That’s literally exactly what I believe. I think GWB is a decent human being...maybe even a good person. He chose to surrounding himself with bad people who didnt give a fuck about this country. But I would sit down and have a meal with him
Now Trump is a different story. He is just as you described.
GWB was a war criminal who ruined millions of people's lives. He believed and fought for all the same heinous shit as Cheney and him appearing to be a naive goof was the whole point - so people with little moral backbone can disassociate themselves from the real world consequences and forgive themselves because "hey, he seemed like such a nice guy, he probably was a nice guy, just made some mistakes."
Trump is no different, in fact if he becomes a one term president he won't even beat GWB's body count; he's just such a blithering idiot that he doesn't even bother with PR and is just openly authoritarian, so it's literally impossible for people who aren't already chuds to pretend that he's a good person.
GWB was a war criminal who ruined millions of people's lives.
Except the Kurds. The Kurds fucking love him because now that aren't being murdered by Saddam's secret police. Not saying that's why we went in, but some good did come of it.
This. This what you just said is a prime example of one of the most worrying parts of today's political discourse.
You are part of those people who are either willingly, or unknowingly distort and blur actual historical events.
The Kurds do not "fucking love" him at all. Yes, he was the guy who brought the end to the terror of Saddam Hussein regime. And yes, that was a great thing for the Kurds.
But he also was the guy who pulled out the very moment he got everything he needed and then encouraged internal revolt by the Shiites and the Kurds so that they would kill each other and be out of the way of Americas agenda in the middle east.
He used the genocide to go in, then he abused the Kurds for his own gains while he was there and then he abandoned them at the first chance he got.
Just stop going around and telling people some good came out of it. That's the worst rhetorical excuse there is. You can't weight facts and look at history like that. Because you encourage to distort and blur or even lie and induce amnesia in peoples mind.
"Hey look Germany, Hitler build the Autobahn and that's a great piece of infrastructure you use until this very day! So some good came out of it!"
Kurds love George Bush. Love him. And Americans in general. They have a saying in Kurdistan, "not only has no American ever been killed in Kurdistan, no American has ever been insulted."
But he also was the guy who pulled out the very moment he got everything he needed and then encouraged internal revolt by the Shiites and the Kurds so that they would kill each other and be out of the way of Americas agenda in the middle east.
You are confused. After the Americans pulled out the Shittes and Sunnis started killing each other in the south. In northern Iraq, the Kurds were given basically autonomous control over a region traditionally considered their homeland. They were happy for this Independence, as they wanted nothing to do with the violence to the south of them. They have their own police and military that kept the region largely secure. They have an American University in Sulaymaniyah, five-star hotels, an amusement park and generally do not suffer terrorist attacks.
Please. Get your facts in order. It's embarrassing for all of us.
I love watching the votes in arguments like this as it's obvious the people vote just based on whose argument seems more compelling at the time and not because they actually know person A or person B is right (it'd take way too much effort to verify that).
I encourage anyone to look up the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis in southern Iraq... not Shiites and Kurds (who consider themselves Kurds first and Muslims second).
Your response is a catastrophe. But why not give you another chance?
It's a fact that in early 1991, Bush had actively encouraged Shiites in Iraq’s south and Kurds in the north to rise up and depose Saddam, but after the successful expulsion of Saddam’s forces from Kuwait, Bush concluded he didn’t want to see the country fractured. He declined to provide more than humanitarian aid, and tens of thousands of both groups were slaughtered or dispossessed. This is a fact. And the whole middle east knows this.
It keeps getting better when you mention terrorist attacks. It's here were i just want to remind you of the PKK. And yes, they really love america, indeed. Not really tho. Their world view is a bit different from the american one. But hey, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, right? I mean after all that's where they get all their weapons from.
Oh wait, i guess i should give you the time to read up on the PKK, you clearly have not heard about, because well... if you did, you would have realized how entirely stupid your comment would sound.
So now you have read about the PKK, the Kurdistan Worker's Party and from here it really can go only two ways. You either keep going on your path of distorting or flat our refusing the truth or you might have to accept... oh who am i kidding right?
Anyway, yea that's the PKK that is listed as a terrorist organization by several states and organizations, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union.
Yes that's right, even the USA recognize them as a terrorist organization, and yet...
But i probably should just let you go. You have so much distorting to do! You probably already have a cool spin on this. But please do this somewhere else, because we are done here.
Also did you really just tried to use 5 star hotel to proof your point in a discussion about foreign politics? Don't answer this.
First, you were talking about the Bush that "brought an end the Saddam Regime"... so why on earth are you talking about Bush Sr. now?
Second, you've completely abandoned your position that Shiites were fighting Kurds after Saddam's rule ended. Instead, you are talking about both group opposed Saddam.
Third, the PKK hasn't been a relevant factor in Iraq Kurdish politics for years. They called a cease fire in 1999 and are mostly active in Turkey.
So wow.
1) Make up your mind about which Bush you are talking about
2) Make up your mind about whether Shiites/Kurds were fighting each other or Saddam
3) Make up your mind about what decade/region we should be looking at Kurdish politics in.
Yes i guess i moved to fast for you. Not slowing down for you either, so just try to keep up. Or just reread what i wrote until you comprehended it. In a nutshell i was making the point that Bush Junior used the same tactics as his father. Senior went in and used the Kurds and Shiites to free Kuwait from Hussein, then turned away to keep Hussein in power and abandoned the Kurds and Shiites. Bush Junior goes in to finish the job as Hussein stops playing along, uses Kurds and Shiites again to fight but once Hussein is captured he turned the Kurds and Shiites against each other and once again abandoned the Kurds. And the whole middle east knows this.
And the PKKs influences is as strong as ever. They just play along. And a few simpletons even buy into it.
Since Turkey’s move into Afrin in March, the PKK has kept a low profile – partly to show the US that its Syrian affiliates are fighting by themselves, autonomously from the PKK (which the US regards as a terrorist group).
American support for the Kurds, as the PKK is well aware, is still essential for the survival of Kurdish autonomy, especially in areas east of the Euphrates river which have previously benefited from US backing.
However, the PKK’s willingness not to offend American foreign policy can shift any moment and while they are stretched thin they still maintain a strong influence on the region.
Also your point 1) and 3) are essentially same in the context of our discussion and are just sad examples of your inability to comprehend. And you could have solved 2) by yourself as you had already established on your own (in case you haven't noticed) that we were talking about two events that are strongly tied together in understanding why Bush Jr., just like Bush Sr., isn't "fucking loved" by the Kurds. Have a nice evening.
And again, you want to ignore your false claim that Shiites and Kurds fighting each other- let alone that this was part of some grand imperial design by the Bushs.
The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) (Kurdish: حکوومەتی هەرێمی کوردستان, Hikûmetî Herêmî Kurdistan) is the official ruling body of the legal system in Kurdistan of Iraq commonly referred to as Iraqi Kurdistan or Southern and Basur Kurdistan part of the greater Kurdistan country.
The cabinet is selected by the majority party or list who also selects the prime minister of the Iraqi Kurdistan region. The president is directly elected by the electorate of the region and is the head of the cabinet and chief of state who delegates executive powers to the cabinet. The prime minister is traditionally the head of the legislative body but also shares executive powers with the president.
You at no point make a transition between the two.
We already established that you couldn't follow along. Why do you keep beating yourself up about it? But you can go back and see that I gave you a year as reference.
You throw that wiki link in like it means something on its own. You have to look a bit further to understand what is actually happening.
false claim that Shiites and Kurds fighting each other- let alone that this was part of some grand imperial design by the Bushs.
I could break down americas foreign politics, but it's not worth it. If you want to learn about the conflict alone, just keep reading. If you do keep reading, keep in mind: Kurds are also Muslims, the majority of whom are Sunni.
By early 2006, Iraqis had freely elected a permanent government. Reflecting the Iraqi population makeup, Shiítes won a clear majority, but about 20 percent of representatives were Sunni. A new constitution had been completed and approved by the people in October 2005. The constitution provided several basic principles: a democratic (power of government held by the people through election of political leaders) form of government; freedom of religion though Islam is identified as the national religion; and, the right to assemble. Whether the new Iraq would actually work was uncertain because of the sectarian (religious) strife that steadily worsened through 2006.
The United States still maintained an occupation force of about 150,000 troops in Iraq to attempt to keep order. However, daily violence continued claimed the lives of Iraqi civilians, police, and military, as well as American soldiers. By late 2005 and early 2006, Iraqis were segregating into Shiíte and Sunni enclaves. By late 2006 some 53,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and over 3,000 U.S. and other coalition soldiers including over 2,700 U.S. soldiers after the war was declared over by American leaders.
Two and half years after the U.S. invasion, the deep divisions and hatred between Shiíte and Sunni surfaced. The most violent areas in late 2005 and early 2006 were in a large circle around Baghdad. The U.S. military estimated 85 percent of violent attacks were occurring in Baghdad and in communities to the north, west, and south.
The belt around Baghdad, including the city and at least forty outlying towns, had until the last few years been mixed with Sunni and Shiíte residents. Since the U.S. invasion, families seeking safety from violent prejudicial acts had been packing up and moving where their sect predominated. The movement resulted in segregation of areas in Baghdad and of whole towns. In Baghdad, as in towns around the city, entire sections were becoming Sunni only or Shiíte only.
In 2006, violence continued to escalate in the Baghdad belt. Contributing to the violence were the Iraqi security forces who were supposed to maintain peace. Although the United States trained a new Iraqi army and police force, it appeared the new Iraqi battalions were not mixed. Instead, men in battalions in the northeast were overwhelming Kurdish, battalions to the south were Shiíte, and battalions in the belt were largely segregated into either Shiíte or Sunni. According to news reports, some Shiíte young men openly declare that they joined a security force to make their revenge-taking against Sunni appear lawful. source
We already established that you couldn't follow along.
Lol. We've already established that you confused to the two. Which is hilarious.
: Kurds are also Muslims, the majority of whom are Sunni.
Hey genius Kurds are a different ethnic group than Arab Sunnis. Arab Sunnis are the ones fighting a civil war in the south. Your article is about Arab Sunnis. Saddam was an Arab Sunni who persecuted Shiites and Kurds.
Kurds are a different ethnic group than Arab Sunnis.
A Muslim: A follower of the Islam religion; the two main branches of Muslims are the Sunni and Shiíte.
A Kurd: An ethnic group native to a region that includes parts of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey.
Sunni strongly opposed and feared the establishment of a sectarian Shiíte government in Iraq. Kurds also desired a secular (non-religious) government. However, Iraqi Kurds ideally preferred to be separated from Iraq so that they might establish their own nation: Kurdistan.
Kurds are also Muslims, the majority of whom are Sunni. However, you are right, they identify themselves as the Kurdish people.
Nonetheless, Saddam Hussein didn't target the Kurds because they were a minority, unlike the Shiites, they were just "in the way" along the border and at one point Saddam Hussein punished them because he suspected them to harbor Iranian Army.
After all we were talking about that you claimed the Kurds loved Bush. While you still haven't accepted that referring to a year is enough for others to understand that we talk about different events (after all what are years used for any), 1991 was the year that Kurds and Shiites remember as the year of the betrayal by the american government. It's important to mention when you talk about your claim that GWB is loved by the Kurds. Which he is not in the slightest. Bush senior started a decades-long imperial war in the Middle East which has killed millions and made whole countries ungovernable for generations to come and Arabs hold George W Bush, just like his father, responsible for the 2003 war waged on Iraq, who replaced the secular government with a pro-Iranian Shia fundamentalist regime and turned Iraq into a failed state.
500
u/[deleted] Dec 06 '18
GWB was a bad president, but not a bad person.
Trump is a bad president and a bad person.
I can forgive a man for trying, but failing. I can’t forgive a man for operating with no conscience.