Saddam did nothing wrong and Bush was responsible for ISIS

...

wtf?

Saddam was like one of those evil overlords who are all "fool, if you kill me a WORSE force will be unleashed!"

Bush and Obama were both responsible. America in general and obviously Saudi Arabia too.

What about Israel?

Oh yeah, those fuckers too. But honestly it was mostly the Saudis paying off American politicians. I think in a few decade we'll finally know KSA was behind the invasion.

>Saudi Arabia

I don't get it

Everyone hates ISIS because they massacre people, own slaves, promote global terrorism, oppress women, have cruel laws, and show utter intolerance of other religions

But Saudi Arabia does the same

They even have a seat on the UN human rights council

They're evil, but everyone ignores what they do

Not that user, but if he's talking about HW that's worse. Blaming W is against the 25 year rule, blaming HW would be a monumentally idiotic error.

He didn't really have much of a choice, we had agreed to leave by a set date and Al-Maliki was categorically unwilling to let us stay longer or listen to anything we had to say.

Because they have western politicians in their pockets and often media too. Goatfucker fundamentalist Arabs + money is a very dangerous combination.

Saddam clearly wasn't innocent. Does that mean the US should have gone in and further destabilized the region by enacting a regime change and the partaking in the ensuing nation building? I'm not wise or knowledgeable enough to argue for either course of action.

But to say that one party is wholly innocent or "right" defeats the entire point of studying history. You must study all mistakes.

This makes no sense

Deposing him was a mistake, sure, but he really was a monster. His cruelty went beyond utilitarian purposes. Also, he got totally rekt by Iran despite his superior military with western backing.

I don't see how Bush could be responsible for something that didn't exist until 5 years after he left office.

>we had agreed to leave by a set date and Al-Maliki was categorically unwilling to let us stay longer or listen to anything we had to say.
[citation needed]

Nigga, Obama clearly stated in 2008 that we would completely withdraw from Iraq during his first term. Furthermore, in 2010 he signed the executive order to withdraw by January 2011.

It was clearly Obama's policy, and his responsibility. We had negotiated with Maliki before about the status of forces agreement. Why couldn't the global superpower do it again?
We didn't need laws when we invaded, or when we occupied it till 2011.

The withdrawal was all on Obama. You can't be in office for 3 years and still blame the previous president for your decision to withdraw.

Finally, our negotiations with Maliki (2010 and 2011) only were over a few training regiments, not a full fighting force that could defeat ISIS during their June 2014 assault.

So nice memes, but not everyone is an idiot.

He got hanged.

Not history.

>hanged

Is this proper grammar?

grammarist.com/usage/hanged-hung/

Shia majority country elects shia majority government. Shia government gets back at the Sunnis because Saddam was a sunni. Sunni region of Iraq, as a consequence, was still crawling with various insurgent groups.

Sunni government tells the USA to leave or sign unacceptable Status Of Forces Agreement. So the US leaves.

IS is just a few fuck sticks rattling around the desert. Then Obama and Hillary encourages rebellion in Syria. They use the CIA and others to "arm moderate muslims", the supposed Free Syrian Army. IS shows up in Syria and gets most of the FSA to join them. So now you have an experienced and well armed insurgent group with a huge amount of man power. They quickly sweep aside almost all other insurgents and Assad forces where they were weak already. Once they could no longer make fast gains in Syria, they went into the sunni and kurd parts of Iraq. Where the security forces were under equipped, poorly lead, and poorly motivated. Shia part of Iraq and Iranian allies stop ISIS advance.

Bush, leaving Saddam in power, would probably not have changed the overall situation. The Arab Spring would have hit Iraq and Saddam would have shot them until rebellion started. Then Obama and Hillary would have encouraged and supplied rebels, like they have done in Syria and Libya.

Idk senpai. Gdp wasnt amazing in iraq. Sadam was actually a huge stalinboo and read about him obsessvly when he was a kid

tried to create gold back money - died
same as gaddafi

literally the only reasons

Seems like a completely arbitrary distinction.

>it'll take another 4 or 5 presidencies
If you keep voting in candidates like Trump and Clinton you might as well triple that number

Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr >>>>> Saddam Hussein

Al-Bakr was a respected General throughout Iraq, a distinguished gentleman, and his sons went through medschool. Saddam was a tribal desert shroogi who never had a diploma and who's sons were schizophrenic psychopaths.

He was still better than anything that came after him though.

Dude, Iraqi currency during the 70's was one of the strongest in the world, stronger than US dollar. Saddam read about Stalin's methods but he hated Stalin as a person cause he was a zionist and a communist. Saddam was more of a Saladinboo, he had paintings and murals everywhere of him standing by Saladin since they both came from the same town (Tikrit).