Trump admires Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Un, and Putin

[QUOTE=iamgine]You would love this guy, I know I do:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rPofi-AUw[/url][/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=iamgine]You would love this guy, I know I do:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rPofi-AUw[/url][/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Overdrive]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.[/QUOTE]
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."

[QUOTE=Dresta]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."[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Overdrive]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Dresta]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."[/QUOTE]
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.