Great Toon on the roots of ISIS:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

[Rex]

1. All thanks to George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Thanks guys!

[WDIM]

6. And Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Joe Biden

And all the Democrats in congress and the senate that voted to give GWB the permission to do so.

PNACs never ending war is paying off huge for the war profiteers.

[840high]

15. Correct.

[newthinking]

39. Amazing how much damage the neocons are still doing even with Democratic Administrations

PNAC has become equal opportunity. What a fucking mess....

[packman]

42. Yes, Dem's aren't immune from hearing war drums beating

No excuses - they should have stood stronger.

[lostnfound]

35. And the Rendon group.

Since that whole toppling the statue part was just a staged PR op.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Words have consequences. "Bring it on!", "Smoke 'em out!" "Let's Roll".

Sadly, we're hearing the same kind of thing again.

[GummyBearz]

3. Which french politicians said those things 2003?

As far as I remember, France did not send troops to Iraq and actually lobbied the UN against the war.

[jeff47]

4. And then the French bombed Libya and Syria. (nt)

[GummyBearz]

7. I just read that

Don't know the details yet, but oh well... I guess they had it coming right?

[jeff47]

8. :facepalm:

You do realize we are supposed to be the party that understands details and nuance matter, right? Not the one that mindlessly vomits forth mindless attacks.

[GummyBearz]

10. Not sure where you are going

I said they didn't deserve it, you pointed out they did do something to deserve it. Circular reasoning wasn't my specialty. I guess I will go forward with my stand point that it was not deserved, until you prove me wrong

[jeff47]

11. No, you pretended nothing happened since the Iraq war

Apparently, reminding you time did not stop means "France deserved it". Which is facepalm-ingly stupid.

But it is an obvious attempt to shut up people who point out your errors.

[GummyBearz]

12. So who did france bomb

And was that deserved or undeserved? There is a difference if they bombed a hospital or a terrorist training camp

[CJCRANE]

17. France among others, supported jihadis to overthrow Gadaffi

and are now trying to do the same to Assad.

That doesn't mean the people of Paris deserve what happened and I personally have never done the whole "we deserve it" spiel. We don't deserve it. I don't even buy into the concept of "blowback". It doesn't need to be an issue either.

But it's predictable that if you give weapons to jihadis, take away stabililizing governments, then leave your borders open to masses of people unchecked, then the jihadis are going to come back and attack you.

[JDPriestly]

19. The attack in Paris was an act of war.

It really doesn't matter at this point who started it although I would say that George W. Bush and we in the US started the Iraq War, no doubt. But remember Iraq and Iran fought before Bush went in there, as did Iraq and, was it Kuwait? or maybe really Saudi Arabia that was stolen from and attacked? Do we really know?

But the attack in Paris was an attack strictly on vulnerable, helpless civilians -- a brutal act of war no matter what the excuse. There was no military target in that stadium or the restaurant. Those were strictly civilian targets. That is an act of ruthless, heartless aggression only intended to incite more war.

How to react is for our best military strategists to consider. More war may or may not be the answer. But the attacks in Paris were brutal acts of war and should be viewed as such.

There was no military purpose. They were not seeking out potentially armed victims. They were seeking civilian victims. That is a heinous crime. And certainly no religion condones that kind of act.

[CJCRANE]

20. That doesn't negate what I said. If you arm jihadis, then open your borders

then they will come back and attack you.

Secure the borders, don't arm or fund jihadis, don't destabilize countries that kept a lid on extremists, don't let masses of refugees in, and the problem will be mitigated somewhat.

[JDPriestly]

25. Yes. No Werstern country should be arming people in the Middle East.

We sell an enormous amount of weapons to that area of the world. Of course they are used and eventually will be turned against the West.

We are crazy to do that. I agree with you on that.

With regard to refugees, I don't have an opinion yet. I just don't know enough about what is going on with regard to the refugees.

But I do note that the Syrians and others in the Middle East have not welcomed the Jewish refugees from around the world, and were especially unwelcoming to the Jewish refugees in Israel when the UN established that haven for them. I am amazed that the Syrians who were so unwelcoming to Israelis are now turning to Europe for asylum. What goes around comes around. What a perfect example.

We need to remember it as we determine our policy toward Syrian refugees. How welcoming should we be? I don't know enough about the facts of their exile yet. It's all kind of murky in my mind and consciousness. Who are they? What do they want and expect?

It's very hard to be a refugee. Even when you come from a rich country and go to another rich country to live, it is very hard. As an outsider, you have to start from the bottom and work your way up in the culture and economy. It is really tough. I do not wish the role of a refugee or an immigrant on anyone. It's so hard.

[AlbertCat]

33. They were not seeking out potentially armed victims. They were seeking civilian victims.

Doesn't that make it an act of terrorism? War is against armies.

[malaise]

44. +1,000

There will always be blowback. Ask David and Goliath

[jeff47]

28. Because ISIS are well known for sticking to the "rules of war".

France (among others) bombed Qaddafi's military, so he could not use it to stop the revolution in Libya. That's the pretext for ISIS attacking France.

But again, ISIS barely has the ability to hold vacant desert. They aren't waging war on France, because they'd be crushed in a "traditional" war.

ISIS is seeking to provoke "the West" into attacking Muslim countries, so that those countries bring an actual military and we can get WWIII going.

[JDPriestly]

22. Here is a difference.

In war, the goal is to push the other side to admit defeat and negotiate peace.

The first targets are military ones. The point is to disarm not destroy the civilian population. The military that can strike back at the attackers are the first targets for that reason.

ISIS in France attacked civilian targets -- helpless, unsuspecting, unprepared and UNARMED civilians.

Attacking civilians for the sake of killing and terrorizing a population is an act of cowardice. It is also an act of cruel aggression. It is an act of war.

The bombings by western military organizations are usually strategically organized and prioritized to focus first on targets that a country might use for defense or aggression -- military targets.

ISIS action was cowardly and intended to incite retaliation. It was and it will.

[jeff47]

26. You seem to mistake that comment for excusing ISIS for their attack.

It isn't. It's reminding another poster that time did not stop in 2003.

[JDPriestly]

27. I agree with you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. The French were more sane than us in 2003.

[ejbr]

13. Wait

you mean taking a symbolic stand to call french fries "freedom" fries is not sane?

[JDPriestly]

24. Read the April 2004 article in Vanity Fair about the beginning of the War in Iraq.

The French insisted that Bush should wait to get the report of the international inspection tam in Iraq. Bush refused and had set the attacks in motion before that report which contradicted what Bush was claiming about the Iraq WMDs had arrived. France opposed Bush's decisions. That's why the Republicans started talking about Freedom Fries.

I'm sure you know this, but some readers of your post may not understand that you are making a joke, so I am taking the liberty of clarifying how they can learn the truth about the Iraq War and why it was so wrong, such a crime against humanity.

[ejbr]

34. +1 n/t

[maddiemom]

32. "Let's Roll" was in an ENTIRELY different context (maybe later misused).

[Gothmog]

9. Great cartoon

[hedgehog]

14. Very true!

[Rotegard]

16. Remember

The majority of the Democrats in Congress voted against giving Bush authorization for the iraq war. Hillary, Kerry, and Biden were voting against Bernie, Wellstone, Feingold and common sense. Shame Shame Shame.

[sabrina 1]

38. I will never forget that. They WANT us to forget, but they don't get it, how can anyone

normal and decent forget that horrible, massive and continuing crime or those who enabled it when we so needed people to STOP them?? It's just not possible

[JDPriestly]

18. Bernie was one of the few to ask what would happen after we invaded.

Bernie showed right then and there that he is the most competent candidate to lead our foreign policy.

Experience is not the key to good foreign policy.

Asking the right questions and seeking out the right experts. Those are the keys to good foreign policy.

Hillary has made so many mistakes in foreign policy. The Iraq War Resolution vote. The bombing of Libya. And those are just two that I know about. They reveal that she does not have the ability or the habit of asking the questions that need to be asked about what all the possible results or costs are of the actions we might choose in foreign policy.

We need Bernie because he asks the right questions.

In my view, the ISIS situation is now pretty much a matter of the best military strategy. With the attacks in Paris, ISIS declared itself to be a serious threat outside of the Middle East.

Younger people do not remember all the terrorist groups and terrorism that has occurred at least since the 1960s. ISIS has perhaps the biggest military organization of all the various terror groups that I recall from my life. It has now thrust itself into the realm of military assault and I trust it will be treated accordingly.

ISIS leaders will regret the murders in Paris.

[Angry Dragon]

21. kick

Back in 1994 Cheney gave an interview stating that taking out Saddam would be a bad thing
I guess when you are in charge things don't matter as much

[BeanMusical]

40. Yep.

Here's a clip of that interview:

In this interview from April 15th, 1994 Dick Cheney reveals the reasons why invading Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein's regime wouldn't be a great idea. He also stipulates that "not very many" American soldiers' lives were worth losing to take out Saddam during the Gulf War.

[Angry Dragon]

46. thanks for the clip

[BeanMusical]

47. You're welcome.

[geardaddy]

23. Totally nailed it!

Thanks Peggy!

[hifiguy]

29. Today's history lesson

[d_legendary1]

30. So basically western intervention destabalized the middle east

and here we are talking about how to deal with the people we armed from the very beginning. A face palm doesn't do this picture justice.

[SoapBox]

31. Yup!

And what happened to all the oil revenues that we were going to steal, uh, get, to pay for the war?

[rpannier]

36. We don't need it

Doncha remember?
We were treated like liberators and within 6 weeks, maybe it was 6 months, the whole thing was over

[KansDem]

43. Yeah! And there was dancing in the streets...

...and flowers tossed at the soldiers!

It's all coming back to me now!

[sabrina 1]

37. And ordinary people predicted it. Yet some of our so called very smart Reps, did not!

[yuiyoshida]

41. Wow, Peggy, proud to K&R this

shot at the previous President before Barrack Obama!

[malthaussen]

45. One of my larger geopolitical mistakes.

I was pretty certain, back in the day, that if Saddam was overthrown, another thug would take his place and business would go on as usual. Indeed, I was sorry we didn't hang him from a Baghdad lamppost back in the first Gulf war. Could be I miscalculated. Difference: I do not, thank Whomever, make foreign policy for the U.S..

-- Mal