporter?

There's one for the alter of demagoguery.
Poor choice.


so any choice that differs from your opinion ,that was formed for you by main stream media is going to be "one for the alter of demagoguery.

Poor choice"

did you sell yourself to the truth teams or you just do this for yourself because i like to form my own opinion about the middle east and it goes further back than George Bush.These people have been at it since ancient times and the current round of turmoil is meant to be.

your choice was poor in buying into main stream media for guide your opinion,poor choice.
edit on 16-6-2014 by modified device because: let it all burn,people=#
edit on 16-6-2014 by modified device because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-6-2014 by modified device because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
The world reacted poorly to 911 and invaded Afghanistan. Including Canada(so there). Iraq was a different game. The "Coalition of the willing" was, um, not UN sanctioned and let's face it, without the US and UK, limp. So quoting thousands of years of infighting there doesn't absolve BUSH from this mess.


Not un sanctioned ?

Hmmm.



The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: neo96

Okay, I asked because when it comes to bashing Obama you have no problem so I'm curious if you feel the same way about Bush because lets face it, the current problem in Iraq is a direct result of Bush & friends. Sure problems have been brewing in the ME since forever but to absolve Bush from any wrong doing is, well, ridiculous.



What ?


Intentionally ignore this comment once again:




Neither Bush or Obama have 'helped' things over there.


Where was the 'absolve' ?



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

From YOUR link man:


The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990 and that since the U.N. security council has made no Article 39[30] finding of illegality that no illegality exists.

Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under U.N. Resolution 687 (1991)


That's weak juice by any means. Wanna try again?



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I haven't changed my opinion of Bush. He based his decision on data provided him. The same as Clinton's and everyone else's both before and after the invasion.

Where I do blame Bush was his wimping out and failing to put Iran and Pakistan in "their place". Those two nations are responsible for more U.S. casualties than the Iraqis or the Afghans.

The Quid Pro Quo Obama will be forced to grant Iran in exchange for their "services rendered" will be the OK for nuclear development AND political dominance of the region.

This will piss off both the Saudis and Israel...big time.

The Saudis? I couldn't care less. Israel? The last straw?? What will they do? What are they capable of...WOW.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: neo96

The Middle East.


Where Mubarak was ousted in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, backed by the Obama Administration.

Where the US is backing rebels against Assad, ironically where ISIS began.

Where we are now talking with Iran to help fight against ISIS.

Yet this is Bush's fault.




This began long before either guy was elected.

Was the point.

We went in then we shirked our responsiblities.


While there is a historical precedent, the current administration has done nothing to quell the rising tensions.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Middle east issues come from when the borders where drawn by conquerers, installing dictators and stealing from the land.

Not from bush or obamas, runs alot deeper than that.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yes we can say that the middle east mess is Bush fault, but also every president before him that allow all the crap that has been building up when siding with countries while oppressing others, due to private interest invested in some countries, propping nations using America tax dollars because profits are first.

How about that.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

'Weak' ?



The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3] Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


That was weak ?

en.wikipedia.org...

There there is that.

But then again there is also this:



He had congressional approval, he echoed the previous administration, and yet how does he 'own' Iraq ?

The war powers presidents have does have a limitations, and needs congressional approval of funds to fight.

There could have been no war had some people not wanted it, and most certainly not for a decade+



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Haven't helped is putting it midly. I wonder, was Iraq under constant attack from terrorism before March of 03?

But as far as ignoring things, I'll ask again, are you a fan of Bush? I know you aren't a fan of Obama.
edit on 16-6-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join