Posted on 10/09/2015 6:46:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
National establishment review , so no more.
I happen to agree with the article.
True that, he’s probably not “nuanced” enough for NR and the GOPe-he might do what a majority of patriotic Americans would do if we had the power, and he doesn’t need Saudi money.
RE: National establishment review , so no more.
Nothing they say is right at all? Even when they tell us the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?
Please remember that "Regime Change" was Bubba's and the Dems agenda. I believe at some point, even Hillary said it "directly". That quote is around someplace.
Is “nuanced” in the popular context code for mendacious?
Hope is something we don't have with anyone in the GOPe or Democrat stable.
There is no short answer to these questions.
I’m coming to understand that any secular strongman who keeps a tight leash on his muzzies isn’t all bad. They are the worst animals to exist on this planet since the Holy Spirit was given to us almost 2000 years ago.
Agree as well. Trump's foreign policy ideas, especially where Putin is involved, are nonsensical.
Doesn't much matter, Trump will not be the nominee.
I agree also. I'm certainly not anti-Trump but will acknowledge that he's very, very weak on foreign policy. Of course, I don't think Hillary or Biden are any better. The Donald can bone up and remedy his lack of knowledge in this area; Hillary and Biden can never overcome their greed and dishonesty in this arena.
It’s utter nonsense.
Yet I am still supporting what Trump is doing.
His presence is beneficial and helped out a huge amount.
The real story is (or was as Yeb is So Yesterday as iCarly might say) is Yeb was saying the same nonsense.
RE: Millions of people have said Iraq (and George) was the wrong move.
______________________
Except members of those here at FR, which I remember Overwhelmingly supported the deposing of Saddam Hussein.
Suddenly, when Trump says something, everything FReepers supported before (including opposing the Kelo vs City of New London eminent domain decision ) is wrong.
I agree with the article as well.
I generally agree with your main point. I think we should never apologize for removing that madman, Saddam. Removing him was the right thing to do. Disbanding his army and sending them home and starting from scratch was the fools thing to do. Electing Obama and having him “honor” his campaign commitment of removing all US forces (too early) is why we are were we are today. Saddam’s officers and disgruntled others is the backbone of modern day Islamic State. Regime change and “spreading democracy” is debatable but can’t be forced is the hard lesson. Trying to reason with 7th century throwbacks is proving to be pointless.
I wasn’t against taking out Saddam but I was against Bush’s attempts at nation building in the middle east. I think we should have been there to kill as many terrorist as possible. The real mess happened when Executive Anus took over and started supporting our terrorist enemies.
The Mid East is never stable. But it was stable-er with the dictators in power. That’s the point.
Trump isn’t saying is was nirvana over there before Saddam was taken out.
The problem was we did not have a good plan for what happens after. We stupidly thought we could put in a puppet government and hold ‘democratic’ elections and ‘nation build’ and everything would be better than before. That’s STUPID.
Let me repeat. ‘Nation building’ in these regions is STUPID!
Unless you are going to stay in the middle east and personally run every blessed thing yourself for 1000 years, the ME will never be ‘stable’. And even if we did that we’d lose several hundred of our people every year ... if not more.
The place is not worth that.
Neocons: every bit as destructive to civilization as Democrats.
I think he was a disaster and I think it was one of the worst decisions ever made. [He] has totally destabilized the Middle East. If you had Saddam Hussein, you wouldnt have the problems you have right now.
Trump is not the man we need as president, but really, who can argue with this?
“In 2009, Barack Obama inherited a Middle East where American and Iraqi forces had crushed the al-Qaeda insurgency, Libyas Moammar Qaddafi was effectively neutralized agreeing months after Saddam fell to abandon his own WMD stockpiles and Irans power was checked in part by the presence of American combat troops next door.”
And the idiot Neocons, just as they overestimated our reception as “liberators,” underestimated the Left’s ability (and willingness) to use Iraq to weaken America. Because the Neocons were orgasmic over their cute little nation building project, they failed to win the war.
“He invaded his neighbors, gassed his people, built up a vast stockpile of chemical weapons, supported terrorism, and triggered multiple military confrontations with the U.S.” Yeah, and up until about 2 years ago there were Christians in Syria.
“Palestinian suicide-bombing campaign that caused more Israeli civilian casualties..” Now Russia will own the ME outright.
What can you say though? A Neocon is a Neocon because they’re hopelessly naive.
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.