French Terror Attacks, scores dead

[Minimalist]

There'd be no ISIS without Bush.

[GrandizerII]

There'd be no ISIS without Bush.

That's like saying there would've been no war in Iraq if it weren't for the Muslims hijackers of 9/11.

[Minimalist]

Bush was determined to attack Iraq long before 9-11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-...vade-iraq/

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

We were going to attack Iraq no matter what.  BTW, Iraq did not attack us.

[Anomalocaris]

There'd be no ISIS without Bush.

That doesn't mean Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bremmer, Hilary, and erdogan wasn't necessary for ISIS either. They each either actively promoted ISIS, or made blunders that predictably made something like ISIS far more likely.

[Minimalist]

Have you ever seen this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128491&page=1

Worth reading up on.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes. I've seen that.

But even after the US had already been bamboozled into going to war to aggrandize itself in the gulf region, there still remained an scarcely believable serie of bone headed blunders yet to come before what had been a bonafide calamity from the beginning can finally attain its current, scarcely believable, scope and proportions.

[Minimalist]

Naturally.  Look at the collection of fuckheads who started it!

[SofaKingHigh]

Excuse my manners, I'm not used to proper introductions and tend to be a misfit.

What I mean is, for example, how Merkel plans on taking on a million immigrants even though they already took on 1.5 last year. I'm all for humanitarian causes, but this is ridiculous.

When you are talking about countries like Germany who have a system in place that demands a high tax rate, I imagine that would leave such a system particularly vulnerable to a sudden influx of people... unless you can somehow create enough jobs to keep pace.

It's not just Germany either, there are a number of European countries who owe their prosperity in large part to their exemplary social programs. However, in these cases the demands on the taxpayers are going to be invariably high. Unless you can somehow grow your economy to meet the demand, large scale immigration has the potential to create disaster.

Merkel is a commie.  She's using the situation as a means to wreck Germany in the belief that it will lead to a resurgence of communism.

Merkel is a "Commie?"    

What year is it, 1963?

[Iroscato]

Excuse my manners, I'm not used to proper introductions and tend to be a misfit.

What I mean is, for example, how Merkel plans on taking on a million immigrants even though they already took on 1.5 last year. I'm all for humanitarian causes, but this is ridiculous.

When you are talking about countries like Germany who have a system in place that demands a high tax rate, I imagine that would leave such a system particularly vulnerable to a sudden influx of people... unless you can somehow create enough jobs to keep pace.

It's not just Germany either, there are a number of European countries who owe their prosperity in large part to their exemplary social programs. However, in these cases the demands on the taxpayers are going to be invariably high. Unless you can somehow grow your economy to meet the demand, large scale immigration has the potential to create disaster.

Merkel is a commie.  She's using the situation as a means to wreck Germany in the belief that it will lead to a resurgence of communism.

You are a desperately deluded individual, on multiple levels.

[abaris]

That doesn't mean Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bremmer, Hilary, and erdogan wasn't necessary for ISIS either.  They each either actively promoted ISIS, or made blunders that predictably made something like ISIS far more likely.

It's of course the cynical approach, but what isn't cynical under these circumstances. Without the removal of Saddam, the help in removing Gaddaffi and the weakening of Assad, there would be no ISIS, period. They were lids on the boiling kettles.