Posted on Jul 6, 2016
Donald Trump: Saddam Hussein was "so good" at killing terrorists
2.86K
26
25
4
4
0
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
Well I had a Iraqi interpreter tell me the same thing in 2004 and he hated Saddam. He (and Trump) are right. We destabilized an entire region when we removed Saddam. Had we left him in power we would not be in this shit storm we are in now, but it was the right thing to do.
Just because the wind up and pitch are ugly doesn't mean that it was not a strike.
Just because the wind up and pitch are ugly doesn't mean that it was not a strike.
(6)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Well you got 15 years of looking back that you get the pleasure of using. At the time it was the right decision.
(0)
(0)
He may be as eloquent as a fart in church, but he is not wrong in his assessment. Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator, and a wicked man. He ruled with his iron fist, and so terrorism could not get started under his regime. Only room for one per nation, and he was it. Was he good at killing terrorists. Yes. Along with anyone else he felt needed dying in Iraq.
(6)
(0)
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Capt Tom Brown - Sadly, one thing politicians continue to prove is that they may know history, but they sure as Hel don't learn from it. Definitely don't apply its lessons. American Service Members get to pay the high price for them not learning those lessons.
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Also Saddam Hussein Himself said He modeled Himself after Joseph Stalin who in His own right was evil. We found it to our advantage to overlook The millions of deaths Stalin was responsible for to use Him in the fight against the Nazis. Saddam Hussein was certainly just as evil but still He was a control in His region to prevent the very things that are now happening by taking him out. The second move into Iraq should not have happened, We had control over Him and He had control over religious fanatics in His area. Evil as He was He still served a purpose as long as He was alive and in control within His region.
(1)
(0)
His delivery was terrible as normal, but he isn't wrong. Reading it in full context, "Saddam was a bad guy, but he killed terrorist well" is a correct statement. Saddam was a terrible leader overall, and was rightfully removed from power, but the point he was trying to make (or so I hope) is that he understood the area's need for and Ironclad ruler. Someone who ruled mercilessly in order to hold the people together. The same case could be made during the time of the Soviet Union, that the only way to hold it together was with the "Iron Fist" or the same form of tyranny. I am not condoning any of those actions because of all the Human Rights violations etc., but as a base argument, that type of "leadership" worked in quelling terrorism.
(3)
(0)
Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA
I read and understood your points on the drastic measures leaders used to hold the people together like the former USSR. That assumes the people wanted to be "held together" and/or should have been. Note that the members of the Soviet Union weren't always volunteers. In addition, the political country of Iraq was made in the eyes of western politicians and not based on the tribal mentality of the factions in Iraq. I wonder if that point is lost on current day politicians (Trump and/or Clinton)?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA - Completely agree that many of these nations should not be held together, but could and argument be made that they wouldn't be as productive or successful when they are apart? Look at the USSR, or the former countries that were a part of it, and many of them are struggling financially and are full of crime or poverty. In the Middle East (I am lumping them together on purpose), I think you would see very similar results. Iraq being split up would solve numerous problems from a "civil unrest" perspective, but would create numerous other problems. In Northwest Iraq you would establish a Kurdish territory, but that would be contested by both the Iraqis and the Turks. In Western Syria, tribes would control the larger and more productive oil fields, but would rely on Damascus or Baghdad for the distribution or security. Then, it comes down to ISIS and their self proclaimed Caliphate, or the country/region that they believe belongs to them. As protectors of Human Rights, we couldn't allow that to happen, but who gets the land when their gone? What about the nomadic tribes that already don't see the borders? Do these smaller nations allow that to continue, or do they protect their sovereignty by pushing tighter border security?
After saying all that, I will say in my opinion, we should just leave it all alone, watch it, and react only when necessary for the protection of our country or its interests. If the Middle East wants to keep fighting, let them, just as long as they leave the rest of the world out of it. For the record I know that statement is extremely cynical.
After saying all that, I will say in my opinion, we should just leave it all alone, watch it, and react only when necessary for the protection of our country or its interests. If the Middle East wants to keep fighting, let them, just as long as they leave the rest of the world out of it. For the record I know that statement is extremely cynical.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA
SSG (Join to see) - Great points, I agree with your views. As you said it's an unknown how the former countries of the USSR would have turned out if left on their own. Or, if the west initially stayed out of the mid-east except to protect strategic interests (which, by the way, was why we had a presence in Iran for so long, and why we helped in Afganistan against the Soviets).
I think you may be correct on being able to make a case that some countries needed to be under Russian control. That said, their issues were the political and economic systems under the USSR and those who did leave have done relatively well with a more capitalistic system. Just my humble opinion.
I think you may be correct on being able to make a case that some countries needed to be under Russian control. That said, their issues were the political and economic systems under the USSR and those who did leave have done relatively well with a more capitalistic system. Just my humble opinion.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next