View RSS Feed

Memories of the 28th Century

Obama Created ISIS

Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
That is not an exaggeration. ISIS would not exist, if Obama weren’t an ignorant clown who has no idea how the rest of the world runs, and who badly messed up with regard to Syria. He should have supported Assad against the rebels. Apparently he thinks that everyone is supposed to crawl to his side of the issues, especially if he’s wrong. For someone who is supposed to be well educated he seems to have a very poor grasp of the situation in the Middle East. I wonder if he even knew that Assad, both father and son, have ruled a diverse population in Syria since Hafez became President in 1971 and made Syria the most open society in that region.

The Assads are members of the tiny Islamic Alawite sect, so it was to their advantage to protect smaller religious and ethnic groups. Syria is the home for many ethnic groups who had been run out of their homes or who had survived since ancient times. By holding them together the Assads developed a fairly good power base, even though the Sunnis were the majority.
We can also blame every country and organization that has backed the rebels in Syria for contributing to the development of ISIS, but Obama did more than the rest to assist ISIS. Failing to support the Syrian government was a bad mistake.

It wasn’t long ago when the U.S.A. had competent leaders who had the intelligence and education to understand the international situation, but in the last few decades we have had ignorant and sometimes stupid leaders who ran foreign policy based on what they thought they wanted, while they ignored facts. Putting the Palestinian situation aside, the present problems in the Mideast were caused primarily by the actions of G. W. Bush, who destabilized the region with his foolish invasions that didn’t accomplish anything except infuriate most of the people in that region and kill off people who were foolish enough to stay in the U.S. military. The stupidity of Bush was followed by the stubbornness of Obama, who continued the failed and wrong policies of Bush. Both of them, and, to a lesser extent, prior U.S. leaders opposed the Syrian government, even though it remains the only secular regime in the region. The Syrian government has been non-religious because the people of Syrian are so divided by religious and ethnic differences. Even with a Sunni majority Syria has continued to be open and permissive to all religions. The present rebellion is a campaign to impose Wahhabi Sunni doctrines on all of the people of Syria, and that is what ISIS exists to do. Even though majority rule may be desirable sometimes, imposing majority held beliefs on everyone is not desirable, and the Assads have prevented any religious group from imposing its standards on the rest of the people of Syria. What the Assads did was good, and we Americans and freedom loving people everywhere should encourage Syria to remain open to all opinions. And we should assist the Syrian government to retain religious freedom.

It isn't too late. We can still save the people of Syria from a religious dictatorship. The U.S. should support the Syrian army in its attempts to defeat the rebels, all of the rebels. We should send weapons and ammunition to the Syrian army, and we should assist in attempts to cut off supplies from ISIS.

Syria is not an ally, but it is on the same side as us in this war. Syria is a friend of the third sort; the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
Tags: ally, friend, isis, syria
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. PeterL's Avatar
    I started a piece on fighting again the battles of the Enlightenment. That's what this is about. This time those of us who favor classical liberalism are being opposed by people like Obama and people like the one in this video.
    http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-franc...opstories.html

    We won the last time, and we will win again.
  2. prendrelemick's Avatar
    Yep, I'd agree with most of that. The leaders of the West are no longer capable of being pragmatic . They sway and bend with fashionable opinions of the very short term moment. It only goes to show - the only lesson we learn from History, is that we never learn the lessons of History.
  3. PeterL's Avatar
    There are a few lessons that the people who try to run things will have to learn really, really soon. The biggest thing is that the Enlightenment ideals must be preserved and extended to all humans. Unfortunately, Obama and most of the European leaders have taken up being opposed to the ideals of the Enlightenment, and that video of the guy from IS in South Asia was specifically opposed to the Ideals of the Enlightenment. On one side we have politicians and academics who think that their opinions should be taken as absolute truth, and on the other side we have religious fanatics who think that their religious delusions must be taken as absolute fact. And here I am trying to fight with both, and both are equally evil.

    Please try to spread Classical Liberalism.
    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...iberalism.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
    http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/li...the_rise1.html
  4. prendrelemick's Avatar
    If Enlightenment means freedom of thought and religion for ALL, not just those who agree with you, then yes let have it. The trouble is that taken to the extreme it leads to Obama-like inaction." Fighting for Enlightenment" is almost an oxymoron Other doctrines can be more aggressive and intransigent.

    I'm not exactly sure what Classic Liberalism is, but it seems to me that , for the individual, strong Government is the best protection against exploitation and excesses committed by "Men of Worth", and a working democracy should be the protection of the individual against a Strong Government. (If only it were that simple) - but given a choice between being controlled by Big Government or Big Business I'd choose an elected Government every time.

    The trouble is that Government and Big Business have become entwined to such an extent that the choice is a narrow one. The "Men of Worth" have the ear of the Government and the balls electorate. The politicians pass and uphold laws that protect and perpetuate the current cosy (for them) system and receive wealth (through patronage, consultancy fees, donations, jobs etc,) from the Men of Worth.

    My point is that Government big or small leaves the individual under tight constraint. I prefer to pay high taxes than to be given low wages.

    OK, rant over. (I still agree with you mostly)




    A cynic would say that war in far away countries is good for business - so lets arm both sides and keep it going
  5. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by prendrelemick
    If Enlightenment means freedom of thought and religion for ALL, not just those who agree with you, then yes let have it. The trouble is that taken to the extreme it leads to Obama-like inaction." Fighting for Enlightenment" is almost an oxymoron Other doctrines can be more aggressive and intransigent.

    I'm not exactly sure what Classic Liberalism is, but it seems to me that , for the individual, strong Government is the best protection against exploitation and excesses committed by "Men of Worth", and a working democracy should be the protection of the individual against a Strong Government. (If only it were that simple) - but given a choice between being controlled by Big Government or Big Business I'd choose an elected Government every time.
    Think of Jeffersonian democracy and you'll have a very good idea what the Enlightenment and Classical liberalism are about. Take a look at the articles to which posted links. The EM;ightenment overthrew the reuirements that an individual's thoughts were to concur with what the Church wanted expressed.


    The trouble is that Government and Big Business have become entwined to such an extent that the choice is a narrow one. The "Men of Worth" have the ear of the Government and the balls electorate. The politicians pass and uphold laws that protect and perpetuate the current cosy (for them) system and receive wealth (through patronage, consultancy fees, donations, jobs etc,) from the Men of Worth.

    My point is that Government big or small leaves the individual under tight constraint. I prefer to pay high taxes than to be given low wages.

    OK, rant over. (I still agree with you mostly)

    A cynic would say that war in far away countries is good for business - so lets arm both sides and keep it going
    The U.S. government was set up to allow all points of view and to allow individuals to live their lives as they wish, but Big Government and Big Business found it more profittable to put more and more limitations on individual liberties.

    Eant all you like. It's fine with me, and if I don't like it, then I'll just laugh.
  6. Virgil's Avatar
    Completely agree on the failures of Obama but I disagree on the Bush invasion of Iraq. What remained wasn't a perfect situation but it was a young democracy that had held several elections. The problem was created when Obama pulled our base and all our troops out of the country and left the Iaqi Army to its own devices, which in essence meant lack of cohesion. Supposedly they were trained, but training to use equipment is not the same thing as keeping cohesion. That comes with an integrated army which requires years. They scattered when they faced the slightest adversity. We need to get back in there. The military assessment of several years ago said that an American presence of 10 to 15 thousand troops were required to maintain stability. They were proven right. We need to get those troops back in. Despite the horrors that ISIS shows with their videos they are a rag tag army at best. Iraq is easily salvageable. We need a division of troops, preferably armored, and ISIS will scatter like chickens. They'll still create a terrorist problem, but they won't occupy territory. Will Obama send in a division? Who knows what goes on in that imbecile's brain. Frankly I think he ought to be impeached for his incompetence.
  7. prendrelemick's Avatar
    I don't agree with your assessment of Obama at all. Imagine if he had supported Assad against the rebels early on. Imagine if he had announced that there were no plans to bring US troops home. Would anyone have supported him? The vilification he's getting at the moment is nothing up to what he would've got then.

    I know wittering on about the past is pointless but Bush the younger and his hawkish cronies must bear the lion's share of the responsibility for the mess. Why attack Iraq ? A knee jerk reaction? - Unfinished family business with Saddam? - The pleasure of using jingoistic kick-*** soundbites? The weapons of mass destruction were an invention. The US army were not seen as liberators but as a foreign army of occupation. Finally, the terrorist nest responsible for 911 was in Afghanistan (funded unwittingly by oil rich gulf states.)not Iraq.

    Anyone who says they foresaw the rise of ISIS , say two years ago, is lying, but the West's relatively recent policy of helping to remove strong dictators rather than supporting them, has led to power vacuums that are inevitably being filled by radical Muslim groups. That was foreseeable.

    Obama is culpable for not being able to sort out the mess - not because he's an imbecile or incompetent (he's neither) but because he is isolated, he has not played the Washington game of cultivating alliances and political pathways that would enable him to govern effectively and do the pragmatic thing, ie support people like Assad.
  8. PeterL's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by prendrelemick
    I don't agree with your assessment of Obama at all. Imagine if he had supported Assad against the rebels early on. Imagine if he had announced that there were no plans to bring US troops home. Would anyone have supported him? The vilification he's getting at the moment is nothing up to what he would've got then.
    If he had announced that there wre no plans to bring troops home, then he sure wouldn't have had support. But what does thaqt have to do with supporting Assad?

    I know wittering on about the past is pointless but Bush the younger and his hawkish cronies must bear the lion's share of the responsibility for the mess. Why attack Iraq ? A knee jerk reaction? - Unfinished family business with Saddam? - The pleasure of using jingoistic kick-*** soundbites? The weapons of mass destruction were an invention. The US army were not seen as liberators but as a foreign army of occupation. Finally, the terrorist nest responsible for 911 was in Afghanistan (funded unwittingly by oil rich gulf states.)not Iraq.
    Yes

    Anyone who says they foresaw the rise of ISIS , say two years ago, is lying, but the West's relatively recent policy of helping to remove strong dictators rather than supporting them, has led to power vacuums that are inevitably being filled by radical Muslim groups. That was foreseeable.
    True

    Obama is culpable for not being able to sort out the mess - not because he's an imbecile or incompetent (he's neither) but because he is isolated, he has not played the Washington game of cultivating alliances and political pathways that would enable him to govern effectively and do the pragmatic thing, ie support people like Assad.
    I disagree. Someone sitting as President of the U.S.A. should know, should have known, the nature of the Syrian government and tremendous religious and cultural that was in Syria and remained there because the Assads and other dictators before them used the smaller sects and natioalities as part of their power base and as a balance against the Sunnis.
  9. Mohammad Ahmad's Avatar
    I haven't enough time to read all of the article, but as I read the first line " That is not an exaggeration. ISIS would not exist, if Obama weren’t an ignorant clown who has no idea how the rest of the world runs, and who badly messed up with regard to Syria" Here it is obvious in the western street that people recognize that there is failure in the American administration and there is stuck failure on Obama side.
    Isis isn't considered as an easy enemy at all, it is the dangerous one to the American national interests at the Arabian region.
    No one of Iraqis like to support them neither going to help them nor should believe in their doctrine even in the Sunni areas, which I am myself is one of the Sunni Muslims, but the matter that they find suitable environment there is because of the persecution and the maltreatment from the Shiite government and especially from the former and for now Prime Minster" Al-Malky" and for instance the most prisoners under the article -4 terrorism had been set forth only for the Sunni sect even if there is reason or if not there is reason, they killed many Sunni people who are minatory in Shiite cities. This is short view I have time to mention it.
  10. Mohammad Ahmad's Avatar
    Yes Obama created them!
  11. PeterL's Avatar
    Mohammed, I thank you for the general agreement. Iraq is a very complicated country, and I didn't want to discuss that much. It is my opinion that ISIS, or IS or whatever they are, developed more from the anarchic conditions in Syria, and I blame Obama more than anyone else for that; although some of the European governments also helped the rebels. There was no government in eastern Syria, so ISIS grew.

    I hope that Iraq will soon get a ruler who will be better than Al-Malky.