ISIS

Try telling US citizens the following, and see how well it goes over with them.
"OK, we'll stay out of crises in the Middle East, we also won't support any particular nation, political group, or religious group. That means we won't buy any imported oil. You'll pay $7.00+ per gallon for gasoline. Just about everything you purchase will be more expensive because the cost of oil affects the price of just about everything you buy."

Of course doing the above is no guarantee that foreign terrorist groups wouldn't target US citizens and businesses abroad, and on US soil.

 

I did not say that at all. What I actually wrote is not complicated and is easily understood. Your skills convoluting issues are impressive.
--- merged: Oct 5, 2014 10:33 PM ---

There is a difference between an unhealthy focus on the past and learning from the past. I think some are dwelling on the Bush Iraq war in a manner that is clouding their judgement to the degree that it is detrimental. For example - if our current situation warrants "boots on the ground" we need to put "boots on the ground" - we can not avoid that just so we can say we did not do what Bush did.

I can discuss rood causes! What makes you think I, as a US conservative, can not?

O.k., so why is Obama, not a conservative, engaging in war in Iraq? Why are "coalition partners", not US, engaged in war in Iraq? Or, are we saying we are not engaged in war? I am confused - I speak regular English, not the new Orwelian form of English.

O.k. - and we can say the human race has been engaging in regime changes since the history of regimes. I would suggest that until we reach our next stage of human evolution, the human race will be engaging in future regime changes - US involvement or not.
--- merged: Oct 5, 2014 10:37 PM ---

Wow, what an interesting statement. What is the implication of such a statement? How does one measure the legitimacy of this statement? How can we test the premise? How does the US get cheaper than average oil, measured in US dollars????

New technology, new sources of oil, less dependance, price stability...there is change occurring. Oh, and Canada is doing pretty well in this regard too.

 

I stated that there have been intervening events - things that happened (or did not happen) since the bush Iraq war that has had a bigger impact on where we are now. I would further argue that there are events that occurred prior to the Bush Iraq war that has had a bigger impact on where we are now, i.e. the origin of the Shiite/Sunni conflict.

Yet, you seem to purposefully attempt to alter the meaning of what I write, and then respond to that altered meaning. I am trying to understand why you do this. It seems very inefficient to me - to put effort into reading/understanding/altering/responding to an alteration/defending the alteration/defending the response to the alteration. You are not the only one who does it, if I can understand why you do it, it will have broader application for me.

I am not going to assume that you do not understand the concepts of intervening events, proximate and ultimate causation. I argue that the Bush Iraq war is not a proximate cause of ISIS nor the ultimate cause - but it is a part of a series of connected events. The premise of your argument has not been clearly articulated. I can not believe that your premise is based on the notion that if not for the Bush Iraq war, ISIS would not exist, that the internal Islamic conflict would have been resolved!

 

Afaik the US is the world's largest exporter of oil right now (or will be very soon), and purchases a majority of its oil from outside the mideast. We have cheap oil because our government subsidizes gas prices. We do need to get off it and onto renewables as soon as possible, but the middle east isn't THE single overriding reason for that.

As to ISIS... they're a symptom. They exist because we killed off the guys that were there before and they filled an Al-Qaeda shaped hole. Al-Qaeda got big because we toppled the just as murderous dictatorship that had repressed everyone else beforehand. Bush II's war isn't just a proximate cause, it's a direct cause of the rise of ISIS. Yes Saddam was an evil murdering bastard but he ran a stable evil murdering country and he was the only one allowed to to anything evil. Everybody else had to go through him. Now it's a free for all.

If you want to go further back you wind up in the proxy wars against the Soviets where we backed the most militant extremists and then dumped them with their country in shambles afterwards, and overthrowing the Shah of Iran in favor of installing a repressive dictator.

But ISIS? They're a symptom. Kill all of them tomorrow and you'll get another group taking their place in a few years. The current politics and economics of the region itself is what produces groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, and others. The middle east is stuck in the same condition as post-versailles Germany but with even less development so you get religious reichs and toyota driving terrorists instead of secular ones cranking out tanks and u-boats.

If we ever want to fix that it's going to take a recovery program the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Marshall Plan.