Donald Trump: Middle East Would Be Better Off With Saddam, Gaddafi

  • 105 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#101  Edited By blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16572 Posts

@bmanva said:
@drunk_pi said:

As an American, I agree. I long for the years that we were under British colonial rule where it was stable and we were happier and better off. Now we have a massive war and some guy named George masquerading as a general, and "freedoms" which would basically allow Ben Franklin to stick his dick everywhere. I've lost friends and families and my town is divided in either supporting the crown or the revolution. Really though, it'll just become another dictatorship or another monarchy.

I seriously hope that's sarcasm.

hes an idiot trying to compare the british rule of america in the 1700s to saddams rule of iraq 10 years ago. There is one major difference between the two, and that is the majority of muslims are in general nutcase fanatics who think government should be operated on religious law. Theres a reason why in the revolution we separated church and state, because of a messed up scenario like were seeing in the middle east. They all are a bunch of goat banging morons who think once they blow up some innocents they will be in heaven with 70 virgins. Because of islam and its followers messed up 15th century mentality, they NEED a dictator like saddam hussein/gaddhafi to control them, otherwise it ends up being utter chaos.

Avatar image for drunk_pi
Drunk_PI

3358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#102  Edited By Drunk_PI
Member since 2014 • 3358 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1:

And the colonials are nothing more than a bunch of tar feathering nut jobs who waste valuable tea thinking that anarchy will solve their problems. If you don't like colonial America why don't you to France and suck on some frogs?

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16572

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#103  Edited By blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16572 Posts

@drunk_pi said:

@blaznwiipspman1:

And the colonials are nothing more than a bunch of tar feathering nut jobs who waste valuable tea thinking that anarchy will solve their problems. If you don't like colonial America why don't you to France and suck on some frogs?

yeah, they were both duches, not gonna lie, but they honestly had more sense than todays muslims.

Avatar image for drunk_pi
Drunk_PI

3358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#104 Drunk_PI
Member since 2014 • 3358 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1 said:
@drunk_pi said:

@blaznwiipspman1:

And the colonials are nothing more than a bunch of tar feathering nut jobs who waste valuable tea thinking that anarchy will solve their problems. If you don't like colonial America why don't you to France and suck on some frogs?

yeah, they were both duches, not gonna lie, but they honestly had more sense than todays muslims.

There's not much of a comparison. except for the history and progress of democratic republics.

That said, people who think dictators are capable enough to keep stability in their country and the region are naive and are ignoring the long term effects. The Arab Spring happened because people go sick and tired of oppression in the region and were dissatisfied with the ruling party. Progress and revolutions tend to be violent and unpredictable but the long term can be worth it or not. Shit happens. American history after the revolution was difficult with the Articles of the Confederation and the French Revolution brought turmoil but in the end a French Republic. I suggest you take a look into Tunisia. They now have a secular constitution and do not have Sharia law, but it's a country trying to rebuild itself and fend off against terrorism. We don't know what will happen in the future and neither did the colonists in the U.S. or French working class but reverting back for the sake of stability is to forget why they fought in the first place: Oppression.

And implying that Muslims in the region all support extremism is also false. They don't or at least they oppose oppressive religious ruling class (i.e. ISIL, Saudi Kingdom, or Bahrain). , but power vacuums happen and most of the times, people are helpless against those who have the funding and resources to take over. This kind of stuff has happened across the world regardless of the region and regardless of the faith.

My issue with this thread is thinking that dictatorships keep regions stable and specifically that certain Arab or North African countries would be better off with their dictators forgetting the numerous human rights violations and atrocities committed by the ruling class.

This thread is dildos, and Donald Trump should not be taken seriously.

Avatar image for xscrapzx
xscrapzx

6636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#105 xscrapzx
Member since 2007 • 6636 Posts

@jimkabrhel said:

Right. We should let tyrants do what they want just so we can breathe easier half a world away. Sounds like a great foreign policy to have. No wait, sounds like a chickenshit foreign policy to have.

What's a little mass murder of innocents if it lets you sleep better at night? Sure, Saddam and Qaddafi kept their people in line. By killing a lot of them. Is that what you really want?

No by all means its terrible. However, If you were to tell me that if these clowns stayed in power we wouldn't have 14 years of an unstable area of the world, a terrorist group that is taking swaths of land in two countries creating a caliphate and the two countries that the two guys had power in are completely unstable I would have to say it is what it is. Not to mention the amount of life that has been lost because of these wars and backing of uprisings. And lets not forget how now Russia is starting to get their hands dirty and making things a little more uncomfortable between two countries who frankly have a distaste for one another.

I'm not backing what these guys did, but has more life been lost getting rid of them and post regimes or would more life been lost had they stayed in power?

Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#106 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

You cannot predict what would have occurred with these regimes in 14 years. The could have been terrible atrocities committed, genocide even. There could have been terrorist attacks from them, or from other sources.

It is a fallacy to think that keeping these dictators in power would have kept stability, and would have created a better situation for all involved. Dictators inevitably fall, sooner or later.

Avatar image for xeno_ghost
Xeno_ghost

990

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#107 Xeno_ghost
Member since 2014 • 990 Posts

@jimkabrhel said:

You cannot predict what would have occurred with these regimes in 14 years. The could have been terrible atrocities committed, genocide even. There could have been terrorist attacks from them, or from other sources.

It is a fallacy to think that keeping these dictators in power would have kept stability, and would have created a better situation for all involved. Dictators inevitably fall, sooner or later.

Let them fall at the hands of their own people. Not outsiders with hidden agendas.

Avatar image for GazaAli
GazaAli

25216

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#108 GazaAli
Member since 2007 • 25216 Posts

This topic is pure, unadulterated filth.

Avatar image for deactivated-60f8966fb59f5
deactivated-60f8966fb59f5

1719

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 deactivated-60f8966fb59f5
Member since 2008 • 1719 Posts

#Putin2016