U.S. History/the horrid truth
michael it is beyond doubt that if george bush jnr and tony blair had never taken to war based on false premise called weapons of mass destruction then new hell far more destrucutive in the shape of isil would never had been unleashed.it'd be far better to have had saddam remain in power to have kept under supression the monstrocity of the shias and the sunni's ....the way it is going david cameron would have to extend beyond his comfort zone of providing humanitarian efforts and assisting air strikes along side the america...suggests that if isil continue in their take over attempts of iraq there will come a time when like the 1930 nazism this emergence will become an insurmountable force to be very worried about...how much is the threat from both iraq and syria to the rest of the world? alot of people are losing sleep in what is now a very unrest period.
Many have often criticized the west for support of strong man dictators who trample the rights of their people. But those on the other side can use this example to point out that sometimes the alternative of letting the dictators fall and be replaced by infighting and the rise of radical groups as being even worse.
Whether groups such as ISIS might have developed absent the decision to topple Saddam Hussein more than a decade ago is difficult to say for certain. Many the ISIS leaders began developing their radical plans even before the US/UK invasion of Iraq. But it seems likely that the lack of strong leadership in both Iraq and Syria has led to the ability of ISIS to spread as far as it has.
But I don't think a comparison to the rise of the Nazis as an nearly insurmountable power makes much sense. Even if ISIS can establish a relatively stable nation State in the region, it has no industrial base to develop a formidable military. Further, the US military of today is nothing like the US military of the 1930's. If ISIS did something to provoke the US into full scale war (as did Pearl Harbor to begin US involvement in WWII) the war would be over in a matter of weeks. ISIS grows now because the US and western allies choose not to expense the costs involved in crushing them. If they opted to spend that cost, ISIS would not stand as a State for long.
Remember when the US decided to attack Iraq, it only took a matter of weeks to take control of the whole country. The pain came after the country was conquered as groups of terrorists and rebels used mostly small attacks to hit allied forces repeatedly for many years. There was no "front" that the allies could not breach. There were only hidden groups that could strike and hide. Of course, this tactic was very effective at making occupation too costly and painful for the allies. But it is far different from a country that could repel invaders. ISIS similarly would be forced into acting as a small hit and run terrorist cell rather than the leader of a country.
ISIS thrives now because the governments of Iraq and Syria are weak, divided and unable to unify their people into a cohesive force, and because the Western powers are war weary and do not want to pay the costs of another full scale invasion. But this will never amount to much. Even if a smaller regional power such as Iran decided to go to a full state of all out war with ISIS, ISIS would not last very long.
Val, I notice you have asked at least five questions over the last month, but records show you have not read any of my answers. I am curious if you are somehow reading these and the record is not showing up on allexperts.com, or whether I am simply wasting my time answering questions that no one ever reads. Would you mind responding to this so that I know you are reading my answers?