Posted on 12/10/2015 2:29:07 PM PST by Isara
Not really, when it comes from someone who claims that Trump doesn’t have the judgement to be president; it isn’t.
I’ve been saying the very same thing for a few years now.
Islam demands a brutal dictator. Otherwise they fill the vacuum themselves.
Watch it...you’ll get the Twister board or the Cruzin’ Monkey band posted at you, with that kind of talk :)
Crooked Cruz stealing Trump’s line again
Cruz is parroting Trump. He’s running as a mini me. It’s ridiculous.
just my 2 cents.... Things would have worked out very well after Iraq and Afghanistan wars, had democrats and liberals around the world not marched at “peace rallies” in support of
al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Democrats in the US were against the wars because they were Republican wars, their liberal friends around the world got on board with them, no they would not have had the same response had Democrats been in power at the time. the “peace rallies” encouraged and aided the enemy
So Democrats/liberals played politics while the troops were in harms way, the troops were demoralized watching this all unfold on tv.
Not to mention Obama pulls the troops out turning over all the tanks and equipment to ISIS
Dictatorships are great if you can only be assured that you have a good one
I agree!
Cruz says it everyone agrees Trump says it everyone goes after him and calls him a Liberal wow
“The United States Constitution is not for export.”
When we first invaded Iraq, there was a news clip from a bombed-out village that has remained stuck in my mind to this day.
An Iraqi woman was yelling at the camera — through a translator —
“You Americans cannot, will not ever, understand our culture. We don’t want your democracy here. It is not our way.”
M2T exactly. :)
Bush should have taken out Assad and the Ayatollahs and fairy pansy should never have pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to impose our system there as we did in Germany and Japan.
Cruz is partially correct on Gadhafi in Libya, however Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon that needed to be removed, he WAS a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and he was pursuing a nuclear weapons program (which ended up in Syria and then ‘down the memory hole’).
Saddam’s regime actually had a paid government position for ‘official rapist’ (assuming that his boys Uday and Qusay were busy on any given day) and women were randomly kidnapped off city streets and assaulted, raped and subjected to every sort of degradation, likewise Saddam’s little boys were notorious for exacting excruciating pain in torture chambers that even exceeded what their father himself was said to approve of.
The benefits of overthrowing Saddam were obvious: first, a truly oppressive regime was removed and the Iraqi people were given an opportunity to build a free and secular new society. Thanks to the U.S. bungling the post-war period by NOT instituting at least a 20 year occupation based on the Japan model at the end of World War II, it was inevitable that Iraq would descend into anarchy.
The other benefit of overthrowing Saddam was that when Gadhafi witnessed ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ taking place, he was so rattled by it that he contacted the U.S. and the U.K. direct, and offered to turn over his OWN nuclear program because he believed that he might well be next on the target list. Libya’s nuclear program is now safely confined (we hope) in Oak Ridge Tennessee and Gadhafi was trying to reintegrate Libya back into the ranks of civilized nations, until Emperor Barky and the Hildabeast decided that he had to go in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood AND Sidney Blumenthal’s profiteering and deal making in the region on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, not to mention the death of our fellow Americans in Benghazi.
IF we had not overthrown Saddam, we would now have three powers in that region (Iraq, Libya and Iran) all racing to obtain a nuclear weapons capability which would as incredible as it might sound, make the region even MORE unstable than it is right now.
BS.
All the problems started when Bush decided to get involved in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. How the hell was that ever a threat to the US?
Kuwait was never innocent. It’s a brutal Islamic dictatorship. In any event, they are rich and can defend themselves.
These countries have been fighting each other since the beginning of time. Taking sides and getting involved in every conflict only makes sense if you are an idiot or a Bush.
Gadhafi? Once a much larger threat was handled with a personal message by Reagan. We had his WMD's and dismantled them. He as such was not a threat or rather a less threat weakened in power than Arab Spring Fiasco.
Obama has divided the nation, nearly has brought the nation closer to a domestic Civil War than any POTUS since Lincoln, and has completely destabilized the Middle East and alienated our long time alliances in Europe and Israel.
Ever POTUS after Reagan left office has contributed to this slow train wreck. The Bush Family loyalties to the Saudi royals and other M.E. nations was a disaster. The Clinton's in their positions did major damage as well. Hillary should be in federal prison. But the DEMs and GOP all know too much on each other. Thus we need TERM LIMITS NOW!
It comes down to this. To win a war you have to fight a military agenda and a military strategy. That means innocents in the enemy nation will die or are they innocents? By that I mean the adults who allowed the tyrants to take power and wreak havoc to start with as Germany did with Hitler. We certainly did not as a whole treat neither Japan not Germany as innocents in WW2 nor should we treat the enemies of today any different than we did Japan or Germany. Anything less? Stay Home and don't ask a member of the armed forces to shed blood and in doing so legitimizing Smedley Butlers comments on war. GW Bush your GITMO inmates are now free terrorist due to your lack of guts to convict them.
Obama? he's the disaster the GW Bush administration set him up to be for us. Remember when Freepers were posting Don't go there when Smirks had an idea and it was usually bad one? We're in a serious deep pile. We can't even get a Speaker of The House.
Sadly, this is true. Powerful dictators squash their own anarchists.
“We need to impose our system there as we did in Germany and Japan.”
ROFL.
Germany and Japan were industrialized superpowers before the war. We didn’t impose any system on them. Japan still has an emperor and Merkel has been in power for 10 years.
The middle east has always been a sh1thole. We can’t do anything to change that. Keeping troops in Iraq to police the streets is not an option. Feel free to go over there to do the job yourself if you think this is so important.
He got beat up bad in the 1990 war and the reason he was taken out in 2003 was to make Saudis and Gulf Arabs happy and to make people think something was being done to stop terrorism in the world since George W. Bush was giving the Saudi and Qatari financers of the terrorist ideology a pass.
It is an impossible thought exercise... Yes, the current Iraq may be better off with Saddam ruling than the current government— But, if there had not been an Obama cowardly retreat of our troops from Iraq, a few years ago, then the middle east would be a much safer place now than if Iraq was still under the influence of Saddam...
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.