| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Trump: Middle East would be more stable if Saddam, Gaddafi still in power | |
| 2015-10-05 | |
| US 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." Trump mentioned the countries in comparison to current efforts to drive Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of power. "You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there, it's a mess," Trump said on NBC. I don't like agreeing with Trump---but, when he's right, he's right.
| |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #11 Trump is only half right. Gaddafi got the fear of the US drilled into him, and was almost peaceful. Without him the place exploded and I'd bet his arms stockpile has been afflicting Nigeria et al ever since. |
| Posted by: James 2015-10-05 20:10 |
| #10 Iraq was the counterweight to Iran. But Iraq was led by a mad dog. I agreed with Bush's decision to go into Iraq but implicit in that was the understanding that the US would hang around to be the counterweight against Iran. The bumbling neophyte currently in the white house screwed the pooch by pulling out of Iraq early with quite predictable consequences. The donk's own this one. |
| Posted by: Sven the pelter 2015-10-05 13:50 |
| #9 I've been saying this for a while. We should disengage from the Middle East. We don't go there and we don't let them come here. If they want to sell us their oil, fine. If they don't we'll let them eat sand. We don't give any of them any foreign aid. If they want to fight each other, let them fight. It's none of our business. Iran is the only exception. They should be nuked. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2015-10-05 12:56 |
| #8 Many people will agree with Trump. which is his attraction. I must point out, however, that in the polls of self-identified Trunks, more people are 'for' someone else than are 'for' Trump. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2015-10-05 12:48 |
| #7 An examination at the marco-level, say over the past 75 years, might confirm the Donald's assessment. My humble opinion - if they want to live under communist domination, or in a dictatorial Islamic regime, do NOT stop them. With the possible exception of the loss of our own blood and treasure, the long-term outcomes do not appear to change a great deal. I must once again point to the Swiss model of non-involvement. If you are in a pub and see a man and woman quarreling or exchanging blows, do not finish your pint, but rather find the door immediately. ~ anon |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-10-05 10:41 |
| #6 Trump is correct, sad but true |
| Posted by: BigEdLB 2015-10-05 10:01 |
| #5 Amen. Trump has it right. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2015-10-05 09:23 |
| #4 IF we'd never invaded Iraq, Gaddafi would never have defected from the Khan Bomb network, and we wouldn't have been able to make Stuxnet. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-10-05 09:03 |
| #3 It ain't over 'til it's over. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2015-10-05 09:02 |
| #2 Yea, but if Saddam was still around, we'd have an Iran/Iraq war by now. And, with a bit of luck, both considerably weakened. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-10-05 08:43 |
| #1 Gaddafi didn't aspire to annex his neighbors. Might mess around with terrorists groups here and there, but never seem too keen to add to his territories. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-10-05 08:33 |