Trump admires Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Un, and Putin

[Facepalm]

He wants to mirror their strong man style of governing. You Trumptards really want this guy as your President? :facepalm

[nathanjizzle]

sick.

[Nick Young]

He wants to mirror their strong man style of governing. You Trumptards really want this guy as your President? :facepalm
Facts?
Sources?
Logic?
Reality?
:confusedshrug:

[Terahite]

OP is fuming over bullshit. :lol

Must be a slow news day. :confusedshrug:

(For the record, I admire Putin too. So what?)

[Facepalm]

Facts?
Sources?
Logic?
Reality?
:confusedshrug:

...
[QUOTE]Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump appeared to praise North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, saying at a rally Saturday that "it's incredible" how he was able to dispatch his political opponents.

"How many young guys -- he was like 26 or 25 when his father died -- take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden ... he goes in, he takes over, and he

[Nick Young]

Saddam did kill terrorists. Iraq was stable under his rule. The people had more freedom and a higher standard of living under Saddam than they do now. That is fact.

Kim Jung Un did rise in to power after his father died. He still has power. That is also a fact.

Do you have a problem with Trump explaining facts?

The world is not black and white. There are no "good" and "bad" guys in world politics.

Did Saddam do many ****ed up things? Yes.

Was he Hitler reborn? No.

Was everything he did bad for the people in his country?

I am going to go with no. Iraq and the Iraqi people in general were much better off under Saddam than they currently are under ISIS and the US puppet government with no real strength.

[Facepalm]

Saddam did kill terrorists. Iraq was stable under his rule. The people had more freedom and a higher standard of living under Saddam than they do now. That is fact.

Kim Jung Un did rise in to power after his father died. He still has power. That is also a fact.

Do you have a problem with Trump explaining facts?

The world is not black and white. There are no "good" and "bad" guys in world politics.

Did Saddam do many ****ed up things? Yes.

Was he Hitler reborn? No.

Was everything he did bad for the people in his country?

I am going to go with no. Iraq and the Iraqi people in general were much better off under Saddam than they currently are under ISIS and the US puppet government with no real strength.

So you are ok with Trump running the US as a strongman like Saddam and Kim ran/run their countries? Typical Trumptard.

[Nick Young]

So you are ok with Trump running the US as a strongman like Saddam and Kim ran/run their countries? Typical Trumptard.
I am voting for Jim Webb:hammerhead:

Stop strawmanning and resorting to logical fallacy.

I would not be ok with Trump running the US like Saddam or Kim ran their countries.

Get back to me please when Trump starts doing these things. :cheers:


"Saddam killed terrorists" doesn't equal "I WANT TO RUN AMERICA LIKE NORTH KOREA AND IRAQ AND MURDER PEOPLE WITH GAS AND SEND THEM TO WORK CAMPS."

If you want a president who is a fan of sending Americans to concentration camps, you only need to look at Democratic party super hero FDR.

[NumberSix]

So you are ok with Trump running the US as a strongman like Saddam and Kim ran/run their countries? Typical Trumptard.
Uh, the point is that as bad as Saddam was, we would have been better off not getting involved in Iraq in the first place, which YOU agree with.

[TheMan]

Saddam did kill terrorists. Iraq was stable under his rule. The people had more freedom and a higher standard of living under Saddam than they do now. That is fact.

Kim Jung Un did rise in to power after his father died. He still has power. That is also a fact.

Do you have a problem with Trump explaining facts?

The world is not black and white. There are no "good" and "bad" guys in world politics.

Did Saddam do many ****ed up things? Yes.

Was he Hitler reborn? No.

Was everything he did bad for the people in his country?

I am going to go with no. Iraq and the Iraqi people in general were much better off under Saddam than they currently are under ISIS and the US puppet government with no real strength.
Saddam also gassed thousands of Kurds and his kids used to hold raping parties but aside from that and a torture here and an execution there, dude was a stand up guy
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rkFRL6XOilw/hqdefault.jpg
https://rakesprogress.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/kurd.jpg?w=529
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rnmtPLuSG4Q/U0-or3Ga5vI/AAAAAAAAAnY/bOBYdkdUsSs/s1600/Victims+in+the+Halbaja+Chemical+Attack+in+1987.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6qHfpYlpE4A/T2MxOEiR5XI/AAAAAAAAAsc/YQGQdhhKwtk/w800-h800/cms-image-000000348.jpg

[Nick Young]

I am aware what Saddam did. The world is not black and white. Posting images of gassed Kurds is not some massive revelation. It is also disrespectful to their memory for you to post their images in this context. RIP victims of Saddam's heinous gas attacks.


There are no Darth Vaders or Luke Skywalkers in world politics. I did not say Saddam was good or bad. I personally am not a fan of the guy, but it can't be denied that the Iraqi people as a whole were better off under him then they are now living under ISIS.

The kids of the Saudi royal family today still hold "raping parties". I hope that this horrific cultural tradition will end soon.

You are using the victims of a horrific gassing attack in order to try to smere Trump. You should be ashamed of yourself for disrespecting the victims of Saddam's attacks by seeing them only as a means to smear a political candidate you don't like. Please try and have some dignity. Thank you, hombre :cheers:

[Funktion]

I am aware what Saddam did. The world is not black and white. Posting images of gassed Kurds is not some massive revelation. It is also disrespectful to their memory for you to post their images in this context. RIP victims of Saddam's heinous gas attacks.


There are no Darth Vaders or Luke Skywalkers in world politics. I did not say Saddam was good or bad. I personally am not a fan of the guy, but it can't be denied that the Iraqi people as a whole were better off under him then they are now living under ISIS.

Would the U.S. and Native Americans be better off under British rule? Or Southern rule? Wars happen, rebellions happen, and everything has a way or course correcting itself. The Middle East though, I have no ****ing idea. Wonder what the world will look like 200 years from now.

[Nick Young]

Would the U.S. and Native Americans be better off under British rule? Or Southern rule? Wars happen, rebellions happen, and everything has a way or course correcting itself.
Who knows. Maybe :confusedshrug:

Who are any of us to judge? I am not God. I am not the grand arbiter of justice.

You are resorting to logical fallacy with all of these hypothetical scenarios. Please refrain from logical fallacy when you attempt to make your next point. Thank you.:cheers:

[Terahite]

Nick Young cleaning house in this thread. Holy moley! :oldlol:

[TheMan]

Nick Young cleaning house in this thread. Holy moley! :oldlol:
No, just because you agree with his viewpoints doesn't mean everyone here will agree with your statement.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but your's stinks :cheers:

Nov 8, lights out for you, comrade :(

[brownmamba00]

Saddam did kill terrorists. Iraq was stable under his rule. The people had more freedom and a higher standard of living under Saddam than they do now. That is fact.

Kim Jung Un did rise in to power after his father died. He still has power. That is also a fact.

Do you have a problem with Trump explaining facts?

The world is not black and white. There are no "good" and "bad" guys in world politics.

Did Saddam do many ****ed up things? Yes.

Was he Hitler reborn? No.

Was everything he did bad for the people in his country?

I am going to go with no. Iraq and the Iraqi people in general were much better off under Saddam than they currently are under ISIS and the US puppet government with no real strength.

+1:applause:

nothing wrong with admiring other world leaders

[Terahite]

No, just because you agree with his viewpoints doesn't mean everyone here will agree with your statement.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but your's stinks :cheers:

Nov 8, lights out for you, comrade :(

You still haven't answered his post you chicken shit. :oldlol:

[Nick Young]

No, just because you agree with his viewpoints doesn't mean everyone here will agree with your statement.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one but your's stinks :cheers:

Nov 8, lights out for you, comrade :(
Another Shookocrat shakes :lol

[TheMan]

Another Shookocrat shakes :lol
Yup, I'm shaking uncontrollably

[Terahite]

Yup, I'm shaking uncontrollably

You said it, and we said it :oldlol:

[TheMan]

You said it, and we said it :oldlol:
http://replygif.net/i/166.gif

[Nick Young]

Yup, I'm shaking uncontrollably

http://replygif.net/i/166.gif
You just used the buzzfeed basic bitch Jennifer Lawrence gif, bro.

Shookedness=confirmed.

[NumberSix]

Wow. Left-tards are suddenly pro-Iraq-war now that Trump says it was a bad idea.


What a time indeed.

[poido123]

Wow. Left-tards are suddenly pro-Iraq-war now that Trump says it was a bad idea.


What a time indeed.



I swear they just align themselves with whatever opposition is against the Alphas that bulllied/owned them in high school :oldlol:


Logic and reasoning doesn't matter to them. If it did, they would be a TRUE liberal.

[Nick Young]

Wow. Left-tards are suddenly pro-Iraq-war now that Trump says it was a bad idea.


What a time indeed.
Lefties are also pro-Patriot Act these days :lol

They are all closet Bush supporters.

[9erempiree]

Lefties are also pro-Patriot Act these days :lol

They are all closet Bush supporters.

The funny thing is the Left and Right paradigm have switched.

These people are crazy. The Left more so than the Right.

Thankfully I am in the middle and we are dynamic enough to understand this.

A lot of these ***.gots try to laugh at me because the GOP are in shambles but I have told them many times that I don't care about them just like I don't care about the Dems.

[StephHamann]

Trump also had sex with Pol Pot and Stalin

[NumberSix]

Honest question to the lefties. As much of an evil scumbag as Saddam was, do you not think we'd be better off if we never invaded Iraq in the first place?

[Overdrive]

Saddam did kill terrorists. Iraq was stable under his rule. The people had more freedom and a higher standard of living under Saddam than they do now. That is fact.

Kim Jung Un did rise in to power after his father died. He still has power. That is also a fact.

Do you have a problem with Trump explaining facts?

The world is not black and white. There are no "good" and "bad" guys in world politics.

Did Saddam do many ****ed up things? Yes.

Was he Hitler reborn? No.

Was everything he did bad for the people in his country?

I am going to go with no. Iraq and the Iraqi people in general were much better off under Saddam than they currently are under ISIS and the US puppet government with no real strength.

Where do you draw the line , though. What if Trump used Hitler? Downer leaders what about them Breschnew, okay, Stalin, not?

The Iraq was stable under Saddam, but the US doesn't need a dictator to get rid of the chaos. A presidential candidate of a highly developed country shouldn't admire guys like Saddam, but obviously people even in the US and Europe are longing for that strong man. What happened the last time a "strong" man was in charge over here it was our darkest chapter in history.

[brownmamba00]

Honest question to the lefties. As much of an evil scumbag as Saddam was, do you not think we'd be better off if we never invaded Iraq in the first place?
*looks at avi*

*laughs*

[TheMan]

I have a suggestion.

All these Trumptards who proclaim him as Alpha, who like that he appears to be a strongman sort of a leader, let's ship their asses to a country that actaually has a dictator, Syria, North Korea etc, take your pick...

Then a couple of years later you can tell us all about your wonderful new life from a re-education camp.

[Dresta]

Would the U.S. and Native Americans be better off under British rule? Or Southern rule? Wars happen, rebellions happen, and everything has a way or course correcting itself. The Middle East though, I have no ****ing idea. Wonder what the world will look like 200 years from now.
This is an incredibly silly thing to say: wars don't just "happen" and the horrors of war do not "correct themselves." The damage done by a serious war, in more ways than one, is completely irreparable, and a good argument can be made that ww1 destroyed the old Europe permanently. I suggest you go and read about something like the Battle of the Somme (a bloodbath in a completely unnecessary war, where many of the brightest and best--because elite Oxbridge graduates volunteered for war in those days--young men of Britain were needlessly sent to their doom).

Just one of the many who perished in that awful war:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Q9dz1kse8


And so, returning to the subject: the Iraq war was absolutely disastrous, as has our involvement in Syria been, both of which helped to create a power vacuum that allowed this country's biggest enemy to declare a caliphate and legitimises the idea in the eyes of many Sunnis in a way that cannot be turned back.

You don't start war without the utmost prudence and circumspection, because the effects they have on a civilisation can be permanent and irreversible, and because they are very easy to start, and tend to go on well past initial expectations; once a war is going it becomes harder and harder to stop and to compromise, because so much has already been lost.

[Facepalm]

Wow. Left-tards are suddenly pro-Iraq-war now that Trump says it was a bad idea.


What a time indeed.

Trump was Pro-Iraq invasion at first

[iamgine]

[QUOTE]Look, you can (and should) criticize the Iraq War as a horrible mistake. But praising Hussein for anything is like saying Pol Pot was bad, but you have to admit that he was great at reducing crime. Hussein was barbaric. [B]There

[Dresta]

This right here is dead wrong. Every leader, good or bad, has a side that anyone can learn from. Catching feeling over it won't help.

Hitler was great at public speaking. Maybe Polpot love his kids who knows. Hussein certainly did some things right in keeping the area somewhat stable. Certainly we can analyse what it was and judge if some of it is suitable for our own purpose. Perhaps Iraq isn't ready for a true democracy.
Any democratic politician who doesn't take notes from Hitler is a fool. Democracy is all about moving the masses, and no-one moved the masses more effectively than Hitler.

Tis part of the reason why unrestrained democracy is a great bane to humanity: it produces god-awful leadership.

[CavsLebronMo]

Hillary Clinton is one of the worst candidates of all time. Literally all Trump has to do is talk about how terrible she is and he would have a shot.

The head of the FBI pretty much came out and said that Clinton is a liar and a put America at risk.

The next day, Trump start talking about Don King, the star of David on a tweet, and Saddam Hussein. You can't make this shit up. Someone needs to get him on track.

[iamgine]

Any democratic politician who doesn't take notes from Hitler is a fool. Democracy is all about moving the masses, and no-one moved the masses more effectively than Hitler.

Tis part of the reason why unrestrained democracy is a great bane to humanity: it produces god-awful leadership.
You would love this guy, I know I do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rPofi-AUw

[Nick Young]

Where do you draw the line , though. What if Trump used Hitler? Downer leaders what about them Breschnew, okay, Stalin, not?

The Iraq was stable under Saddam, but the US doesn't need a dictator to get rid of the chaos. A presidential candidate of a highly developed country shouldn't admire guys like Saddam, but obviously people even in the US and Europe are longing for that strong man. What happened the last time a "strong" man was in charge over here it was our darkest chapter in history.
When did Trump say he admires Saddam? All he said was that Saddam killed terrorists. I believe what he was implying is that yes Saddam was awful, but he also kept order and it was wrong of us to go in there and topple his regime like we did under Hillary and Bush's leadership.

Stop strawmannimg.

[Nick Young]

I have a suggestion.

All these Trumptards who proclaim him as Alpha, who like that he appears to be a strongman sort of a leader, let's ship their asses to a country that actaually has a dictator, Syria, North Korea etc, take your pick...

Then a couple of years later you can tell us all about your wonderful new life from a re-education camp.
You're not a very clever ese, are you ese...

[Nick Young]

Trump was Pro-Iraq invasion at first
Hillary is still pro-Iraq war
:hammerhead:

[Dresta]

You would love this guy, I know I do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rPofi-AUw
How can one not admire a guy who made Singapore into such a success? I disagree with plenty of what he did, but it cannot be denied that what he has done has been of great benefit to a great many people (and that no country ever became successful because of western style "democracy"--this is, in fact, a luxury produced by success, and that's why democracies in Africa and South America, and many other places, have been such grotesque failures). He is right to see that the Rule of Law is far more important than democracy.

And he has a much better understanding of human beings and human nature than western politicians do, that's for certain.

[Nick Young]

You would love this guy, I know I do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rPofi-AUw
Yew is right. People aren't equal. We never will be.

Some people are born with one arm in the gutter in a shanty town in Bombay. Some people are born as Maharajas in palaces in Jaipur.

Nothing any of us can ever do will erase inequality.

The sooner you learn this fact, the better your life will be.

[Overdrive]

When did Trump say he admires Saddam? All he said was that Saddam killed terrorists. I believe what he was implying is that yes Saddam was awful, but he also kept order and it was wrong of us to go in there and topple his regime like we did under Hillary and Bush's leadership.

Stop strawmannimg.

Of course it was wrong and trying to ignite a revolution from the outside will never work. Those middle eastern countries should've done this naturally whenever that would've been, but Trump also praises the strong leadership which was based on violently oppressing the population. Of course it erases chaos, kinda, but this form of leadership isn't needed in the US. Saddam killing terrorists was collateral "damage" he killed enough innocent people along with them.

Don't why my phone made "Sowjet" into "Downer"...

And please stop bringing up Clinton when we talk. I don't give a damn about her.

[Dresta]

Of course it was wrong and trying to ignite a revolution from the outside will never work. Those middle eastern countries should've done this naturally whenever that would've been, but Trump also praises the strong leadership which was based on violently oppressing the population. Of course it erases chaos, kinda, but this form of leadership isn't needed in the US. Saddam killing terrorists was collateral "damage" he killed enough innocent people along with them.

Don't why my phone made "Sowjet" into "Downer"...

And please stop bringing up Clinton when we talk. I don't give a damn about her.
Thing is, these countries (Syria, Libya, Iraq) are highly tribal and sectionally divided: they require a strongman to hold them together. I mean, it all goes back to Sykes-Picot really, and the creating of countries out of thin air, rather than through centuries of shared experience. Nor, once we had armed and supplied the likes of Saddam and Gaddafi, could there be any hope of these divided tribes overthrowing their rulers without intervention by external powers.

The options were:

1. Leave the places stable but with despotic and cruel rulers.

2. Invade and occupy and rebuild colonial style (this is the only way we were ever going to "build a democracy" in Iraq; staying there long enough to change their way of life and wait until the old are replaced by the new)

3. Invade and destroy everything that held the country together, leave a power vacuum, then leave (and then stand on the sidelines hurling bombs on people).

There is no choice that isn't bad in one way or another, because of the initial mistakes we made while transitioning into the post-colonial world. We chose no. 3, which was by far the worst thing to do, and in my view, the most depraved. If you are going to forcefully spread elements of your culture to others, then at least make a real commitment to making the transition bearable for the people who have to live through it. With America it is too often half-arsed imperialism: "we came, we saw, we destroyed, we got fed up, and then we ran away."

[Overdrive]

Thing is, these countries (Syria, Libya, Iraq) are highly tribal and sectionally divided: they require a strongman to hold them together. I mean, it all goes back to Sykes-Picot really, and the creating of countries out of thin air, rather than through centuries of shared experience. Nor, once we had armed and supplied the likes of Saddam and Gaddafi, could there be any hope of these divided tribes overthrowing their rulers without intervention by external powers.

The options were:

1. Leave the places stable but with despotic and cruel rulers.

2. Invade and occupy and rebuild colonial style (this is the only way we were ever going to "build a democracy" in Iraq; staying there long enough to change their way of life and wait until the old are replaced by the new)

3. Invade and destroy everything that held the country together, leave a power vacuum, then leave (and then stand on the sidelines hurling bombs on people).

There is no choice that isn't bad in one way or another, because of the initial mistakes we made while transitioning into the post-colonial world. We chose no. 3, which was by far the worst thing to do, and in my view, the most depraved. If you are going to forcefully spread elements of your culture to others, then at least make a real commitment to making the transition bearable for the people who have to live through it. With America it is too often half-arsed imperialism: "we came, we saw, we destroyed, we got fed up, and then we ran away."

All three points are true and only one leads to a moderate climate of peace: Number 1. Not by despotism itself, but the population has to get unified and as you said those countries, also Afghanistan and a hell lot of other Asian and African countries, are tribal. Basically Europe for the last 3000 years, which went from tribes to shires and kingdoms to empires, but the hegemonies never were unified in itself anyway. If they don't evolve by themselves, but by force those tribes will never accept it and unify to real countries. Europe just made it the ast 50 years, so it's a long path to go.

[Nick Young]

All three points are true and only one leads to a moderate climate of peace: Number 1. Not by despotism itself, but the population has to get unified and as you said those countries, also Afghanistan and a hell lot of other Asian and African countries, are tribal. Basically Europe for the last 3000 years, which went from tribes to shires and kingdoms to empires, but the hegemonies never were unified in itself anyway. If they don't evolve by themselves, but by force those tribes will never accept it and unify to real countries. Europe just made it the ast 50 years, so it's a long path to go.
In what world does saying "Saddam killed terrorists"=admiration of Saddam?

Keep up that strawmanning, breh.

Stop thinking of the world in terms of black and white. That too is a logical fallacy.

[Nick Young]

Thing is, these countries (Syria, Libya, Iraq) are highly tribal and sectionally divided: they require a strongman to hold them together. I mean, it all goes back to Sykes-Picot really, and the creating of countries out of thin air, rather than through centuries of shared experience. Nor, once we had armed and supplied the likes of Saddam and Gaddafi, could there be any hope of these divided tribes overthrowing their rulers without intervention by external powers.

The options were:

1. Leave the places stable but with despotic and cruel rulers.

2. Invade and occupy and rebuild colonial style (this is the only way we were ever going to "build a democracy" in Iraq; staying there long enough to change their way of life and wait until the old are replaced by the new)

3. Invade and destroy everything that held the country together, leave a power vacuum, then leave (and then stand on the sidelines hurling bombs on people).

There is no choice that isn't bad in one way or another, because of the initial mistakes we made while transitioning into the post-colonial world. We chose no. 3, which was by far the worst thing to do, and in my view, the most depraved. If you are going to forcefully spread elements of your culture to others, then at least make a real commitment to making the transition bearable for the people who have to live through it. With America it is too often half-arsed imperialism: "we came, we saw, we destroyed, we got fed up, and then we ran away."
The other option-back Kurdistan Israel-style and let them be their own country. Leave Iraq alone, apart from annexing Kurdistan under US control.

The Israeli-Kurdistan alliance would be enough to maintain our interests in the middle east and American troops wouldn't have to die to make it happen.