Why the Arab Spring was worse than the Iraq War

The Arab Spring destroyed more countries than the Iraq War did.

To be sure, George W. Bush's invasion in 2003 totally and completely destroyed Iraq. It increased persecution of Iraqi minority groups, especially Sunni Arabs and Christians, and gave birth to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (2004), the organisation which became the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006.

However, when Obama inherited that big mess, he could have very easily left Iraq without sending money to Islamic State of Iraq. Yes, you heard that right: Obama sent money to the Islamic State of Iraq to get them to be allies in overthrowing the secular Syrian Government.

Did you know that the same year the Iraq War ended, Obama endorsed the Arab Spring and funded terrorists, including ISIS, to overthrow dictators?

In Syria the results have been obvious, because most of the "moderate rebels" defected to then Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS), the organisation which expanded from the Islamic State of Iraq. ISIS would never have existed in Syria had Obama not supported the Syrian Opposition.

In Libya, much less is seen in the Media, but it is nonetheless horrific. The violence escalated about the same time as ISIS invaded Iraq and declared their Caliphate. In 2014, the remnants of the Libyan Government moved to Tobruk to wage war against mainly Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda militants based in Tripoli. This war, while not as intense as the current Syrian-Iraqi conflict, has still caused untold suffering for the people of Libya.

Yemen is also a very sad story. Obama gave the kingdom of Saudi Arabia the green light to wage a war against the Houthis, a Iranian-friendly (but not Iranian-backed) group hell-bent on destroying Al-Qaeda in Yemen and giving the country much-needed stability. However, Saudi bombing has ended that possibility, with now 7 million Yemenis in famine as we speak,

All three of these conflicts could have never existed had Obama not endorsed in then "Arab Spring." Had Gidaffi crushed the rebellion in 2011; had Assad been able to crush the "moderate rebels" in Syria, the Arab Spring would have undoubtedly dried up.

Syria, Libya and Yemen together affect more people than Iraq does. Iraq has a population of 30 million; the combined population of Syria, Libya and Yemen is 60 million, double that amount.

The difference is that less American ground troops were sent into Syria, Libya and Yemen. This is the reason why Obama's intervention (or compliance over actions of American allies) in Syria, Libya and Yemen has been (until recently) more popular than George Bush's Iraq War. Americans saw Iraq as if it was outside their window - Syria, Libya and Yemen they do not.

But it seems likely that the Obama legacy - and the legacy of the Arab Spring - will be in Russian takeover of each of these 3 conflicts. Russia plans to stabilize Syria by fully allying and cooperating with the government there; in Libya, Russia is currently working with Egypt to stabilize the country by working on a solution through Haftar Al-Khalifa and the remnants of the Libyan Government in Tobruk; in Yemen, Russia is patiently eyeing for the right moment to intervene, likely to occur after significant levels of stability are reached in Syria and Libya.

Thus will it be that Trump's own legacy will be more aligned with that of America: end the Iraq and Afghan Wars properly and proceed to focus on America First. Should Trump remain President for 8 years, I expect he will accomplish these, and these without worrying about Russia cleaning up Obama's mess.

Brexit and Trump, and why millennials need to wake up

Overwhelmingly, millennials are shaken and upset that Brexit and Trump happened.

But I wonder how many millennials have full-time jobs? Or have families to provide for? Or whether they live at home, single, partying like there's no tomorrow with only a mind on themselves.

Selfishness is a trait inherent to millennials. They need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Brexit and Trump happened because many people in Britain and America are able to compare between how these countries were, and how these countries are. Before, Britain and America had independence in trade, foreign policy and immigration. Now the world dictates unfair and unjust trade deals, foreign policy and obscene types of immigration, which has meant the older generations voted for Brexit and Trump.

Obama's foreign policy decisions rival those of George W. Bush. Though not responsible for the Iraq War, Obama's foreign policy decisions in Libya and Syria were abysmal, causing untold suffering for the Middle-East and resulting in the genocide of minorities. That was Barrack Obama - not George Bush.

George Bush, to his credit, didn't invade another country after learning the lesson of Iraq. Barrack Obama's foreign policy saw the destabilization of Syria, Libya, Yemen and even Ukraine. These are Barrack Obama's fault, and nobody knows about it or cares from the millennial generation.

Britain, NATO and the EU wholeheartedly supported Barrack Obama's moves in these countries, which has left the world far less safe than it was 8 years ago. That's Obama, not Bush.

In addition to all this destabilization, the EU and Obama's America have been taking in more refugees, caused by intervention in these countries. Do you see the pattern? Obama destabilizes the Middle-East by forcefully supporting the Arab Spring, then, look at that! Immigration goes up!

Nothing was done by the EU and Obama to respond appropriately to these crises - all the decisions merely inflamed the crises. That's why Brexit and Trump happened, and that's why millennials need to wake up.

The older generations have seen far more of life than millennials have. Can millennials really claim to be well educated when they cry out for Socialism that led to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union? Or that Socialism is causing the bankruptcy of the European Union? That Greece failed because of the Euro?

Or that Barrack Obama has done more in aid of terrorism in his foreign policy blunders than even George W. Bush?! That Obama is the reason the economy in America is failing? His unwillingness to tackle big banks, wall street and job loss, while everyone says, 'he's a good President' because he's an Afro-American democrat who says nice things?!

The older generations have done you, the millennials, a huge favour. The whining and whinging over their votes for your future is sickening. Read up on the issues, the actual issues, and you will see that Trump and Brexit are the best change we've seen in a quarter of a century of politics.

why an ISIS-Saudi war is not only probable but inevitable

The forces that were unleashed in the Iraq War have not yet been fully realised. This is especially true regarding ISIS and the threat it brings to Saudi Arabia.

Whether the conflicts in Iraq and Syria end or not is irrelevant - either way, the international community will still be faced with an ISIS-Saudi war within the kingdom.

The two options of an ISIS spillover into Saudi Arabia are a 'defeat-spillover' or a 'success-spillover.' A 'success spillover' would mean that ISIS maintain a permanent base in Syria and Iraq and from there are able to launch attacks on Saudi Arabia and destabilize it. In the case of a 'defeat-spillover,' Saudi Arabia would lose the large Syrian-Iraqi proxy war to Iran. This would cause Saudi Arabia to destabilize in favour of ISIS.

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would have resulted in a 'success spillover,' while Donald Trump's policies are likely to result in a 'defeat spillover'.

Donald Trump is planning on reversing ISIS' gains permanently in Syria and Iraq to such an extent that he is prepared to work with Russia and the Syrian Government, an Iranian ally, to do this. He is also prepared to work towards military, political and economic solutions in Iraq, which might succeed in giving the country stability for the first time since 2003.

Should Trump be successful, the ISIS 'defeat-spillover' would cause Saudis to blame their government, pledge allegiance to ISIS in overwhelming numbers to rid Saudi Arabia of its twin threat: Iran and America.

This war is only inevitable because the forces of the Middle-East have not yet adjusted to the seismic shift caused by the Iraq War. By removing Saddam Hussein, a secular Sunni, and replacing him with a Shi'ite dominated government, Sunni dominance under secular Saddam Hussein was replaced by a struggling Salafi Islam as Saudi Arabia tried to fill a Sunni void in Iraq, a void left by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. This 'filling of the void' in Sunni Iraq gave us ISIS.

Should Iraq and Syria stabilize under regimes friendly to Iran, Saudi Arabia would need to have an internal transformation in order to resist the threat of an Iran-dominated Middle-East. ISIS is of course a natural benefactor, as Saudis will choose ISIS to force their government to act more forcefully against the threat of Iran within their country.

ISIS also gives Saudi Arabia the excuse to rid the Arabian Peninsula of all Shi'ites, likely causing large Gulf Shi'ite emigration to Iraq. This would mean that Iran would have no chance of using the Shi'ite minority in Saudi Arabia for their own gain.

Regarding America, both ISIS and Al-Qaeda provide avenues for Saudis to resist American influence within the kingdom. This would send a clear message to America: Saudis no longer trust Americans because of the Iraq War.

The Iraq War has had implications far beyond the immediate removal of Saddam Hussein. Even should Iraq stabilize, we will still see the consequences of this disastrous foreign policy played out elsewhere.