Posted on 10/04/2015 11:31:04 AM PDT by Mariner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said on Sunday the Middle East would be more stable if Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein were still in power in Libya and Iraq, saying it's "not even a contest".
Trump mentioned the countries in comparison to current efforts to drive Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of power.
"You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there, it's a mess," Trump said on NBC.
"If you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there, it's a mess. It's going to be the same thing" in Syria, he said.
Asked by NBC's Chuck Todd if the Middle East would be more stable with Gaddafi and Saddam in power, Trump replied, "Of course it would be."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Secular dictator beats Islamofascism. In the same vein, Reagan knew a secular dictator beats communism. It’s time for more realpolitik and less hopeless idealism.
“Freedom is not a universal value.” — Professor J. Rufus Fears
Bull! Bush owns it.
He's asking a lot of the Middle East. Meanwhile, Libya's in northern Africa, the regime there was overthrown by jihadists who were not being funded by the US or EU. Also, he was getting pretty long in the tooth, as dictators go, and had ruled for a long, long time. Gaddafy's overthrow hasn't been particularly influential -- but the Benghazi massacre scandal may help put Hitlery's political career in its grave where it belongs, so that's a good thing. That would never have happened if Gaddafy hadn't been overthrown.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Immigration as an issue trumps all others because without a reduction, America as a going concern will be obliterated.
Stop the madness. Don’t legalize illegals. Wall out potential ones not here. Curb even legal immigration.
Muslims, believers in Islamofacism, will vote in Islamofascists when given the vote.
But Obama is almost gone... it’s primary time. We need to have this discussion.
You go in quick, kill all who need killing.
Appoint a viceroy.
Hire mercenaries using the oil revenue.
Go home.
“..There is no argument that the middle east is far less stable now...”
Yes, Saddam had to go. No two ways about that. It was a war that needed to be fought...and unfortunately was not allowed to be finished. And yep, Bush One should have let “Stormin’ Norman” go all the way to Baghdad and do the job...but again, like Viet Nam, POLITICS got in the way and ruined the right path to getting that job done. As another poster noted, we learned our lesson in Viet Nam, but the Washington elites did NOT. Even knowing that the Nam War could have been won in MONTHS if the military had been allowed to fight it right. I served during the beginnings of the Nam War and was in a job that let me see what was coming. And it ended up as predicted, wasting over 50,000 good lives and untold amounts of treasure.
It will be interesting to see how things go now in the Middle East especially with a REAL American president coming....it had better happen. So much needs to be fixed. God help us.
And please note, that he was not assassinated like Khadafi...which is against international law.
And remember, that it was the UN that brokered the deal for the "cease fire" with Saddam after the Gulf War. And there were how many violations....14??
I still think Iraq was the right move. It closed the door to new terrorists. Look at the ISIS gains under Obama.
Iraq begged for help. Obama said....naw...you gotta do this yourself. It's just a little civil war.
Khadafi was a mistake. Egypt was a mistake.
It amazes me how quickly folks forgot who Hussein was and what he was up to.
It would have been nice if Saddam were replaced by a peaceful, democratic Iraq aligned with American. But despite our best efforts, treasure and lives, that is not the case. And it probably never would have been. A Saddam controlled Iraq would have still been a bulkhead against Iran.
Afghanistan is likewise turning to crap. Again, despite all our efforts, I’ll bet the Government falls within one year after we leave. Would not be surprised if Russia went back in there to pick up the pieces.
Iran is no friend of the West, no friend of Israel, and it is the world's lead supporter/financier of Shia-Islam terrorist groups (the likes of Hezbollah).
However, Iran is not even in the top three global exporters of terrorism. Not even in the top three, and Iran as the 'world's largest exporter of terrorism' is a statement that is oft-repeated but always untrue.
What are the world's real exporters of terrorism?
Number one is Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is the fount of all Wahhabist/Salafist ideology that fuels Sunni-Islam terrorist groups ranging from Al Qaeda/Al Nusra/Taliban in the ME to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines to Al Shabaab in Somalia to Boko Haram in West Africa to Islamic State in the ME and North Africa. The mosques built by the Kingdom are the reasons the 'kiddish' versions of Islam in Somalia and Afghanistan in the 70s morphed into what you see today.
Number two is Pakistan. Pakistan is a state supporter of terrorism, financing the various Sunni groups thay attack India. Additionally, Pakistan was one of two countries (the other being Saudi Arabia) thay formally recognized the Taliban regime. Additionally, the country is the LEAD exporter of nuclear technology through the AQ Khan network, and is directly responsible for the North Korean program. Nice work for an 'ally,' not to mention how Usama bin Laden hid out at kissing distance from their version of West Point.
Number three is Qatar. Qatar? Huh? Well, at the beginning of Islamic State, it is Qatar that funded and sustained them until they started being financially independent. Qatar is a smaller version of Saudi Arabia.
Then, after that, one can slot in Iran.
However, the phrase that Iran is the number one exporter of terrorism is true IF one is talking about Shia terrorist groups, but if one is looking at all Islamic terror groups (and thus including the number one Islamic terror movement - that of Sunni Islam), Iran is not in the top three, and most definitely not higher than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But since Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are 'allies' all is forgiven.
If you're going to go after terrorism, then Afghanistan and Iraq needed to go.
But so does Syria and Iran.
But we are doing several things wrong:
You can thank the UN for brokering Saddam’s “truce”. Would have said “go to hell” and run it out into a unconditional surrender.
Just the type leaders needed in that part of the world. Some people need to be oppressed.
I certainly believe that Saddam was “provider” for the anthrax attack.
I guess you don't remember all the "coalition" airstrikes and no-fly zone.
To suggest we didn't have people/money/organization on the ground flies against reason.
Muammar Gaddafi - yes. Saddam - No. We had Iraq pacified if only we had left troops there (like in Germany, Japan, Korea) and the entire region would be merely troublesome not the Islamist terror bowl with IS at the top. IS takes its tactical leadership by embittered troops left by Saddam.
Bull tickle , that is revisionist history and the liberal use of the retrospectralanalscope. What was done was supported by 98% of Freepers and 90 % of the general population. We of little memory.
Saddam and Qaddafi were not good people they did some really bad things, but they kept people in line...now you have chaos.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.