Hello:
The Halabja chemical attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians.. The incident, which has been officially defined by Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal as a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people in Iraq, was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.
excon
What he actually said about Saddam was "He was a BAD guy - REALLY BAD guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good,".
Saddam Hussein was a psychopath. Though that's not unusual. Most world leaders, even in the supposedly free west, have psychopathic tendencies. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader who kept the radicals suppressed. This is why the CIA installed him in the first place.
Do you think that the complete chaos that has unfolded since the destabilization of the middle east was worth it, just to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Do you think the people of Iraq have suffered less as a result of our intervention? Obviously not.
Nothing happens by accident in politics. Our leaders aren't stupid. Getting rid of Saddam was a deliberate attempt to destabilise and give the entire region over to the jihadies. Some kind of devilish order out of chaos strategy.
Hello again, AS:
He said he was a BAD guy.. But, then he PRAISED him for killing terrorists. But, the people Saddam MURDERED WEREN'T terrorists. I see you IGNORED that fact..
excon
I find a couple of things interesting in Trump's statement:
1) It comes almost at the same time as the British government's Chilcott report, which is fairly thorough and damning condemnation of the UK's decision to participate in the invasion/occupation/overthrow of Iraq.
2) It is an almost 180-degree turn from Bush-era rhetoric where Saddam was the great Boogieman, and when secterian violence broke out in Iraq in the wake of the US/UK invasion, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's response was, "Freedom is messy. These things happen." How charmingly Orwellian.
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
@AS --
Re: "Getting rid of Saddam was a deliberate attempt to destabilise and give the entire region over to the jihadies."
There is essentially ZERO evidence to support your claim. Of coure, it's POSSIBLE you are correct and, as with all such cloak-and-dagger theories, you can always assert the contrary evidence is, "That's what They want us to think."
However, the actual evidence suggests the US/UK invasion/occupation/overthrow of Iraq was born out of a mixture of naked ambition (war is good for reelection campaigns and corporate profits) and spectacular ignorance/naivete (overthrowing Saddam would lead to the spontaneous flowering of secular democracy in the region).
What he said was completely true. Saddam did kill Al Qaeda. I'm not ignoring his murders and neither did Trump. That's why Saddam is to be considered "really bad".
Recognising a person's strength is not an endorsement of them as a person. Plenty of bad people are strong and capable. Plenty of good people are weak and incompetent.
Pursuing our national interest requires more than the one dimensional analysis of deciding who is "good" or "bad".
The attempt to topple Assad in Syria is repeating the same mistake again. Another attempt to remove a secular dictator who kept the lid on the radicals. The toppling of Gaddafi in Libya is another prime example. Either our leaders are f***ing retarded or they're doing this deliberately.
Trump is a menace.
Trump is Adolph Hitler
It is so obvious that reincarnation does exist. He is back with a vengeance. He is the PIG from Hell awakened to bring in the Apocalypse.
Am I exaggerating? Who would have ever predicted he would get this far 5 years ago?
If they had just toppled one secular dictator, perhaps it could have been written off as poor judgement. Though they have since compounded their error by bringing down Gaddafi and attempting to bring down Assad. The people who run the world are highly intelligent. They do not make such colossal f*** ups. It's all by design.
If you acknowledge that military industrial complex profiteering was a significant factor, can't you see that it's not in their interest to stabilise the region? It makes far more sense to destabilise the region to sow the seeds of future conflict and future profits.
If Trump were an establishment politician it would be fair comment to say they have thrown their old foreign policy into the memory hole. Though, in case you haven't noticed, the system hates his guts.
Hello again, AS:
I don't hate Trump because he hates Mexicans.. I don't hate him because he hates women.. I don't hate him because he hates Muslims. I hate him because he hates JEWS. Are you sure you're not on his list??
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
excon
I have never heard Trump say anything hateful. Nazi comparisons are complete hyperbole.
The left wing obsession with the word "hate" really needs to stop. Hate is simply not a significant factor in the motivation of 99.9% of people. Hate hardly exists. You really show a pretty weak understanding of human nature. Most people simple act according to their perceived interests. It's really nothing personal.
Letting in large numbers of Muslims who don't have American values is not in the national interest.
Letting in large numbers of economic migrants isn't in the national interest.
Letting in large numbers of leftists who will eventually get citizenship and vote for leftism, isn't in the national interest (or at least not as republicans see it).
The canary in the coal mine is when people's rights get violated. So far I haven't heard Trump propose taking anyone's rights, only withholding privileges from foreigners.
It's ironic. The dems claimed Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied about them.
Now the hate mongers are claiming there were and Trump loves Saddam.
The joke never ends.
@d708
I don't know if it's ironic or not, but I find it laughable that you don't see the narrative has changed on the political RIGHT, not the left.
The so-called "hate mongers" (translation: TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ) have actually been pretty consistent.
1) Saddam is an evil dictator. But if that's your standard for invasion/occupation, then the US should occupy about 15-20 countries. What makes Saddam special (hint: world's second largest oil reserves)?
2) If you're going to make the case for invasion, make the case for invasion. Don't bulls**t us about WMDs and terrorist ties (neither of which were significant)
3) If you're going to invade, do so with a realistic plan based on upon the military/geopoliticla necessity, not make up a maximum committment you can sell politically to the American people, and then go general-shopping until you find one who says, "Yeah, that's the amount of troops, etc. we need."
So, tell us again about those F-14s US troops found in the Iraqi desert...;-D....
@AS -- I think you have poor estimations of....
A) The "intellect" (broadly speaking) of the people who run the world. They are no more resistant to group-think and cognitive biases than less-powerful people.
B) The capacity for people (especially people in power) to delude themselves into thinking "It will be DIFFERENT this time!" Clearly the lesson of quagmire land wars in Asia (Korea, Vietnam) did not sink in when political leaders considered Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.
C) The way actions taken in complex fast-moving unstable geopolitical conditions can lead to "mission creep" and unexpected outcomes. Again, while it's POSSIBLE that the destabilization of the Levant and Libya were part of a "bigger plan", I think it much more likely that US/UK/Russia/etc. leaders thought "OK, we'll arm a few rebels" or "We'll do some airstrikes" expecting small incremental changes, but the flow of events caused those decisions to have outsized consequences.
Hello again, AS:
Never heard a hateful thing, huh?? Wow.. Within 5 minutes of his declaring his candidacy, he called Mexicans rapists.. Now, you either MISSED that part, or you don't think calling an entire population RAPISTS is hateful..
excon
Hmm... our CIA didn't let that stand in the way of them befriending him. Really, do we want to go here? Here's the thing, Trump is just a little baby-knucklehead with all his mouth-flatulence. He runs his mouth, but even with all the nonsense that comes out of his mouth, there's no point of reference to nail him with as he's never held real power like the Clintons or Bushs and probably never will.
I for one am far more disturbed by the actions of our CIA, spanning over half a century, or the words of psychopaths with real power, like say, Madeleine Albright.
He never said that and even Salon admits it.
He was clearly talking about the general moral quality of the immigrants, not all immigrants and not all Mexicans.
“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. […] When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending THEIR BEST. They’re not sending you; they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and SOME, I assume, are GOOD people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.”
The smear campaigns aren't going to work. Every time the left lies likes this, more people will vote for Trump.
The remain campaign in the U.K. used to same tactics to try to keep us in the E.U.. Every time they told decent people they were racist and xenophobic for having reasonable concerns, it backfired. It's why they lost.
I'm sure that plenty of politicians and other low level players have the kind of mentality you describe. Though I'm sceptical that naive people can ever rise to the highest levels. I think a certain Machiavellian cunning is essential. Psychos in the corridors of power eat naive people for breakfast. They'd never make it.
"Clearly the lesson of quagmire land wars in Asia (Korea, Vietnam) did not sink in"
You're assuming that if it had sunk in, they would act differently. You're assuming they have good intentions and are loyal to our interests. Did it occur to you that some people just don't care how many people they hurt? Or that some are sadists who enjoy hurting people?
You can engage in mental gymnastics to see our leaders as loyal well intentioned fools or you can accept the simple uncomfortable truth that we ruled by bad people who are loyal to something else.
Establishment politicians serve the interests of an international cartel of banks and mega corporations, not our interests.
Hello again, AS:
So, even though you pasted it, you still MISSED the part where he called them rapists.. And, then you call me a liar for mentioning it...
I SEE why you're a Trump supporter..
excon
You've missed the point. We not talking about foreign policy changes. (Trump is not an establishment republican. The establishment narrative hasn't changed at all.)
There were plenty of people on both the left and the right who were against against the war. Only the establishment was for it.
We're talking about leftist smear tactics. Instead of giving Trump some measure of credit for acknowledging the Bush foreign policy fiasco, the left call Trump a Saddam lover.
The left constantly attempts to create guilt by association and disqualify opponents from debate. It can't stop. It's like an obsessive compulsive disorder.
Excon -
You are taking half a sentence completely out of context and you know it.
