101
102

Apparently ISIS is Bush's fault now (nytimes.com)

OrionRivers が 投稿

全 98 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a

[–]BUbears17 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Here's the issue:

We invaded Iraq. Had we never done that we might not have gotten ISIS. However who knows?! When you base it on the Iraq hypothesis it's just a "what if" game.

The core underlying issue with the Middle East is that one of our best buds over there (Saudi Arabia) is funding terrorism more than any other major party. So why are we funding Saudi Arabia??

My issue is that bush led the way to our situation over there, and Obama has done little to nothing to change course.

This isn't a conservative v. liberal issue. This is an issue of the people vs. our government and our government is the one fucking everything up

[–]theotherduke 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Very well said. A little research can show Western interventions playing a major role in most of the destabilized regions of the Middle East dating back to the 40's and 50's. Anyone suggesting we aren't at least partially responsible for the situation has their head in the sand. Our GOVERNMENT is fucking up and suggesting it's only one party or the other is just willful ignorance.

[–]cos 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We invaded Iraq. Had we never done that we might not have gotten ISIS.

There's no "might" about it. ISIS formed out of Zarqawi's organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq. They were foreign fighters who flocked to Iraq to fight the Americans, and gained their organization, training, military experience, connections, and access to arms, through the years of that war. A war we the US created, a cause we gave them to respond to, and a space to operate in created by us.

We don't know what might have arisen in the wake of, say, an Arab Spring inspired legitimate local uprising against the Saddam Hussein government that would've likely occurred if the US hadn't invaded. But we do know that ISIS is a pretty direct result of the US and would not have happened without our invasion.

[–]Captain_Yid -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The people supported the Iraq invasion by something like an 80/20 margin....

[–]BUbears17 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because the government fed people false information.

[–]Neon-Knight -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

BS

Bush Lied People Died right Lefty?

[–]BUbears17 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now I wouldn't go so far as to say they definitely lied. However the information was bad and we acted too soon. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia if anyone, since they were the ones mostly responsible for 9/11

[–]Neon-Knight -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've translated your screed: Blame America First.

[–]JustRuss79Parolee 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It all goes back to Barbary, Damn that Thomas Jefferson for wanting to protect US Shipping in the Gulf!

[–]nicksvr4 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (21子コメント)

I blame 9/11 on Clinton then.

Also, wouldn't the fault of ISIS land on the person that withdrew our troops and left that power vacuum?

[–]Kangaroopower 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Didn't Clinton maintain an anti-terrorism operation that was shut down by Bush in the pre 9/11 portion of Bush's term?

Also, wouldn't the fault of ISIS land on the person that withdrew our troops and left that power vacuum?

But then the question that arises is why did we send troops there to begin with?

[–]not-Kid_Putin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Also, wouldn't the fault of ISIS land on the person that withdrew our troops and left that power vacuum?

But then the question that arises is why did we send troops there to begin with?

You can definitely make the argument and I don't totally disagree, but at that point it becomes the butterfly effect problem where he can keep tracing back a problem years and years and years before. We could blame WW1 for this because of colonization and the removal of the Ottoman Empire. It really doesn't lead anywhere. It's probably best to blame the direct cause of the issue

[–]nicksvr4 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Absolutely agree. It's more about how we react now, not who we blame for the past. We can learn from our mistakes and use that for decisions in the future, but we get no where by just blaming others for where we are now.

[–]not-Kid_Putin 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, playing the blame game is childish and pointless if we bicker on who did what but we need to evaluate the cause in order to prevent it in the future

[–]Kangaroopower 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can definitely make the argument and I don't totally disagree, but at that point it becomes the butterfly effect problem where he can keep tracing back a problem years and years and years before

That's completely valid, but you have to take into account the timeframes in this issue. Mostly everyone agrees that WW2 was caused due to the Treaty of Versailles- that's obvious, because WW2 was essentially a direct result of that treaty.

Similarly, President Bush's actions in Iraq are directly linked to the formation of ISIS right now- it's been barely more than a decade since we went to war in Iraq, and ignoring that and the obvious repercussions of that war wouldn't reveal the big picture. On the other hand, WW1 is so far removed from ISIS that mentioning WW1 in relation to ISIS is not worthwhile. There's a huge difference in timespan between 10 years (the war in Iraq) and 100 years (WW1).

Cheers

[–]not-Kid_Putin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I get what your saying, and like I said, I dont totally disagree. I put some blame on both presidents for this but I think the more direct result was Obama's hasty retreat from Iraq. A lot of different results could have come from Bush's invasion, ISIS being one, but the hand we were dealt came from the decision to get out of Iraq. There's blame to go around, but I think looking at the direct results will yield better advice on how we can approach similar situations in the future

[–]Zumaki 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You might not be too far off base. Clinton launched strikes on AQ training sites with no intent of following up. Just threw rocks at the hornet nest to piss them off.

[–]the_letter_6 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wasn't that after they had already attacked the embassies, though? I mean, we can blame Clinton for making an ineffective response, but not for Al Qaeda's intent and actions.

[–]Zumaki 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Bin Laden said in videos that 9/11 was retaliation for actions taken during Clinton years.

[–]adlpSHITLORD 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

are these videos on youtube? they could be useful to me

[–]megustcizerLibertarian Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hence throwing rocks at a hornet nest. It sure pissed them off, alright.

[–]the_letter_6 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, but they were already hornets, and already stinging people. The roots of Al Qaeda's campaign against the US go back to the Persian Gulf War at the latest, which you can't blame on Clinton. Al Qaeda already had the intention to hurt the US in place, and were actively working on getting the capability to pull off 9/11 regardless of whatever specific actions the Clinton administration took. Short of destroying the majority of the AQ movers and shakers, there's not a lot that would have prevented them from attempting to make the attack. Foiled them, perhaps, but they were going to try regardless.

[–]wretcheddawnConservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, wouldn't the fault of ISIS land on the person that withdrew our troops and left that power vacuum?

This. You can argue we shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, but once we did, we needed to stick it out and finish it.

[–]not-Kid_Putin 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I blame 9/11 on Woodrow Wilson

[–]the_federalistMadisonian Republican 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That damned League of Nations doomed us all!

[–]not-Kid_Putin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You gotta take the whole thing into perspective in order to get the big picture. 9/11 was Woodrow Wilson's doing in the end

[–]Neon-Knight 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In a way you can, because Wilson's wooly headed idealism helped create the map of the Middle East we are dealing with now.

[–]tracism 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

9/11 should be blamed on Clinton. Most of the major problems that break out in the first few years of a presidency are usually the fault of the predecessor. I blame 9/11 on Clinton. I blame the economic crisis on Bush (it actually did start during Bush's presidency). I blame ISIS on Bush, too, since the Mujahdeen Shura Council (essentially modern ISIS) was started in 2006. The real problems that Obama has caused will crop up between now and abut 2020 or so.

[–]Captain_Yid 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I agree except for the ISIS bit. ISIS had a everything to do with the Obama's hasty withdrawal from Iraq and the Iraqi-shia prime minister brutally cracking down on Sunni's with Obama's tacit approval. Sunnis tried nonviolent means of resolving the situation, but their efforts were not well-received - to put it mildly (protesters massacred, leaders imprisoned, etc.). Then they resorted to violence and ISIS was the main force left. Plus, Syria's collapse aggravated these circumstances.

There was a great Frontline episode about this....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/

[–]tracism 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's great, but it's not reality. The Mujahdeen Shura Council formed in 2006, and formally renamed themselves ISI in October 2006. They committed a number of terrorist acts in 2006 through 2008. The "surge" in Iraq was the event that bolstered them into a major player.

Be a conservative. Deal in facts. Don't just blame Obama for everything. That's weak and easy. We need to look for whatever policies work best for stopping the scourge of radical Islam and not worry about who proposed it. The conditions of Iraq in 2006 and 2007 gave birth to ISIS, so what can we learn from that fact?

[–]Captain_Yid -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Frontline isn't conservative - it's PBS, which actually leans slightly left. Watch the link. The facts are there.

And if I "blamed Obama for everything" I would also be blaming him for the economic crisis on him, which I expressly didn't. Maybe you should face the facts, eh?

[–]Zeppelin415Libertarian Conservative 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why not? The Taliban was Reagan's fault.

[–]CherryCokeNixon 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And Harry Truman lost Red China.

We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning.

[–]xwhy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray . . .

Yep, that tracks. I'm not sure of Doris's role in all of this though.

[–]DJWhamoPaleo 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm interested to know how many of the people upvoting you are doing so because of sarcasm, and how many are doing so because they do in fact place blame on Reagan for not following through, ala the not-so-veiled assertion of Charlie Wilson's War.

[–]yep45Constitutionalist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And why is that

[–]GoodGuyNixon 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"I have a question! Your brother was the one who created ISIS!"

"Is that a question?"

top kek

[–]MentalArbitrage 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (24子コメント)

Are you suggesting invading a region on pretense will have no repercussions?

[–]Yoxinator 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well I wouldn't say it was his fault directly. We can argue over the pretenses of which we chose to invade Iraq, but its evident that toppling secular (albeit bad people) governments in the middle-east hasn't done anything to help stabilize the region. Not only that, but its help lead to the current state of our country: large social divides on all issues, rights violations, and a deficit that is seemingly beyond payable.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Iraqi Muslims were killing each other long before we showed up. The only way Saddam maintained order in his country was by murdering tens of thousands of his own countrymen. Then we invaded and things were rough, but ISIS never appeared and starting fucking shit up until after Obama pulled our troops out, in case you don't remember.

[–]KingJak117 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I remember watching for hours on Fox News when ISIS started to show up. I was expecting them to last a couple months but the president appears to not have in interest in eradicating them.

[–]pretendent 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You mean pulled out from the country whose government didn't want our soldiers staying?

[–]Zumaki 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

He pulled the troops out following the withdrawal procedure laid out by Bush. Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq but basically couldn't.

[–]combatmedic82 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Obama had absolutely ZERO desire to renegotiate the status of forces agreement. His 2008 campaign rhetoric and claims of successfully ending the war after the withdrawal are more than enough evidence to demonstrate that fact.

Differences of opinion on the validity of the Iraq invasion, and the conduct of the war are not only valid, but welcome. However, to try to rewrite history and suggest Obama's precipitous withdrawal from Iraq was against his policy position is a blatant lie. He wanted out, and his "failed" negotiation was the perfect means to accomplish that promise.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I highly doubt that Obama didn't have the ability to simply tell Iraq "we're staying here, deal with it." We basically owned the country after the invasion and occupation of it. You can't tell me that their government actually had the power to enforce any kind of law over our occupying troops without our approval.

Obama just used "they won't agree to it" as an excuse to get the troops out.

[–]sailorJery 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

DAESH existed since 1999 and had been in Iraq before Obama ran for office.

[–]OrionRivers[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Of course I'm not suggesting that invading Iraq had no repercussions. I am, however, asserting that it's absurd to allege that someone who hasn't been in office for nearly 7 years is responsible for a terrorist group that formed less than a year ago (6 years after Bush left office). I'll take this even further and point out the fact that terrorist organizations are more than ready, willing, and able to emerge without using American influence as a scapegoat. Islamists don't need American invasions to drum up support to recruit new members to fight for an Islamic caliphate.

[–]f0urd3gr33s 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I could be off base entirely, but my impression from reading the article is that the student was implying Bush is responsible for ISIS because he is the reason the US went into Iraq in the first place. Her reasoning appears to be: No Bush-led invasion of Iraq = no ISIS. Reasonable enough on the surface, but definitely a bit of a "what if" game.

[–]SomeWashingtonDudeWashington State Conservative -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ISIS would still happen even if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq. In fact, I'm going to throw out a guess that the US soldiers in Iraq had probably caused the leader of ISIS (who is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) to delay their actions for a while, not to mention that they were probably waiting for an ample opportunity to strike.

When the Arab Uprising happened, they knew it was time...

I stand corrected.

[–]coffee_with_Cthulhu 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nah, that's incorrect. Despite ISIS' track record for brutality, the AQ kept them on the same team until early 2014, when they cut all ties, thus turning the AQI into ISIS. The reason they did that was because they had been ramping up the territory control, and along with it did some things that made even the AQ squirm. Why'd they do that? When the American's pulled out, the Iraqi military fell apart, for a very large variety of reason; the Sunni/Shiite divide, which had only grown throughout Maliki's; the bolstering of the AQI troops, as the Sons of Iraq, Sunni militias on government payroll, realized that they weren't getting any contracts; the extremely sudden gains by ISIS, which routed most troops in what was effectively a blitzkrieg. The rush capturing by ISIS of Mosul and most other territory really couldn't have been predicted, as it was spur of the moment once they realized they were winning battle after battle, but the reason they got to that point, mainly the religious divide, that only happened post bush. Certainly, Saddam wasn't friendly towards Shiites by any stretch of the word, but between the two people, there was mostly coexistence. The war changed that.

Not that I'm exonerating Obama. Pulling out when he did allowed the area to fall apart. But there's no way in hell ISIS would have popped up in the same way. The war catalyzed that entirely.

[–]sailorJery 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When do you think DAESH formed? Because it wasn't during the Obama administration.

[–]theotherduke -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

"The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which in October 2006 proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI)."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant)

They changed their name in 2006 but it's completely inaccurate to suggest they have only existed for a year.

edit: a word

[–]OrionRivers[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Definitely not "completely inaccurate." You yourself just acknowledged that they've undergone numerous manifestations before solidifying into the current organization that they are. What makes Islamic terrorist organizations so successful in spite of their relative weakness is their ability to adapt and evolve to meet more traditional threats, i.e. military force from foreign nations. It's not inaccurate to assert that this current manifestation has only existed for a year, because prior to a year ago they were a different group comprised of pissed off hardline Islamists. Really, at this point, the argument is just a contest of semantics anyway because it's clear that these terrorist organizations regularly evolve, change, or alter their structure. This current manifestation--the supposed Islamic Caliphate that you just provided information about in the wikipedia article--is only a year old, even if many of its members have been fighting for for years with with groups under different names.

[–]theotherduke 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

When people are talking about who to blame, all of that historical context is incredibly relevant. Maybe "partially inaccurate" would have been a better choice of words on my part.

edit: While we're debating the minute details of all of this, I can find record of ISIS existing in its currently named form at least as early as April, 2013. That's two years, not one. al-quaeda disavowed relations with them last year, but that didn't change who ISIS is or what they are fighting to accomplish. Those goals have been set for some time. Not that any of that changes how awful they are or how complicated the situation is, but accuracy of our information is important.

Also, thanks for being respectful in your correction of my post. It's often very difficult to have a civil discussion in this sub when two people don't see eye-to-eye. I appreciate the dialogue!

[–]DevonWeeksModerate Conservative 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ISIS predates Bush, or at least the leadership of it and the attempts to organize it. The first attempt to organize them was going on in the Clinton years. Then they moved into Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan. We thought Saddam was harboring Zarqawi (the original ISIS leader) and that was part of the justification for invading. That pushed him and his group to the Iraq-Syria border. When the new Iraqi government came to power, there was the promise of both Sunni and Shiite sects sharing power. Well, that didn't last, and soon there was sectarian persecution and violence again. That drove ISIS to a new recruiting drive where they picked up Saddam's old generals and a lot of pissed off Sunnis.

So, no, it's not Bush's fault. It's not Clinton's fault. ISIS existed independently of either of those president's actions. ISIS's rise to power in Iraq is partially Obama's fault in as far as he failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement that would have allowed for us to remain and secure the country when ISIS was gaining territory, but even then it's more the fault of the Iraqis for failing to set aside their sectarian squabbles to build an inclusive government.

[–]SoundSalad 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

ISIS is the result of American interventionism carried out by every president in the past five decades.

[–]Captain_Yid 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Or ISIS could simply be due to Islamic extremism...

[–]not-Kid_Putin 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

We don't see crazies in the Philippines kidnapping people, burning them alive, and killing journalists. And we occupied them longer.

[–]OrionRivers[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Although ISIS is one of the more callous groups to adopt the hardline Islamist banner, the Phillippines absolutely has its own problems:

http://www.cfr.org/philippines/terrorism-havens-philippines/p9365

You should also look into the military reports on East Asia. Many believe this is the next battleground.

[–]jsphere256Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (22子コメント)

It's almost like Barack Obama doesn't even exist.

[–]Tullyswimmer 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (21子コメント)

He does though. He got the stock market back to all-time highs, gas prices are down, everyone has healthcare coverage now, unemployment is like, 6% or less, and there's no war in Iraq despite our soldiers still fighting and dying over there. Oh, and the housing market recovered, and there are now more college students than ever. Obama did all that.

[–]bryanlharris 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah but did he build that? Who built that?

[–]timtom45 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He didn't!

[–]xwhy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well the gas prices he didn't build. He stood in the way of that as much as he could. Gas prices are down now because of fracking. I'm not aware of 0bama's support of fracking.

He did build that 6% unemployment number which is paradoxically joined by the lowest labor participation rate in decades because, once again, the numbers are cooked. Some people have stopped looking for work or had their benefits run out and aren't counted anymore while others are taking lower-paid part time work. (I don't know how people now holding 2 PT jobs figures into the numbers, so anyone feel free to step in here.)

And while gas is down, healthcare costs are waaaay up, but with the added difference that you are now required to buy it when you could've walked away before. So it's not that more people have healthcare, it's just that not having it is now illegal. And, yeah, he did that.

[–]Tullyswimmer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

nonononono, he DID build it, because he's government, and not a private citizen who uses government infrastructure.

[–]Captain_Yid 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The economy is being propped up by artificially-low interest rates. If you believe this economy is legit, you should look a little closer. They have to raise those interest rates sooner or later, and look out when they do.

[–]the_federalistMadisonian Republican 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

He inflated the dollar through unending QE, private fracking brought gas prices down despite protests from the left, 35 million nonelderly people remain uninsured (March 2015 CBO baseline), the labor participation rate is the lowest it has been in 36 years, ISIS opened a hotel in Iraq. That's what Obama did. Good luck to all those college kids when they enter the labor market Obama made. I hope they don't get tired of asking if people want their sandwich toasted.

[–]theotherduke 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm curious if you can give me a resource for the impact fracking has had on bringing down gas prices. I'm pretty sure OPEC opened the flood gates and that's why gas prices are lower. Last I heard fracking wells are closing rapidly right now because of the sharp drop in oil prices. Would love to see some info on this subject if you have it.

[–]xwhy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

OPEC has increased production (which, btw, Obama didn't do that) to make fracking unprofitable. Oil has to be in the $50-60 range minimum to be worth it. (I don't have a link to the exact price point.) however, with greater production, that price point could be lowered.

The price has also dropped due to increased production on private lands that Obama couldn't shut down, as he prevented drilling on public lands.

I'm curious what the impact on fracking would be if they opened the Keystone pipeline.

[–]RuNaa 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well you could argue that OPEC (and specifically KSA) would not have opened the flood gates if they did not fear losing market share to the frackers and Russians, both of whom have much higher operating costs even if they have access to plenty of supply.

[–]theotherduke 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's a good point

[–]the_federalistMadisonian Republican 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

OPEC wouldn't open the floodgates because they exist to maintain a supply/demand ratio that is profitable. They have little reason to increase supply and drive the price of a barrel of oil down. As for fracking, it's an expensive process and if the price of oil is too low it cannot be sustained. They sort of put themselves out of business. As fracking operations close, supply will dry up (all things being equal) and the market will find how many fracking operations can be supported. However, OPEC is unlikely to be happy with more oil production from us so they're going to do what they can to maintain profitability.

One thing is for certain, though: Obama didn't do jack shit to bring gas prices down, unless creating unemployment and shifting the economy to low-wage part-time McJobs reduced demand on gas.

[–]Tullyswimmer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

well that's all Bush's fault because he left the economy such a mess and those damn republitards in congress keep blocking PROGRESS(tm)

[–]CherryCokeNixon 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Unemployment numbers are a sham. They count part time work and don't count people who left the labor force due to giving up.

Also, gas prices are back to shit show levels. Well over $3.50 in California. The prices rocketed back up about a month after he patted himself on the back for it during the SOTU speech.

Why are you trolling for Barry on /r/conservative anyway? Don't you realized we all have years of evidence built up against his disaster of a presidency? The man makes George W. Bush look like Lincoln by comparison.

[–]Captain_Yid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Was gonna upvote, but then you used Lincoln as an example of a great president.

[–]CherryCokeNixon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Oh, right right. I keep forgetting how many neo-confederates are on who who think Lincoln was an unconstitutional tyrant...psh.

[–]Captain_Yid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Lincoln's war severely damaged the power of the States and hugely boosted the power of the federal government. If you're a conservative, you should appreciate the fallout of the Civil War and its impact on the balance of government. Abolishing slavery makes for a heroic cause when you impose modern-day morality on the 1800's, but what was the price? An incredibly bloody war, a destroyed infrastructure (mostly in the South), and a roided-up federal government that impacts (negatively, IMO) the future of our country today.

[–]CherryCokeNixon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I recall learning that the late 19th century was a pretty libertarian time that college professors love to deride. "Robber barons," "out of control capitalism," "a lawless gun filled Wild West."

The feds didn't really start ramping up until Wilson and didn't get out of control until FDR.

Lincoln simply "illegally" declared slaves in rebel states as free thereby "stealing property." Oh, and he locked up rebel terrorists like we do in Gitmo, difference being that our republic was literally imploding at the time.

[–]Captain_Yid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

And he set the precedent that the federal government may destroy your state if your state wishes to secede, thereby stripping the States of a huge bargaining chip. It used to be the federal government had to answer to the States. After the civil war, the States had to answer to the federal government.

No, Lincoln didn't single-handedly bloat the federal government. He just paved the path for bloating the government. Since then, he has been aided by such "heroes" as FDR (who has some good points) and LBJ (my least favorite president).

[–]CherryCokeNixon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And by what precedent was it assumed that states had the right to secede?

[–]Captain_Yid 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There was no precedent either way. Lincoln set the precedent that the States do not have that freedom. IMO, membership in the Union should be optional.

[–]tehForce 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Obama's choice to select to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere in the region, drawing imaginary red lines in the sand, abandoning Israel and supporting Iran while withdrawing troops from the region had nothing to do with it at all.

[–]xwhy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting piece. They must like Jeb. He got the last word in and didn't come off looking like a clown.

[–]megustaba -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

of course. The Nepal earthquakes were also his fault i'd bet

/s

[–]not-Kid_Putin 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I blame Bush for the Vietnam war /s

[–]BuddhistSagan 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ISIS isn't about the US, it isn't about Bush or Obama. ISIS was created because of internal forces within the gigantic Islamic world. It isn't about us, and to think it is is just arrogent and self centered lazy thinking.

[–]DonnieS1Suppprter -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ISIS exists because of the arrogant incompetence of Obama Rama Ding dong and his Cabinet of Clowns. They are the only reason.