Barack made no effort to keep forces in Iraq, was all to happy to withdraw completely. ...that was Bush's war after all.
Later, much later, he sends material support which is quickly captured or simply turned over to ISIS.
Posted on 10/05/2015 7:26:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, when asked if he believes the Middle East would be better today if Moammar Gadhafi of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq were still in power, responded, "It's not even a contest."
He related the situations in both of those countries with what is currently happening in Syria and seemed to endorse a stronger President Bashar Assad, even while admitting that he is "probably a bad guy."
"You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there — it's a mess — if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there — it's a mess — it's [Syria] going to be same thing," the real estate mogul said.
This is a sentiment that Trump took with him on Saturday to a rally in Franklin, Tennessee where he recalled our strategy with arming rebels during the days of Qaddafi's reign. Trump told about 1,500 in an event hall: "Then the rebels killed our ambassador in the worst way, what happened to him. And three other people, and many other people by the way. Okay? Remember that."
In regards to Iraq, Trump echoed a familiar line from his campaign: "Don't forget, ISIS came out of Iraq," Trump recalled, calling the terror organization "the leftovers that didn't get taken care of."
He also told the Franklin audience that during the time of Saddam Hussein's "vicious" rule in Iraq "there were no terrorists in Iraq." "You know what he used to do to terrorists?" Trump polled the crowd. "A one day trial and shoot him…and the one day trial usually lasted five minutes, right? There was no terrorism then."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I'm not arguing with you there.
“The case against Saddam is solid”
Well, a case can be made against just about every country in the world, if you want to be the world’s policeman.
Actually they did - but the United States betrayed them, as we did Vietnam, by electing treasonous scum.
Now watching FR cheering on the KGB is sickening- the stupid has been growing stronger here over the years.
RE: I now believe that overthrowing Saddam was a huge mistake.
Well, how many FReepers are now going to apologize to those other FReepers (a small number) who were OPPOSED to the invasion? These folks were flamed, shouted down and threatened with being banned.
Someone is always going to be the world’s policemen- everyone who isn’t is will be the world’s policed.
There’s no in between.
The cultures of the ME absolutely require tyranny.
Absolutely Right. And I was W’s biggest cheer leader. If anything, I thought he and senior were to soft. Christians were unmolested under Saddham. Why is it that we know that the federal government’s meddling at home is disaster but somehow can work overseas?
Don’t want to be the world’s policeman.
We can pick and choose our battles.
When a certain country is actively plotting to assassinate a US president, acquires and uses WMD, invades neighboring countries, practices genocide , and harbors international terrorists who threaten U.S., I think we can and should take action.
Yet Saddam kept the Islamists under control. And they are more dangerous than Saddam.
I was a strong supporter of the Iraq war(s). And I was wrong. I did not know the mind of the arab, and most everyone there. You can’t bring sandy losers stuck in the dark ages into modern concepts of fredom.
Biggest lesson: True freedom is unnatural. When freedom is given or bestowed, it just gets corrupted and dies, quite fast. Freedom must be earned, fought for, craved with the entirety of the soul. It is a rare people who win freedom. And it must be won.
And during the fight, all opposed to freedom must be destroyed, completely and utterly destroyed. Because control freaks never, ever, ever give up. It’s a compulsion eminating from the core of their being.
Yep, and the reason they did was to hold off Iran.
Russia was “more stable” under Joseph Stalin too but I don’t think it was a good thing.
Taking action sounds reasonable. Killing off their entire political establishment and turning the country over to islamic extremists might be over the top.
Problem is that the Bush Administration lost its nerve after toppling Sadaam, and instead of right wheeling into Iran and turning the Israelis loose on the Syrians, Bush, Condi, and Rumsfeld decided to hunker down and fight the guerrilla/hearts and minds war, making the exact same mistakes that were made in Vietnam, before Bush finally pulled it out with the Surge (the victory in which Obama then chucked away).
RE: Russia was “more stable” under Joseph Stalin too
Stable for them, but what about the rest of the world?
Ask Trump, you nailed the hole in his logic I was pointing out.
Barack made no effort to keep forces in Iraq, was all to happy to withdraw completely. ...that was Bush's war after all.
Later, much later, he sends material support which is quickly captured or simply turned over to ISIS.
RIght on Gadhafi, wrong on Saddam.
“George W. was delusional to think that with Saddam gone the Iraqis would embrace freedom.”
I have to admit I shared the delusion for a few weeks. But it was as much swamp gas as any of his other aspirational illuminati horse dung. He needs to get back the easel where he is happier and was coming along quite nicely.
“My, how things have changed after a decade...”
A decade of unrelieved uniparty chicanery and palpable, undeniable decline at home and abroad. The curtain fell, and we learned the wizard is just a little huckster.
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.