Seems to me your line of thinking is limited to links:trumpmad:
Trump's self-destruction has begun
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
Seems to me your line of thinking is limited to links:trumpmad:
It is per the links.
There's nothing secular about repressing minorities other than your own either.
Secular does not equal rule of law, justice or equality.
whether some people want to admit it or not, Saddam, Gahdaffi and other strong men held countries together under mostly secular governments. They did not tolerate extremism as it would have challenged their power.
Is this really a point of argument?
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Look up the word secular.
Or maybe you are just trolling.
Should I be using the American Conservative version of "secular"?
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Imagine looking at modern day Iraq and thinking "mission accomplished"
Trump is right about Saddam and Iraqis agree. Iraq Chilcot inquiry: Bitterness in Baghdad - BBC News
He's right though
You guys are clueless about Saddam.
Ignore that Saddam's Iraq was one of seven countries listed as a state sponsor of terrorism
Ignore that Saddam was sheltering the MKO, PLF, ANO, PKK, and other terrorist groups that were targeting Turkey, Iran, and Israel
Ignore that Saddam was offering $25,000 bounties to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber who targeted Israel
Ignore that Saddam carried out his own terrorist plots, like the gassing of thousands of Kurds and the attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush
Ignore that Saddam used extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, and torture to intimidate all dissidents to his rule
Call Saddam's regime "stable" when his country was involved in massive, existence-threatening wars from 1980-1988, 1990-1991, and 2003-his death, and were getting randomly bombed and under heavy international sanctions pretty much all the time in-between.
Saddam DID kill and torture dudes without reading them their rights - that much is true. But they were much more likely to be absolutely any opposition opponent (r the families of potential opposition opponents, or just someone who got on someone else's bad side) than actual terrorists.
Trump already said this like four months back. He has an intense attraction to violent dictators:
“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength."
"If you look at North Korea – this guy, he’s like a maniac, OK? And you have to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that? Even though it is a culture and it’s a cultural thing, he goes in, he takes over, and he’s the boss. It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn’t play games.”
"[Putin]'s running his country and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country…. A lot of good things could happen with Russia if we get along with Russia and if they respect us. Putin doesn't respect our president."
“[Hussein] was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over.”
“Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.”
But at that point "secular" is just meaningless to any of our interests.
MOST of the current leadership of Isis is former officers who were working under Saddam. They're doing the same thing they were before, just under a "religious" tagline instead of a "secular" one. All you're talking about is different superficial coatings for brutal power-hungry men to gain and retain control.
“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength."
"If you look at North Korea – this guy, he’s like a maniac, OK? And you have to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that? Even though it is a culture and it’s a cultural thing, he goes in, he takes over, and he’s the boss. It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn’t play games.”
"[Putin]'s running his country and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country…. A lot of good things could happen with Russia if we get along with Russia and if they respect us. Putin doesn't respect our president."
“[Hussein] was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over.”
“Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.”
But at that point "secular" is just meaningless to any of our interests.
MOST of the current leadership of Isis is former officers who were working under Saddam. They're doing the same thing they were before, just under a "religious" tagline instead of a "secular" one. All you're talking about is different superficial coatings for brutal power-hungry men to gain and retain control.
You guys are clueless about Saddam.
Ignore that Saddam's Iraq was one of seven countries listed as a state sponsor of terrorism
Ignore that Saddam was sheltering the MKO, PLF, ANO, PKK, and other terrorist groups that were targeting Turkey, Iran, and Israel
Ignore that Saddam was offering $25,000 bounties to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber who targeted Israel
Ignore that Saddam carried out his own terrorist plots, like the gassing of thousands of Kurds and the attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush
Ignore that Saddam used extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, and torture to intimidate all dissidents to his rule
Call Saddam's regime "stable" when his country was involved in massive, existence-threatening wars from 1980-1988, 1990-1991, and 2003-his death, and were getting randomly bombed and under heavy international sanctions pretty much all the time in-between.
Saddam DID kill and torture dudes without reading them their rights - that much is true. But they were much more likely to be absolutely any opposition opponent (r the families of potential opposition opponents, or just someone who got on someone else's bad side) than actual terrorists.
I'm not defending Saddam, but it's a fact, Iraq was more stable, didn't have an Islamic extremist terrorism and was less of a threat to the U.S under Saddam. I'm not advocating for his brutal methods, but to argue his brutal strongman tactics were not effective in keeping the country together is just factually false.
Did you support the war in Iraq?
people should ignore them because they sure as hell weren't good reasons to break that country and turn it into what it is now. and most importantly the trillions wasted. who gives a shyt if he was sheltering groups that were targeting turkey, iran and israel, not a sympathetic bunch in sight. fukk 'em.You guys are clueless about Saddam.
Ignore that Saddam's Iraq was one of seven countries listed as a state sponsor of terrorism
Ignore that Saddam was sheltering the MKO, PLF, ANO, PKK, and other terrorist groups that were targeting Turkey, Iran, and Israel
Ignore that Saddam was offering $25,000 bounties to the families of every Palestinian suicide bomber who targeted Israel
Ignore that Saddam carried out his own terrorist plots, like the gassing of thousands of Kurds and the attempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush
Ignore that Saddam used extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, and torture to intimidate all dissidents to his rule
Call Saddam's regime "stable" when his country was involved in massive, existence-threatening wars from 1980-1988, 1990-1991, and 2003-his death, and were getting randomly bombed and under heavy international sanctions pretty much all the time in-between.
Saddam DID kill and torture dudes without reading them their rights - that much is true. But they were much more likely to be absolutely any opposition opponent (r the families of potential opposition opponents, or just someone who got on someone else's bad side) than actual terrorists.
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
Breh, I'm not just making this up, I'm going by the words of the actual Iraqis living on the ground who actually have to deal with the aftermath. Read that BBC article I linked.You guys are clueless about Saddam.
So now we're taking America's list of states that sponsor terrorism as gospel? Tell me, was Saudi Arabia on that list?
This is exactly the point. No one, including Trump, is saying Saddam should have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Just that he was an effective check on on the region turning to the chaotic hellscape that it is right now. History has vindicated this position. Modern Iraq is now worse than Iraq under Saddam. It was a mistake to remove him in that manner. Same with Gaddafi.
And even GHW Bush had the sense to not take him out. Because he knew the turmoil that Saddam was holding back. I swear GHW is so underrated.
And what is Iraq now? 250 people just died in Baghdad and you're here caping for neocon interventionism? Listen to the actual people living in Iraq:
"Saddam has gone, and we have one thousand Saddams now," he says. "It wasn't like this under Saddam. There was a system. There were ways. We didn't like him, but he was better than those people." "Saddam never executed people without a reason. He was as solid as a wall. There was no corruption or looting, it was safe. You could be safe."
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
Breh I'm sitting here likeDid you support the war in Iraq?
Trump really got these people so confused they're out here caping for Bush and the War in Iraq on some "well, you know, it wasn't that bad" shyt...powerful
I'm not defending Saddam, but it's a fact, Iraq was more stable, didn't have an Islamic extremist terrorism and was less of a threat to the U.S under Saddam. I'm not advocating for his brutal methods, but to argue his brutal strongman tactics were not effective in keeping the country together is just factually false.
Did you support the war in Iraq?
The guys committing "Islamic extremist terrorism" under Isis right now are the SAME guys who were committing state terrorism under Saddam. They've just changed allegiances. Really, you need to read up on the Isis power structure and the history of Iraq.
Is starting and losing one of the bloodiest wars in the last 40 years (the 8-year Iran-Iraq War) somehow "keeping the country together"?
Is gassing thousands of your own Kurdish civilians somehow "keeping the country together"?
Is invading Kuwait, then losing a war with the US that nearly ends in occupation somehow "keeping the country together"?
Is kidnapping, torturing, killing every possible rival or imagined rival and their families somehow "keeping the country together"?
Is being belligerent enough with the US government and UN weapons inspectors so that the US invades and Iraq is destroyed somehow "keeping the country together"?
The USA being idiots and invading Iraq, then massively screwing up on every level, followed by the Syrian Civil War and rise of Isis to where they were able to take territory in Iraq nearly TEN YEARS after Saddam's removal in no way proves that Saddam was doing the right thing at any moment.
And hell no I didn't support the war in Iraq. What does that have anything to do with anything?
The question was about whether Saddam was an effective check on terror and whether his techniques were helpful. Which is idiocy - he encouraged terror, committed terror himself, constantly destabilized the region with war, and helped create the conditions that made Iraq what it is today.
You know who did support the war in Iraq though? Donald Trump.
Trump's only comments before the war suggest either cautious support or ambivalence. Trump NEVER stated publicly that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq until near the end of 2003, well into the war. And his critiques looked more like they revolved around the war's effect on finances and the stock market than whether he had the slightest clue about Saddam.
This is nonsensical. No one is saying it was a good idea to go into Iraq. But you can't praise Saddam for going after terrorists with one breath, then claim that you don't care whether he goes after terrorists or not with the next breath. Who were the "bad" terrorists that Saddam was going after that Trump is praising him for?
But the region WAS a chaotic hellhole under Saddam? There was three major, country-threatening wars that covered nearly half the time he was in power! Do you have the slightest clue what happened during the Iran-Iraq War when literally millions of people died? The chemical gas massacres of Kurdish civilians?
NO ONE is saying that removing Saddam and Gaddafi was a good thing. I've never said that. Oh, wait, but Trump did:
No, I have never, ever caped for neocon intervention. Ever, in any forum, including this one.
You unhinged reactionaries just go off on wild claims the second the Dear Leader is criticized.
Breh I'm sitting here like
Trump really got these people so confused they're out here caping for Bush and the War in Iraq on some "well, you know, it wasn't that bad" shyt...powerful
Quote where I said the slightest thing anything like that.
Who gives a shyt about the above? These are internal or regional differences that did not pose a direct threat to the U.S...and oh by the way, we turned a blind eye to when he used chemical weapons in Iran so please cut the shyt.
Edit: I do care about these atrocities. But i also respect the sovereignty of other nations and i'm against interventionist wars.
None of this would have happened if Saddam was in power. You admit yourself that ISIS is made up of former Iraq Sunni generals.
And hell no I didn't support the war in Iraq. What does that have anything to do with anything?
So what the fukk is your point? Nobody is saying Saddam was some enlightened leader, but the country was in much better shape when he was alive. It also posed much less of a risk to our interests than it does today. How come you didn't support the invasion?
False. The U.S created the conditions in Iraq with the 2003 invasion.
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
It was most definitely not as chaotic as it is right now. It wasn't some paradise, and there were flagrant abuses and violations of human rights, but it wasn't chaotic. That's like saying North Korea is chaotic. The actual Iraqis who lived there before and after the invasion say that what Saddam imposed was a brutal order. And it's not hard to see why that's preferable to the chaotic disorder that Iraq is now. I will again quote actual Iraqis living on the ground:
"Saddam has gone, and we have one thousand Saddams now," he says. "It wasn't like this under Saddam. There was a system. There were ways. We didn't like him, but he was better than those people." "Saddam never executed people without a reason. He was as solid as a wall. There was no corruption or looting, it was safe. You could be safe."
This is not a fringe belief, it's quickly becoming the consensus.
Do you or do you not believe that Iraq is a better place for having Saddam being removed from power? Do you think the removal of Saddam Hussein in the manner it was done in was a mistake or not? Do you or do you not believe that the world (and the Middle East in particular) is a safer, more stable, more prosperous place because Saddam is no longer in power? This has nothing to do with Trump right now, I'm just interested in having a historical debate.