Sup Forums BTFO
huffingtonpost.com
Why is gump praising Saddam? Does that help his dumb ass?
Sup Forums BTFO
James Ramirez
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
archive.is
washingtonpost.com
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
npr.org
twitter.com
Austin Jackson
because he didnt have any WMDs or chemical weapons, and when they killed him, it sparked horrific sectarian violence that gave birth to ISIS and the current situation in the Middle East.
Do you even current affairs/ modern history?
Chase Wright
Remember back in '08 when liberals, with their all-seeing hindsight, said that the Iraqi invasion was a mistake because Saddam kept the smaller terror groups that's blowing up civilians and US soldiers in check?
Angel Morales
So Shrubpulbicans were wrong engligger?
Isaac Jones
Why is the Huffington Post all of a sudden such a fucking warhawk?
Aiden Brown
>sectarian violence didn't exist before saddam
>chemical weapons never existed either despite evidence that he used them multiple times
Matthew Miller
Is nobody going to talk about those big stinking titties?
Asher Clark
provide the evidence then, it was one of the points levied as criticism.
>sectarian violence never existed before sadam
it did, and he kept it controlled, when they killed him and removed his power from the region, it created a huge power vaccuum which led to Sunni groups forming more organised militia, and carrying out brutal attack.
I suspect you already understand this, but are just trying to hate trump rom an emotional perspective.
Kind of like removing Gadaffi from power no?
Michael King
Saddam did relatively little wrong and was a beacon of stability for the middle east. Ousting him and the chaos that followed fueled the fire that created ISIS.
This should be a reason for lefties to love Trump given they were always harping on about the Iraq War during the bush years.
Joshua King
>Falling for the female jew
Ryan Scott
Noah Lewis
who is this semen demon?
Grayson Rogers
You can be against the invasion of Iraq, support the stability that Saddam generated and at the same time be against the brutal dictator for the way he treated his people. Not everything is black and white.
Landon Cox
Saddam dindu nuffin.
Dominic Allen
Saddam did nothing wrong!
Owen Bennett
saddam dindu nufin
Samuel Russell
sauce
Eli Carter
/thread
William Bennett
Reminder the US not only gave him those chemical weapons but during the war with iran, gave him satellite information about the coming Iranian attack, allowing Saddam to reposition his troops in order to defend from the attack.
If not for that information, he would have lost the war. He could not have fought that attack off, if not for knowing it was coming in advance because of US intel.
The US kept him in office, gave him the gas, they are just as guilty as he is.
Lincoln Murphy
Thats how we ended up with ISIS.
Saddam is infinitely superior to them, and we should have left him alone to keep the multiple cultures together, instead of fighting like they are now.
Many political minds have said it was better when we had the "strongman" to hold the country together, and that you CANT have a democracy in a country like that.
One side will just vote to kill the other, or undermine their interests until war breaks out.
Simple stuff, but I guess simple people have trouble with simple concepts.
Jaxon Scott
>Sup Forums btfo
>huffington post
Gotta step up your game shill.
Luis Moore
What does /thread mean? I'm relatively new to Sup Forums and Sup Forums.
Landon Bennett
It means a comment has given an accurate summary of the topic or question at hand and there's no need for any more comments and that you should kill yourself
Cameron James
In that case, it means that he wants to agree with the post but deep down, knows it wont stand up to criticism, so hes making some vain attempt at shutting the thread down with that as the last word, instead of having it BTFO by pointing out no, you cant both keep Saddam in office and remove him.
Hudson Jackson
Iran could barely take Mosul, their human wave tactics couldn't fight off chemical weapons, depleting supplies and yes Western states supporting Iraq, but I don't think it was the sole reason.
Cooper Hernandez
worse because then they fucked him over twice. Pretty sure he was under the impression that the US was fine with him going into Kuwait. Then Bush Jr pushed his shit it over a bunch of bullshit.
Luke Bennett
Either your for Saddam, or youre for ISIS. Pretty simple.
Either youre for Gaddafi, or youre for the breakdown of a completely functional government with the highest standard of living in Africa - turning it into a complete shithole with warring tribes and no actual government.
Typically, these people crying about "brutal dictators" are for the latter. Anarchy.
You cant have your government, and eat it too.
Andrew Morales
Okay thanks guys
Charles Green
Read the Wikileaks cables from Baghdad to Washington in the couple years before the first gulf war.
Saddam begged them to do anything to help prevent that war, the US forced him into it on purpose.
He gave the example that war widows pensions were being cut the situation was so bad in Iraq, and that Kuwait was playing hard ball with negotiations because the US was giving them sweet deals, so they wouldnt trade fairly with Iraq.
They were also supposedly angle drilling under the border, into Iraqs oil.
It says right in the cables he will be forced to "save face" by invading if the US doesnt help, because hes a dictator, and his people need to respect him.
He couldnt look weak any longer.
John Butler
/r/inging the saddam hussein propaganda song going: "oh sadam, sadam, sadam"
Joseph Davis
Any source on this?
David Martinez
I dont recall the liberals saying that, no.. but I do recall it being said at least 3x in the last year on mainstream media like Hannity and O'reilly.
Jordan Lopez
The key word was "strongman"
I think all 3 called him that, or at least thats the word thats stuck in my head related to what were talking about.
Carson James
That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of how we ended up with ISIS, you dumbshit. If Saddam was around, you can guarantee ISIS wouldn't be.
Because there would be an ironfisted secular dictator with chemical weapons running the country, instead of a power vacuum in the form of a limpwristed puppet president with a barely-trained and untested army running on a skeleton crew with equipment they can't maintain.
The depth of my exasperation with your idiotic assessment cannot be properly conveyed through text.
Caleb Sanchez
Meanwhile in Iraq
>The Iraqi Guy Who Toppled Saddam Hussein’s Statue in 2003 Wants Saddam Back
But no, ignore Iraqis and bash Trump for saying what they think
John Perry
washingtonpost.com
>Saddam Hussein, rise and fall of a strongman
nytimes.com
>1982
>Baghdad's Strongman
nytimes.com
>Echoes of a Strongman in Baghdad Today
npr.org
>The Strongman of Iraq Is Executed
That ones 2006.
Not exactly saying thats all praise, but yea, hes regarded as a strongman who held the countries different hostile cultures together.
You cant have a shiite majority calling the shots over a sunni minority, with the kurds in the mix, surrounded by countries that are all sunni majorities, except for Iran, which is Shiite.
Shiites are the more peaceful ones, Sunnis are more hostile, and Saudi Arabia is Wahabbi, which is pretty much muslim supremacism, including a view of supremacy over all other muslims and the use of the most extreme and brutal violence/doctrine.
So when the peaceful guys in Iraq vote for peaceful muslim laws, the angry guys who border them blow stuff up.
Brayden James
You have a reading comprehension problem.
Samuel Edwards
There was nothing wrong with Saddam.
Except for being the head of a Pan-Arab political party and a regional military power in a resource rich part of the world which was financially independent of western banks.
Ryder Rodriguez
You cant be against the war in iraq and against saddam and against ISIS.
Either youre for the removal of Saddam, or youre FOR SADDAM STAYING IN POWER
Good luck removing Saddam without the war.
They are mutually exclusive.