Trump Doctrine: World better with Saddam, Gaddafi in power

[Cetacea]

Trumps latest interview has again raised eyebrows with his statements on foreign policy and the middle east in particular his claims that The world would be a better place if dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Moamar Gaddafi were still in power

while he's not defending the dictators he points out that Iraq, Libya and Syria are far worse than ever under Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi, and of course he blames Obama and Clinton for that "blow up"

He also wants to beef up US Military and said the US should have taken Iraq's oil, saying it was now being bought by China, and also going to Iran and the Islamic State group.
"They (IS) have plenty of money because they took the oil because we (USA) were stupid,"

He claims that Trumps doctrine is one of Strength "nobody is going to mess with us. Our military will be made stronger."

so what say you NSG?
I agree that things have gotten worse in the Middle east since the misguided US interference (and I still beleive that Gadaffi's leadership in Libya was hugely beneficial and brought increasing propsperity until crushed by foreign interference). But hindsight is easy and does nothing to help todays situation.

His views on Iraqs oil I don't agree with but its unfortunate that the situation has developed to where it IS today. The US military might be our last best chance if only US politicians would stay out of things and focus on honestly supporting local solutions rather than US self-interest.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 529851.cms

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/25/polit ... m-hussein/

[Zakuvia]

I wonder how many Kurds thought that Saddam was better off in power. This is just Trump grasping onto the newest conspiracy that Obama helped create ISIS and is running with it incognito. Considering his mental diarrhea, though, I wouldn't be surprised to hear him say it outright if it looks like his numbers are flagging a little.

[Uawc]

The issue with this demagogue is that he has a tendency to say very correct things such as this and then take it in a very negative direction.

[Washington Resistance Army]

From an overall standpoint the world was better with Saddam and Gaddafi in power. Sure they were both pretty shitty people who did shitty things, but they're better than the failed states that replaced them.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

People like your average Middle Eastern desert folk do not understand democracy. They NEED some vicious dictator ruling them with an iron fist to stay at peace. Once that dictator is gone, so will be the stability that his presence bought.

Arab society is a patriarchal, tribal one, the concept of nationhood still being new to them. Loyalty to one's family and clan is all that matters, loyalty to the nation being secondary, and generally only practiced when there's someone mean enough in power to make the consequences of disloyalty very detrimental to one's clan and family. It is basically a medieval society trying to live by modern rules. Unsurprisingly, in the absence of a strongman to keep things in order, sectarian violence, tribal feuds and what have you will take free rein.

Saddam and Gaddafi were just such strongmen. Asad too was such a strongman before the West emasculated him and his regime.

So in that respect, Trump is absolutely right - the world would be better with such dictators in power.

[Zakuvia]

People like your average Middle Eastern desert folk do not understand democracy. They NEED some vicious dictator ruling them with an iron fist to stay at peace. Once that dictator is gone, so will be the stability that his presence bought.

Arab society is a patriarchal, tribal one, the concept of nationhood still being new to them. Loyalty to one's family and clan is all that matters, loyalty to the nation being secondary, and generally only practiced when there's someone mean enough in power to make the consequences of disloyalty very detrimental to one's clan and family. It is basically a medieval society trying to live by modern rules. Unsurprisingly, in the absence of a strongman to keep things in order, sectarian violence, tribal feuds and what have you will take free rein.

Saddam and Gaddafi were just such strongmen. Asad too was such a strongman before the West emasculated him and his regime.

So in that respect, Trump is absolutely right - the world would be better with such dictators in power.

Cultural Chauvinism - Still a Thing in 2015!

Honestly this is the biggest straw argument I've heard in regards to the Middle East, and it's terribly disparaging. It reeks of the mindset of 'white man's burden'. Democracy is possible in the Middle East, but it's difficult to work in something as structurally complex as representative democracy when there's this much violence being perpetrated from within and without.

[Vassenor]

People like your average Middle Eastern desert folk do not understand democracy. They NEED some vicious dictator ruling them with an iron fist to stay at peace. Once that dictator is gone, so will be the stability that his presence bought.

So Brown people are too stupid for democracy? Is that what you're saying?

[Knokkeheist]

People like your average Middle Eastern desert folk do not understand democracy. They NEED some vicious dictator ruling them with an iron fist to stay at peace. Once that dictator is gone, so will be the stability that his presence bought.

So Brown people are too stupid for democracy? Is that what you're saying?

Most arabs don't have a black skin colour. He means that middle eastern people are not used to be democratic.

[Yeldarid]

So Brown people are too stupid for democracy? Is that what you're saying?

Most arabs don't have a black skin colour. He means that middle eastern people are not used to be democratic.

Many areas were undemocratic once upon a time. Look at France, how many times did that switch between monarchy and republic? Democracy is not easy.

As for Libya and Iraq, if when the USA and other countries intervened/invaded, they actually had a long-term strategy for what to do after ousting the current leader then they would be much better off.

[The 93rd Coalition]

Both men have glorious facial hair, but other than that, I haven't heard any particularly good things about either of them.

So Trump's still doing his thing, I guess.

[Conserative Morality]

As for Libya and Iraq, if when the USA and other countries intervened/invaded, they actually had a long-term strategy for what to do after ousting the current leader then they would be much better off.

Long-term planning does not seem to be our strong suit.

[Ethel mermania]

Trump is correct. Scary thought indeed.

[Outer Sparta]

Trump is correct. Scary thought indeed.

We supported dictators in the past (South Korea, South Vietnam, Philippines) to name a few, but we didn't support Saddam. When we got rid of him, terrorist groups overtake that region. Yes, they did abuse their people, but kept the country stable. Blame Bush for ISIS.

[Ethel mermania]

Trump is correct. Scary thought indeed.

We supported dictators in the past (South Korea, South Vietnam, Philippines) to name a few, but we didn't support Saddam. When we got rid of him, terrorist groups overtake that region. Yes, they did abuse their people, but kept the country stable. Blame Bush for ISIS.

Which has nothing to do with trump being right or wrong.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I swear, if I could give up my vote just to give Trump a negative vote....

[Finland SSR]

Hindsight's a bitch to deal with.

[Chestaan]

I'm confused, Trump is saying that the US shouldn't have intervened in Iraq and Libya yet somehow this means that the US should have stole Iraqi oil and should beef up it's military? How can you steal the oil if the intervention never happened? Why does this mean the US needs a bigger military?

[Caracasus]

I think the main thing to take away from this is that even if Trump is correct in this statement, are we really expected to believe that he would have done a better job, or will do a better job in future should he be elected?

[Greed and Death]

We supported dictators in the past (South Korea, South Vietnam, Philippines) to name a few, but we didn't support Saddam. When we got rid of him, terrorist groups overtake that region. Yes, they did abuse their people, but kept the country stable. Blame Bush for ISIS.

Which has nothing to do with trump being right or wrong.

If we had supported Saddam like we did the Korean Dictatorship then we would get oil and maybe eventually a democracy there like with Korea.

[Bojikami]

Fuck. Trump and I agree on something. Fuck.

[Hollorous]

Which has nothing to do with trump being right or wrong.

If we had supported Saddam like we did the Korean Dictatorship then we would get oil and maybe eventually a democracy there like with Korea.

The USA did support Saddam back in the 80s, ironically when he was at his genocidal peek. He was an asset that went rogue basically. Had he not invaded Kuwait and invited the wrath of god upon his army, he'd probably still be around, regardless of how shitty and terrible he was to his own people.

[Wolfmanne2]

Oh god America, please don't let him win.

[Greed and Death]

Oh god America, please don't let him win.

America needs more Realpolitik.

[Hollorous]

Oh god America, please don't let him win.

America needs more Realpolitik.

Nah. Kissinger was a dum-dum-jerk-face. Realpolitik is so 1866.

[New Grestin]

He has a point, but it's like choosing between a turd and a slightly worse turd. On one hand, you have horrible dictatorships that oppress their people. On the other, you have fresh regimes that have already begun to collapse under their own weight and spread anarchy.

They're both still turds, but one is slightly wetter and smellier.