Middle East would be more stable if Saddam, Gaddafi still in power: Trump

[Machiavelli]

Emily Stephenson
Reuters
October 4, 2015

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".

More

It goes without saying that the myrmidons Trump supporters agree with this.

[bkepley]

It all depends on the meaning of "stability".  Gadaffi was a nothingburger anyway but Sadaam thrived on..depended on instability and had been launching attacks against the US.  We really had no choice but to take him out for that reason and Trump, if he is no GOP version of Obama, would have done the same.

[alicewonders]

Well, it depends on what the plan is to replace them with after they are taken down.  If it's the Muslim Brotherhood - then it's a bad plan.  In the case of Iraq, I really hate saying it, but Joe Biden was correct.  It should have been divided into separate pieces for the three major "tribes".  It's stupid to go into the middle east with the intention of making it a likeness of ourselves.

Trump has a point. 

[bkepley]

Well, it depends on what the plan is to replace them with after they are taken down.  If it's the Muslim Brotherhood - then it's a bad plan.  In the case of Iraq, I really hate saying it, but Joe Biden was correct.  It should have been divided into separate pieces for the three major "tribes".  It's stupid to go into the middle east with the intention of making it a likeness of ourselves.

Trump has a point.

Of course Trump has a point.  The same point every grocery bagger has.  It's not exactly earth shattering.

[DCPatriot]

Gaddafi, yes....because he warned France many years ago that they would be flooded with black Muslims if ever he should be deposed/killed.

Iraq?  No.   The true reason we're in this pile of stink is because of the purposeful failure of the Status of Forces (SOA) Agreement, where we did not leave 10,000 American soldiers behind as a SWAT team to quell unrest.

That's not Bush's fault.   Even Obama and Biden praised the stability of Iraq after the fall of Saddam.

The fault lies squarely on Obama's girly man shoulders.

[ABX]

It all depends on the meaning of "stability".  Gadaffi was a nothingburger anyway but Sadaam thrived on..depended on instability and had been launching attacks against the US.  We really had no choice but to take him out for that reason and Trump, if he is no GOP version of Obama, would have done the same.

Actually Gadaffi was worse than most. He attempted to start a war between the US and China and was a major direct sponsor of terrorism around the world. He didn't play the little bomb a cafe stuff either. He was the one who tried to play the worldwide geopolitical game with it.

[EC]

Actually Gadaffi was worse than most. He attempted to start a war between the US and China and was a major direct sponsor of terrorism around the world. He didn't play the little bomb a cafe stuff either. He was the one who tried to play the worldwide geopolitical game with it.

And then he suddenly just quit. Didn't become what you'd call a model citizen, but kept his nose in his own tent.

[ABX]

And then he suddenly just quit. Didn't become what you'd call a model citizen, but kept his nose in his own tent.

He quit right after we walked across Iraq. At least, he quit overt actions. I think it was more of a strategic pause not wanting to face down the cowboy (what he called W.)

[DCPatriot]

He quit right after we walked across Iraq. At least, he quit overt actions. I think it was more of a strategic pause not wanting to face down the cowboy (what he called W.)

I thought he 'quit' once Reagan dropped a missile down his chimney, killing one of his sons.   

[Free Vulcan]

In some ways yes, but both to a greater or lesser degree were working just as hard as the Mullahs and everyone else to bring down the West for their own gain either directly or with their terror proxies. Saddam in particular was just as volatile in his own way as ISIS, and there likely would have been chaos and war and terrorism against the US even if he was still there.

No matter what you do, there are rarely good choices in the Middle East.

[bkepley]

In some ways yes, but both to a greater or lesser degree were working just as hard as the Mullahs and everyone else to bring down the West for their own gain either directly or with their terror proxies. Saddam in particular was just as volatile in his own way as ISIS, and there likely would have been chaos and war and terrorism against the US even if he was still there.

No matter what you do, there are rarely good choices in the Middle East.

My choice is to get the hell out of there..we don't need their oil...we have no need to be there any longer AFAIK.

[EC]

My choice is to get the hell out of there..we don't need their oil...we have no need to be there any longer AFAIK.

Unfortunately, they don't give the tiniest damn what you guys need.

[bkepley]

Unfortunately, they don't give the tiniest damn what you guys need.

Who is "they"?

[ABX]

I thought he 'quit' once Reagan dropped a missile down his chimney, killing one of his sons.   

I was thinking of his big turn around in 03 when not only did he finally admit to his role in and pay restitution for the Lockerbie bombing but overtly surrendered his WMDs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3335965.stm

[EC]

The they who's oil you don't need.

[bkepley]

The they who's oil you don't need.

So you are saying "they" are a threat to us here?  We must spend blood and treasure there else they will kick our butts here?

[famousdayandyear]

Dictators?  Yes.
But all three, and I would add Assad, kept the crazies under control.
(Christian minorities and sacred sites protected--probably to encourage tourism--nevertheless, protected.)

[ABX]

The thing about oil is that it is an international commodity market. Generally one can't just say I want to buy that barrel from Canada and not one from Saudi Arabia (even though the politicians may want you to think that's how it works). BP, for example, drills all over the world. If one major area destabilizes, it impacts the entire market. In the 70s when the OPEC oil embargo took place, we were easily drilling enough domestically to take care of our needs, but that embargo crashed the market supply.

[Paladin]

So you are saying "they" are a threat to us here?  We must spend blood and treasure there else they will kick our butts here?

Eh? He didn't say that nor anything like it. All he did say was, "Unfortunately, they don't give the tiniest damn what you guys need." How you arrived at your bizarre interpretation of his very short and very clear statement is truly a major puzzle.

[Oceander]

So you are saying "they" are a threat to us here?  We must spend blood and treasure there else they will kick our butts here?

Go ask the Germans who always treated illegal immigrants as someone else's problem because they weren't showing up on Germany's shores - until they started coming across the border countries and ending up in Germany anyways.

There is no such thing as "someone else's problem" anymore.