Trump praises Saddam Hussein's efficient killing of 'terrorists,'

[GMDino]

Fun fact!  I actually agree with Trump that the removal of Hussein was a bad thing for the same reason:  It destabilized the region.

Fun fact 2!  I was against the Iraq war the entire time...not just when it became a quagmire or politically smart to be against it.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/donald-trump-saddam-hussein-iraq-terrorism/

Quote:Raleigh, North Carolina (CNN)Donald Trump on Tuesday once again expressed his preference for keeping dictators in power in the Middle East.


While acknowledging that Saddam Hussein "was a bad guy," Trump praised the former Iraqi dictator's efficient killing of "terrorists" -- despite the fact that Iraq was listed as a state sponsor of terrorism during Hussein's time in power.

Trump, who supported the Iraq War before the invasion and in the early months of the war, said the U.S. "shouldn't have destabilized" Iraq before pivoting to praising Hussein.



"He 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. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism," Trump said.


The remarks came during a rally where he was introduced by Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is a potential running mate for Trump.

Asked Tuesday night on Fox News about the comments, House Speaker Paul Ryan appeared taken aback by Trump's words.

"He was one of the 20th century's most evil people," Ryan said of the former Iraqi strongman.

The Clinton campaign jumped on the remarks, with senior campaign adviser Jake Sullivan saying "Trump's praise for brutal strongmen seemingly knows no bounds."


"Trump yet again lauded Saddam Hussein as a great killer of terrorists, noting with approval that he never bothered to read anyone their rights," Sullivan said in a statement, after noting Trump has also praised North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Russia's Vladimir Putin.

"In reality, Hussein's regime was a sponsor of terrorism -- one that paid families of suicide bombers who attacked Israelis, among other crimes," he said. "Trump's cavalier compliments for brutal dictators, and the twisted lessons he seems to have learned from their history, again demonstrate how dangerous he would be as commander-in-chief and how unworthy he is of the office he seeks."

The presumptive Republican nominee has previously said that Iraq and Libya -- two countries that have become ISIS strongholds -- would be better off if Hussein and Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi were still alive and in power in their respective countries.

Trump has also previously praised Hussein's prowess at killing terrorists.

Hussein was notoriously effective at suppressing dissent in his country, but he frequently targeted civilians and minority groups while in power, which earned him widespread condemnation from the international community as one of the world's worst human rights abusers.

[Benton]

Killing Hussein set the middle east back about 50 years. He was a horrible human being, no doubt, but fewer and fewer stable governments isn't helping anyone there.

[BFritz21]

(07-06-2016, 08:31 PM)Benton Wrote: Killing Hussein set the middle east back about 50 years. He was a horrible human being, no doubt, but fewer and fewer stable governments isn't helping anyone there.

Exactly.

Trump's actually right.  

Killing him would have been a good move if there had been a way to stabilize the country but it just made it even worse. 

[Rotobeast]

They should have at least kept Gaddafi in.
He warned everyone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3388533/Colonel-Gaddafi-accused-Tony-Blair-supporting-Al-Qaeda-warned-jihadis-Libya-attack-Europe-series-phone-calls.html

More on topic....
This all has to be making Rumsfeld pretty happy about endorsing Trump.

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-06-2016, 08:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Fun fat 2!  

Since when is fat ever fun?

[Rotobeast]

(07-06-2016, 10:27 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Since when is fat ever fun?

As if you wouldn't know.

[*jason*]

Excellent analysis (as always) Mr Trump. If only we handled more issues the way Saddam did. No "read them the rights" no nothing. Just BOOM!!! "Over".


What a clown.... this guy.

[Benton]

(07-06-2016, 09:27 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Exactly.

Trump's actually right.  

Killing him would have been a good move if there had been a way to stabilize the country but it just made it even worse. 

Oh I think trump would have done the same thing as bush. That's the problem. We've had the same people calling he shots since Nixon.

[Millhouse]

(07-06-2016, 08:31 PM)Benton Wrote: Killing Hussein set the middle east back about 50 years. He was a horrible human being, no doubt, but fewer and fewer stable governments isn't helping anyone there.

I disagree in large part due to the fact we decimated his military in the first Gulf War. Even though he still enough power to remain in power, he didnt have a security appartus to deal with groups like ISIS and his other enemies like he had prior to 1991. He had anything but a stable government post 1991.

What is setting the Middle East back right now is the Syrian civil war, which allowed ISIS to fester and grow like gangrene on a wounded leg. If Syria never imploded like it did, Iraq would be better off post- Saddam and ISIS never would have evolved like is unfortunately has. 

Regardless though, until those countries learn to separate religion and their governments, they will always be 'set back' compared to the rest of the world.

All that said, Trump is a buffoon. Hillary sucks. Worst presidential nominees that I can think of without looking it up going back to the 1910s-1920s.

[GMDino]

(07-07-2016, 12:07 AM)Millhouse Wrote: I disagree in large part due to the fact we decimated his military in the first Gulf War. Even though he still enough power to remain in power, he didnt have a security appartus to deal with groups like ISIS and his other enemies like he had prior to 1991. He had anything but a stable government post 1991.

What is setting the Middle East back right now is the Syrian civil war, which allowed ISIS to fester and grow like gangrene on a wounded leg. If Syria never imploded like it did, Iraq would be better off post- Saddam and ISIS never would have evolved like is unfortunately has. 

Regardless though, until those countries learn to separate religion and their governments, they will always be 'set back' compared to the rest of the world.

All that said, Trump is a buffoon. Hillary sucks. Worst presidential nominees that I can think of without looking it up going back to the 1910s-1920s.

Stable in the sense that he had control over the country.

He was an evil man...but having him there kept a balance in the region.  He was more than likely bluffing about everything but no one was going to challenge him to find out.

Kind of like "mutually assured destruction".

[BengalHawk62]

Weapons of Mass Destruction!  Riiiiiiight. 

[Benton]

(07-07-2016, 12:07 AM)Millhouse Wrote: I disagree in large part due to the fact we decimated his military in the first Gulf War. Even though he still enough power to remain in power, he didnt have a security appartus to deal with groups like ISIS and his other enemies like he had prior to 1991. He had anything but a stable government post 1991.

What is setting the Middle East back right now is the Syrian civil war, which allowed ISIS to fester and grow like gangrene on a wounded leg. If Syria never imploded like it did, Iraq would be better off post- Saddam and ISIS never would have evolved like is unfortunately has. 

Regardless though, until those countries learn to separate religion and their governments, they will always be 'set back' compared to the rest of the world.

All that said, Trump is a buffoon. Hillary sucks. Worst presidential nominees that I can think of without looking it up going back to the 1910s-1920s.

Saddam (and a handful of other dictators through the 60s-80s) provided stable governments. Some of that weakened naturally over time, some as those dictators died off or weakened, and some through intervention (like the U.S. invading Iraq). The Baath party (which Saddam was part of) helped force a cooperation between Sunni and Shia. You either did as the government said or — regardless of sect — you were punished. Yeah, Sunni folks had a better end of things, but the system kept going. And with some peace, people were able to go to school or get jobs and potentially move out of the area if they wanted.

2003 changed that. With a pretty limited understanding of the differences in 600ish years of tribal and religious affairs, the U.S. government unintentionally drew more dividing lines between Sunni and Shia. Removal of Baath party members essentially took out local and state leadership, which led to a free for all in Iraq that spiraled out to other countries. Even worse, a good number of former Saddam's Sunni leadership are thought to have gone to groups after 2004 who eventually merged with ISIS, prefering to keep it Sunni and exterminate the majority Shia populations.

In Syria , Assad and the Alawaites are Shia. The majority of the country (70% I believe) is Sunni. Again, this is a reflection of the conflict as Sunni groups worked against Shia groups in the 2005-2010 range. The rebels are the majority Sunni fighting against the Shia minority that's in control of the government. There's been talk that Assad has tried to Sunni-fy Alawaites into more a moderate group, but

[*bfine32*]

I guess that the sentiment that Iraq was better off with Saddam depends entirely on who you are. We simply over-threw him about 13 years too late.

[GMDino]

(07-07-2016, 01:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess that the sentiment that Iraq was better off with Saddam depends entirely on who you are. We simply over-threw him about 13 years too late.

HW knew what would happen if Saddam was removed.  That's why he didn't do it.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36409.html

Quote:We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf.

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

[*bfine32*]

(07-06-2016, 10:27 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Since when is fat ever fun?

You need to get out more. Everybody knows fatties give the best hummers and are quite limber.

[GMDino]

(07-07-2016, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You need to get out more. Everybody knows fatties give the best hummers and are quite limber.

Thank goodness Lucy isn't here to read that!  

[Benton]

(07-07-2016, 01:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I guess that the sentiment that Iraq was better off with Saddam depends entirely on who you are. We simply over-threw him about 13 years too late.

Depends on what time you're talking about. The Iran-Iraq War was a pretty horrible time for both those countries. But leading up to  the First Gulf War and after, except for the Kurds, it was more a stable place. You didn't have this level of sectarian violence. You didn't have millions of people homeless as terrorists take over or destroy towns. You had political abuses, but not the level of corruption there is now. I've seen estimates that the number of government "employees" grew anywhere from 5-20%... even though many of those aren't people, they're just bank accounts collecting paychecks.