Obama Acknowledges U.S. Invasion Sparked Rise of ISIS

The report about Iran sending weapons to Iraq comes as President Obama acknowledged to Vice News that the origins of the Islamic State lie in the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

President Obama: "ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences, which is why we should generally aim before we shoot. We’ve got a 60-country coalition. We will slowly push back ISIL out of Iraq. I’m confident that will happen."

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/17/headlines#3175

Finally he admits the obvious.

Admits what?
The origins lies in countless years of conflict between two warring factions within Islam competeing for dominance.
The origins of IS lies within wahhabism and nothing else.
The war just took away the one madman keeping these warring factions in check. In time he would have fallen as these groups grew stronger, so at some point they would have become in control of areas without any conflict. What we stupidly did was provide ammunition for the extremists to recruit.
To take away the real cause here is denying the utter truth behind the extremist factions at play who have been at play since before 9/11.
To claim the conflict created these groups is absurd to say the least and shows how they are giving cause to these groups, Obama needs a slap in the face for this ammunition he has given these groups, what a twat. In every aspect I have respected him but on this he has been a complete idiot.
In fact the rise and discourse of Arab groups stems back to The Treaty of Sevres as their discontent with the west. It seriously shows hwo some Muslims cannot move on, but that is when the resentment started.
Nothing worse than people not knowing their history which to this day the problems stems from these warring factions.
The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS ect all share Wahhabist doctrine and that is where it started from, the Saudis breeding groups of fanatics around the world

Obama is just stating the obvious...what Democrats have been saying since 2004: the war was based on a lie. The invasion of the west splintered Saddam's Baath Party, which reincarnated into al Qaeda in Iraq.

Al Qaeda in Iraq, with coalition push, was splintered by the Iraqi troops of the Shi'ia government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. They ran to Syria and again reincarnated into ISIL, still fighting the Shi'ias in Iraq.

The Shi'ia government of Iraq is now being helped by the Shi'ia military of Iran. It's still the old Baath people, who are Sunnis, versus the Shi'ia people in southern Iraq and Iran.

Obama hasn't told us anything we didn't know since 2004.

Brasidas wrote:Admits what?
The origins lies in countless years of conflict between two warring factions within Islam competeing for dominance.
The origins of IS lies within wahhabism and nothing else.
The war just took away the one madman keeping these warring factions in check. In time he would have fallen as these groups grew stronger, so at some point they would have become in control of areas without any conflict. What we stupidly did was provide ammunition for the extremists to recruit.
To take away the real cause here is denying the utter truth behind the extremist factions at play who have been at play since before 9/11.
To claim the conflict created these groups is absurd to say the least and shows how they are giving cause to these groups, Obama needs a slap in the face for this ammunition he has given these groups, what a twat. In every aspect I have respected him but on this he has been a complete idiot.
In fact the rise and discourse of Arab groups stems back to The Treaty of Sevres as their discontent with the west. It seriously shows hwo some Muslims cannot move on, but that is when the resentment started.
Nothing worse than people not knowing their history which to this day the problems stems from these warring factions.
The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS ect all share Wahhabist doctrine and that is where it started from, the Saudis breeding groups of fanatics around the world

The war did a lot more than remove Saddam. Al Qaeda's goal was to draw the U.S. and the rest of the cultural West into a drawn-out conflict in the Middle East, where they can actually move personnel around. Once the Iraq war (and Afghanistan) were underway, al Qaeda sent recruits to fight the coalition mainly to develop a cream-of-the-crop military force that survived battles with coalition forces and knew their tactics. That is what became ISIS.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Admits what?
The origins lies in countless years of conflict between two warring factions within Islam competeing for dominance.
The origins of IS lies within wahhabism and nothing else.
The war just took away the one madman keeping these warring factions in check. In time he would have fallen as these groups grew stronger, so at some point they would have become in control of areas without any conflict. What we stupidly did was provide ammunition for the extremists to recruit.
To take away the real cause here is denying the utter truth behind the extremist factions at play who have been at play since before 9/11.
To claim the conflict created these groups is absurd to say the least and shows how they are giving cause to these groups, Obama needs a slap in the face for this ammunition he has given these groups, what a twat. In every aspect I have respected him but on this he has been a complete idiot.
In fact the rise and discourse of Arab groups stems back to The Treaty of Sevres as their discontent with the west. It seriously shows hwo some Muslims cannot move on, but that is when the resentment started.
Nothing worse than people not knowing their history which to this day the problems stems from these warring factions.
The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS ect all share Wahhabist doctrine and that is where it started from, the Saudis breeding groups of fanatics around the world

The war did a lot more than remove Saddam. Al Qaeda's goal was to draw the U.S. and the rest of the cultural West into a drawn-out conflict in the Middle East, where they can actually move personnel around. Once the Iraq war (and Afghanistan) were underway, al Qaeda sent recruits to fight the coalition mainly to develop a cream-of-the-crop military force that survived battles with coalition forces and knew their tactics. That is what became ISIS.

Still not grasping this are you Ben?
These groups arose out of a doctrine and this persisted belief around America being the cause for their rsise is excusing the spread of this doctrine which has been going on since before the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Even worse Obama has now been on record to provide the extremists the ammunition they need to make a view he is inherantly wroing on. Talk about a propaganda coup for ISIS.
This has always been about a conflict between Iran and Saudi for domination of Islam itself.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Admits what?
The origins lies in countless years of conflict between two warring factions within Islam competeing for dominance.
The origins of IS lies within wahhabism and nothing else.
The war just took away the one madman keeping these warring factions in check. In time he would have fallen as these groups grew stronger, so at some point they would have become in control of areas without any conflict. What we stupidly did was provide ammunition for the extremists to recruit.
To take away the real cause here is denying the utter truth behind the extremist factions at play who have been at play since before 9/11.
To claim the conflict created these groups is absurd to say the least and shows how they are giving cause to these groups, Obama needs a slap in the face for this ammunition he has given these groups, what a twat. In every aspect I have respected him but on this he has been a complete idiot.
In fact the rise and discourse of Arab groups stems back to The Treaty of Sevres as their discontent with the west. It seriously shows hwo some Muslims cannot move on, but that is when the resentment started.
Nothing worse than people not knowing their history which to this day the problems stems from these warring factions.
The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS ect all share Wahhabist doctrine and that is where it started from, the Saudis breeding groups of fanatics around the world

The war did a lot more than remove Saddam. Al Qaeda's goal was to draw the U.S. and the rest of the cultural West into a drawn-out conflict in the Middle East, where they can actually move personnel around. Once the Iraq war (and Afghanistan) were underway, al Qaeda sent recruits to fight the coalition mainly to develop a cream-of-the-crop military force that survived battles with coalition forces and knew their tactics. That is what became ISIS.

Still not grasping this are you Ben?
These groups arose out of a doctrine and this persisted belief around America being the cause for their rsise is excusing the spread of this doctrine which has been going on since before the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Even worse Obama has now been on record to provide the extremists the ammunition they need to make a view he is inherantly wroing on. Talk about a propaganda coup for ISIS.
This has always been about a conflict between Iran and Saudi for domination of Islam itself.

I didn't actually contradict that premise, which is true. But you have to admit that the Iraq war helped ISIS become what it is today, and in a broader scope helped involve much of the rest of the world in this stupid little Shiite-Sunni problem.

And you have to admit that if we weren't doing pretty horrible things to get their oil (like playing games with elections and implementing policies that starved children) this conflict would probably have remained regional.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Still not grasping this are you Ben?
These groups arose out of a doctrine and this persisted belief around America being the cause for their rsise is excusing the spread of this doctrine which has been going on since before the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Even worse Obama has now been on record to provide the extremists the ammunition they need to make a view he is inherantly wroing on. Talk about a propaganda coup for ISIS.
This has always been about a conflict between Iran and Saudi for domination of Islam itself.

I didn't actually contradict that premise, which is true. But you have to admit that the Iraq war helped ISIS become what it is today, and in a broader scope helped involve much of the rest of the world in this stupid little Shiite-Sunni problem.

And you have to admit that if we weren't doing pretty horrible things to get their oil (like playing games with elections and implementing policies that starved children) this conflict would probably have remained regional.

Why do people still go off a wrong perception on oil?
What oil did the US benefit from after this conflict?
They never received a single contract from Iraq. We should never have invaded but the view on oil is inherantly wrong. The conflict was always about Bush wanting his way on that it was wrong based off lying to the world.
I do not discount the fact such a conflict can be used to help recruit more to a cause, which is what those behind Islamism have always done

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I didn't actually contradict that premise, which is true. But you have to admit that the Iraq war helped ISIS become what it is today, and in a broader scope helped involve much of the rest of the world in this stupid little Shiite-Sunni problem.

And you have to admit that if we weren't doing pretty horrible things to get their oil (like playing games with elections and implementing policies that starved children) this conflict would probably have remained regional.

Why do people still go off a wrong perception on oil?
What oil did the US benefit from after this conflict?
They never received a single contract from Iraq. We should never have invaded but the view on oil is inherantly wrong. The conflict was always about Bush wanting his way on that it was wrong based off lying to the world.
I do not discount the fact such a conflict can be used to help recruit more to a cause, which is what those behind Islamism have always done

You are asking all of these questions after the fact, aren't you?  Yet you are applying the standard to events before the fact.  Iriqi oil played a very big part in NeoCon plans.

CSM wrote:The projections: Ahead of and shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a number of officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. In October 2003, Rumsfeld told a press conference about President Bush's request for $21 billion for Iraq and Afghan reconstruction that "the $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community." In March 2003, Mr. Wolfowitz told Congress that "we're really dealing with a country that could finance its own reconstruction." In April 2003, the Pentagon said the war would cost about $2 billion a month, and in July of that year Rumsfeld increased that estimate to $4 billion.

In fact, of course, the Iraqi war cost $9.5-billion per month by the final tally.

Show me any contract on oil the US gained from the Iraq war.
If you cannot provide one you are talking babble