Donald Trump has just said "The world would be a better place if dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were still in power" If a Democrat had said such a thing, they would be demonized by the GOP as an anti American scum, deserving of a firing squad. Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were sadistic dictators, no doubt about it, but what came after them is even worse. Maybe now that The Donald has spoken out on this, the GOP will begin to admit that invading Iraq was a very expensive mistake.
I must admit as a Democrat I'm rather pleased with The Donald's ideas. He may be an arrogant blowhard, but many of his policies are those of a moderate Democrat. Maybe he wouldn't be a bad president after all.
Originally posted by bill718 Donald Trump has just said "The world would be a better place if dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were still in power" If a Democrat had said such a thing, they would be demonized by the GOP as an anti American scum, deserving of a firing squad. Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were sadistic dictators, no doubt about it, but what came aft ...[text shortened]... e.
Invading Iraq need not have been as expensive, as the attempt at nation building has been. Removing Hussein was a good thing, but sticking around and making the US military the target of radical Muslims wasn't a good idea.
Originally posted by normbenign Invading Iraq need not have been as expensive, as the attempt at nation building has been. Removing Hussein was a good thing, but sticking around and making the US military the target of radical Muslims wasn't a good idea.
It didn't occur to you the two things are connected? Look at the world before the Iraq war. Iraq and Iran were at loggerheads so they basically stalemated each other.
I would love to have heard the crisply factual conversations with Bush Jr and the advisers on why they thought Saddam was in cahoots with Al Quida when in fact they hated each other.
All invading Iraq accomplished was to allow the huge gains of the extremists. But don't ever think Republicans would ever admit that.
Originally posted by sonhouse It didn't occur to you the two things are connected? Look at the world before the Iraq war. Iraq and Iran were at loggerheads so they basically stalemated each other.
I would love to have heard the crisply factual conversations with Bush Jr and the advisers on why they thought Saddam was in cahoots with Al Quida when in fact they hated each other.
All ...[text shortened]... allow the huge gains of the extremists. But don't ever think Republicans would ever admit that.
Originally posted by sonhouse It didn't occur to you the two things are connected? Look at the world before the Iraq war. Iraq and Iran were at loggerheads so they basically stalemated each other.
I would love to have heard the crisply factual conversations with Bush Jr and the advisers on why they thought Saddam was in cahoots with Al Quida when in fact they hated each other.
All ...[text shortened]... allow the huge gains of the extremists. But don't ever think Republicans would ever admit that.
It didn't occur to you the two things are connected?
That stems from a world view of the west, including the US as early as WW1, when Iran and Iraq and other national entities were carved out of the Ottoman empire, which was on the losing side of WWI. Iraq, more so even than Iran was not a long time nation state, but was a conglomeration of several sectarian tribes, not even of the same branch of Islam. It was probably over optimistic to believe that in any scenario the US could dictate the terms of that part of the world, and even favoring Hussein during the nine year war with Iran had its risks leading to the kidnapping of embassy staff, when the Shah was deposed.
Hindsight tends to always be more clear. I am generally critical of US foreign policy of all US Presidents going back to FDR. But I concede that each of these men had to make decisions based on what was known then, and not what we know now.
Originally posted by bill718 Donald Trump has just said "The world would be a better place if dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were still in power" If a Democrat had said such a thing, they would be demonized by the GOP as an anti American scum, deserving of a firing squad. Saddam Hussein and Moamer Kadhafi were sadistic dictators, no doubt about it, but what came aft ...[text shortened]... l.
It's a bit of a smoke screen. It's more important to know what Trump says we should do about the situations we are in, than to hear him speculate on the outcome of situations we are not in. Or at least, the response should be, what do we do about that now?
"Close" is relative. As I recall, and it is a long time ago, McVeigh was arrested about an hour's drive away from OK city, by highway patrol. Some would say that is close, to others it is considerably distant. You are a total dipstick. Your obsession with finding me wrong about anything is readily apparent. Why do you keep digging into the past, when at the time you were hopeless in debating me. You don't have the intellect. Please stop exposing yourself as the fool that most of us already know you for.
Originally posted by JS357 It's a bit of a smoke screen. It's more important to know what Trump says we should do about the situations we are in, than to hear him speculate on the outcome of situations we are not in. Or at least, the response should be, what do we do about that now?
Trump is quite clever at using what others say if not to support his positions, but also to gain some support from the other side of the isle. I still think that in the end he'll just lose interest in being the candidate. He'll reason he has bigger fish to fry.
The Donald speaks the truth
25 Oct '15 17:081 edit
Back to Top