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 ...
To suggest that the jihadists weren't the ones who overthrew Gaddafy is an alternate reality.
Dunno ‘bout that.
We had a good solid lawful basis for attacking Afghanistan and even Iraq. We might have had an issue finding a lawful reason for cleaning house in Iran.
But if we did find one...
The word of the day!
Obama the Destroyer always had a poor view of the United States and his actions reinforce his point of view. Every thing he has done whether foreign or domestic has weakened the Untied States of America.
LBJ owns Vietnam, even though Ford was president when Saigon fell. Likewise, Bush owns Iraq and Afghanistan, even though Obama is president now.
When folks try to twist that, they lose sight of the lessons that must be learned. And when those lessons are not learned, the mistakes are repeated.
I would not suggest that.
I'm saying they had US and "allied" support.
In the air and on the ground.
And jihadists released from Guantanamo. It was a Clinton/Obama/Muslim Brotherhood operation from the get-go.
Trump can say absolutely anything and folks here will declare it to be the pure truth.
Saudis are a given. They’ve dictated policy for too long. They’re the ones who want Assad gone.
Yes, you did suggest that. And there’s no need to put allied in quotes.
I pretty much agree with you. Where I’m still not convinced is that the King or elite government officials of Saudi Arabia were knowingly financing the taking down of the WTC.
That kingdom spreads a lot of money around, and I don’t doubt some funds wound up in the wrong hands. I’m just not willing to condemn the Saudi Leadership at the very top.
Why? Saudi Arabia has been a mitigating factor in the Middle-East for fifty years that I know of. When OPEC met and other radical members wanted to stick it to the West, the Saudis were always the cooler heads that prevailed.
The Saudis also invest their funds in the West. Taking down the West would not serve them.
I’ve seen arguments made that they also connive to bring down the West, and I’m not certain they don’t in some ways.
I do know that what comes after the Saudi Royal family will not be better. It will be much much worse.
I agree that Husein had to go. He was also giving money to the family of suicide combers in Israel, and I have never been convinced he didn’t have WMDs. Some have been found.
This was offered up by another poster.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3344574/posts?page=27#27
He was also rewarding the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
He made supporting comments regarding terrorists in Europe and the U. S. He did have WMD programs. He was still in non-compliance with the sanctions put on him at the end of the gulf war.
He would not comply with the nuclear inspectors. it’s pretty compelling when the U. N., their inspectors, Europe’s best and brightest, our own people and even our Democrats come down with the conclusion he had WMDs.
He had attacked Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel. He had gassed his the Kurds.
He was a known serial abuser of his own populace.
The guy was ripe for the pickings.
And I agree with your post.
Prior to 911, the Saudis saw an opportunity to build the caliphate in Central Asia on the bones of the old Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union wasn’t quite dead, it looked like something we could also support as we assumed that anything the Saudis backed would be naturally our ally (especially in the last days of the Cold War).
So Bin Ladin’s camps trained jihadists from all the ‘Stans and sent them back.
I don’t think they knew he was doing side-work for Saddam, which is what I think 911 was. Or that he had his own agenda which I also believe 911 was. They (and maybe we) believed he could be controlled and focused in a useful direction. This is maybe similar to our recent attempts to re-direct Al Qaeda jihadists against our enemies. Neat trick if you can wean them off of the whole beheading-Christians thing.
“Al Qaeda” looked at Bin Ladin as their guru, but once home in their home countries they were receiving visits from Saddam’s intel agents with bags of money. So the exact lines of control of Al Qaeda become a bit murky. They are designed to be semi-autonomous anyway and look for opportunities.
Another thing: the Saudi royals have their own internal dissension. While the elite may be comfortable with the US as an ally, and even cooperate with the Israelis, there are other factions who want to be the elite and are sympathetic to Al Qaeda. And would gladly use them to bring down whichever faction has control at a given moment.
And the Saudi government is I believe trying to exert control over Al Qaeda, to get it back under their control so they can direct it against their enemies, while taking care to keep them outside the country. So recent operations using jihadists against Khadafi and Assad are in keeping with this idea. It was probably a brilliant idea if they could have kept them from committing horrors that wound up on page one.
After 9/11 the Saudis should have been taken out, their oil fields seized and their assets confiscated as reparations.
Afghanistan should have been remove Taliban government, continue to kill them wherever they surfaced, period
Eff the Afghan “people”.
Saddam was contained, no fly zone in effect.
I don't support Iran getting the bomb. If I had been in charge, I would have given them a set time to stop their program or I would have ordered it taken out by air strikes.
As for Iraq, nearly everyone was convinced Hussein had a nuclear weapons program. He shot his mouth off. Wouldn't allow inspectors in. Those inspectors, the U. N., Europe, the U. S. (including the Democrats) were convinced Hussein as working on Nukes.
Mr. Big Mouth was his own worst enemy. Slink back into your nation, live our your life, don't cause trouble.
He couldn't do it. After 09/11, he was a natural.
Iran and ISIS effectively control Iraq.
ISIS has made inroads, but I don't buy the Iran rules Iraq line.
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.
The Hussein controlled Iraq was breaking the no fly zones all the time. He was moving his troupes up to his borders with other nations. He was locking on our surveylance aircraft.
When we left Iraq, it was in decent shape. Waring factions had quieted down, and the people of Iraq were self-governing and living in relative peace.
Obama pulled the last of our forces out, and that left a vacuum. Here we are today, all due to him.
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
May be.
I haven’t been in tune with Laden’s training activities.
I do understand the CIA’s use of Afghanis in the Russian invasion there. It was a wise way to give Russia grief for it’s adventurism.
There wasn’t a known down side to it. We helped a people to defend themselves. That’s a reasoned course of action.
Then you get a guy like Laden who goes postal and hates the U.S. who was his ally. I don’t see our nation at fault. I see a rogue idiot whose thanks was to turn on his benefactors.
Let’s look at other areas we tried to help. Did the Vietnamese move across their borders to create trouble elsewhere? Did the Contras in South America turn against us and cause trouble?
It seems to me, we help who we can and do a fairly good job of it. The Islamic think went against us, but trying to build inroads into them trusting and working with us was worth the effort. Not everything turns out like you’d wise.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate hearing about the Laden training and the Saudi funding of that.
BTW: We should not be cooperating with al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, or ISIS.
These people have an anti-Western drive that makes them unwise to cooperate with.
Frankly, I think Russia is on the right track, IF it limits it’s operations to ISIS. Coming to an agreement with the anti-Assad faction in Syria would be best. I am not sure that will come to fruition.
The U.S. has screwed up so bad that I don’t see an easy out for it now. I’m not convinced working with Russia is in our best interest.
The situation over there could go very south in a hurry,
This ALL thanks to Obama and MC CAIN.
Now you're inventing stuff from whole cloth.
Ghadaffi and Hussein both understood the animals that they ruled over and did what it took to control them. Brutality was all they understood. They have proven they are incapable of reasoning......Sadam and Ghadaffi knew that and did what was necessary. Prior to us taking down Sadam, Iraq was not a big problem for the US. Now with our feckless leadership we have made it a huge problem.
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.