Can someone explain why it was a good idea to overthrow Saddam and let ISIS take over?

Hard to predict the future. There was no ISIS in 2003. ISIS is a product of the War in Iraq and the general Sunni Awakening.

I guess it was thought that a democracy we have hands in controlling in the Middle East was worth the gamble. But no one predicted the Sunni Awakening nor the establishment of ISIS nor the difficulties of establishing an Arab democracy.

You can't force democracy. People have to want it. Sometimes authorization governments are just easy to follow along, especially if you've known no different.

McDonalds and KFC....that's how you start a western democracy in a foreign land.

Alan

I was in the th northern part of Iraq in 04/05 and the invasion was a horrible idea. Better to have the devil you know in power than 1,000 devils you don't know.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Hard to predict the future. There was no ISIS in 2003. ISIS is a product of the War in Iraq and the general Sunni Awakening.

I'm a bit ignorant on history. Had promoting regime change typically brought about positive outcomes previously?

looking to learn wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Hard to predict the future. There was no ISIS in 2003. ISIS is a product of the War in Iraq and the general Sunni Awakening.

I'm a bit ignorant on history. Had promoting regime change typically brought about positive outcomes previously?

Haha! Hard to predict the future my arse.

It was always planned that way and the future was easy to predict and deliberate.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, countless other African countries; destabilised by the US on purpose.

It wasn't a good idea. Anyone with a brain knew that. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc had been planning on invading Iraq again for all of the 1990s. The 2000 fraud election gave these guys all they wished for when W. was "elected" and would do whatever his Dad's buddies told him to do. These guys used 9/11 as a springboard for invading Iraq, all the while knowing that claims about Saddam having WMDs and being in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden were pure fiction. But this country has plenty of rubes who ate up these obvious lies.

The Iraq invasion went ahead to fill the pockets of Halliburton and other government contractors.

As bad as Saddam was, we actually supported him for decades as a more secular counter balance to Iran's religious extremism. But when he didn't do what George Bush Sr wanted, we turned on him. The chemical weapons he used on his own people were likely provided to him by us.

The Iraq war has been a total disaster. Cost trillions (yes trillions) of $, has killed and disabled many US military and god knows how many Iraqis. The red cross says several hundred thousand.

The country is now overrun with the very religious extremists that we propped up Saddam to keep under control.

The good news is Rumsfeld said the WMDs were everywhere in Iraq before we invaded, so they should show up any day now.

It wasn't a US idea. We were duped into Saddam's overthrow by a Russian counterintelligence operation designed to interfere with the US decision-making process.

looking to learn wrote:

The logic to overthrowing Saddam and letting ISIS take his place must be over my head, because I can't seem to make sense of it. Can someone explain?

Makes you wonder what would have really happened if someone had taken out Hitler before 1939 #godwinslaw

thejeff wrote:

looking to learn wrote:

The logic to overthrowing Saddam and letting ISIS take his place must be over my head, because I can't seem to make sense of it. Can someone explain?

Makes you wonder what would have really happened if someone had taken out Hitler before 1939 #godwinslaw

it was a dreadful, stupid idea which has brought terrorism to the streets of Europe and has destabilised the entire continent.

But, maybe, that was the intention.

looking to learn wrote:

The logic to overthrowing Saddam and letting ISIS take his place must be over my head, because I can't seem to make sense of it. Can someone explain?

No, it's inexplicable. Perhaps more inexplicable is that Obama failed to renegotiate a Status of Forces agreement to keep the place semi-stable in the wake of "the surge" and then deposed of Qaddafi in Libya in precisely the same manner, only w/out Congressional approval, allowing the funneling of weapons to Syria via Libya. This is what allowed ISIL to metasticize.

But, it's all about whose pipelines go through Syria ultimately, Sunni or Shia. Pick your poison. Bush and Obama both did.

The jo's must be asleep at the wheel today, they don't tolerate anything negative about papa DUBYA

looking to learn wrote:

The logic to overthrowing Saddam and letting ISIS take his place must be over my head, because I can't seem to make sense of it. Can someone explain?

You won't find a defense from me. Perhaps rojo on letsrun, but he's the equivalent of Sean Hannity on foxnews... dumb as a post. Obviously overthrowing saddam backfired. It made the United State a target for for the 1% of Muslim who are crazy as sh*t. So unnecessary. Now we have a president intent on screwing us over in the middle east even more. Idiot.

NW traveler wrote:

looking to learn wrote:

The logic to overthrowing Saddam and letting ISIS take his place must be over my head, because I can't seem to make sense of it. Can someone explain?

You won't find a defense from me. Perhaps rojo on letsrun, but he's the equivalent of Sean Hannity on foxnews... dumb as a post. Obviously overthrowing saddam backfired. It made the United State a target for for the 1% of Muslim who are crazy as sh*t. So unnecessary. Now we have a president intent on screwing us over in the middle east even more. Idiot.

I agree. In contrast to this idiot, the last president's mid-east strategy was brilliant. Our interventions in Libya and Syria were textbook examples of dynamic leadership.

looking to learn wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Hard to predict the future. There was no ISIS in 2003. ISIS is a product of the War in Iraq and the general Sunni Awakening.

I'm a bit ignorant on history. Had promoting regime change typically brought about positive outcomes previously?

The Iraq war was a disaster. But back then many promoted the idea of regime change because of the immense success the Western world had in turning Eastern Europe into democracies. Very few dared suggest that Arab tribalism coupled with Islam in Iraw was incompatible with democracy. Many won't even admit it today.

ISIS has been around since the late 90s they just joking into the Taliban pretty much and came back out after Bin Ladin was killed

Gotta bee wrote:

ISIS has been around since the late 90s they just joking into the Taliban pretty much and came back out after Bin Ladin was killed

F*ck sake, need to spell check before hitting post, joined**

Gotta bee wrote:

ISIS has been around since the late 90s they just joking into the Taliban pretty much and came back out after Bin Ladin was killed

I think you mean they joined AQ, not the Taliban. The Taliban are an Afghan group.

ISIS wasn't called ISIS until fairly recently. It went through a bunch of different names. For much of that time, it was commonly called AQI -- al-Qaeda in Iraq.

There's a readable summary of how AQI fit in with AQ, and how it eventually became ISIS here:

looking to learn wrote:

I'm a bit ignorant on history. Had promoting regime change typically brought about positive outcomes previously?

If you didn't sleep through your US History class in high school, then you know the answer. (Hint: Think "Civil War," "Reconstruction," "Jim Crow.")

Or just look at Afghanistan. In March, 2005, the State Department's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report said, "Afghanistan is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state." Since then, things have only gotten worse!

Because the Iraqis would greet Americans as liberators and establish a model democracy in the Middle East. At least that was the plan.

NW traveler wrote:

looking to learn wrote:

The logic to overthrowing Saddam and letting ISIS take his place must be over my head, because I can't seem to make sense of it. Can someone explain?

You won't find a defense from me. Perhaps rojo on letsrun, but he's the equivalent of Sean Hannity on foxnews... dumb as a post. Obviously overthrowing saddam backfired. It made the United State a target for for the 1% of Muslim who are crazy as sh*t. So unnecessary. Now we have a president intent on screwing us over in the middle east even more. Idiot.

I was not in favor of overthrowing Saddam and was against both wars but the "1% of crazy Muslims" as you state bombed the US before we overthrew Saddam.