Trump Praises Saddam Hussein Again — This Time For Killing Terrorists ‘So Good’

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a lot of money that is in politics that is also in conflict with other large sums of money in politics. In fact, every large sum of money has its own angle behind it that puts it in conflict with another large sum of money in politics.

Don't disagree, but its rather uncommon for a big clump of money to fight against another big clump of money. That the reason behind Oligarchs, is to prevent new comers or competition from infringing on their territory..

The only time in my lifetime that I have seen one Oligarch go Against another Oligarch was recently, when the online Oligarch (Google,Netflix,Amazon) took on the Telecom Oligarch (Comcast,Att,Verizon).

What makes you believe that? Because he said so? Everything he's said and the way he presents himself SCREAMS oligarch and contempt for poor people.

He is an Elitist and he might be part of the casino Oligarch , but he is no match compared to the other Oligarchs.

If anything Hillary Clinton is more of an Oligarch than he is. She proved that when she had Billy boy make a one one secret meeting with the Attorney General during her ongoing active criminal investigation.

There is no "club". It's just rich people who sometimes have interests that align. Hillary's group of elites aren't the same people as Trump's group of elites. To pretend there is just presents an overly simplistic view of the way our government works.

LOL , total deflection and what club did I say that existed and how does that even relate to my comment you quoted below?

However, Hillary is also an Elite herself despite lying about not being one. I don't know of to many people that aren't part of the elite club that can have their spouse meet with the Attorney General of the United States in secret while they are being actively criminally investigated and have nothing happen , except have no files charged?

Are you saying that Hillary isn't an Elite herself?

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Don't disagree, but its rather uncommon for a big clump of money to fight against another big clump of money. That the reason behind Oligarchs, is to prevent new comers or competition from infringing on their territory..

Erm... It happens all the time. That's what lobbying is.

The only time in my lifetime that I have seen one Oligarch go Against another Oligarch was recently, when the online Oligarch (Google,Netflix,Amazon) took on the Telecom Oligarch (Comcast,Att,Verizon).

Really? Because Soros (and his political organizations) vs the Koch brothers (and their political organizations) seems to be an ongoing thing for decades now.

He is an Elitist and he might be part of the casino Oligarch , but he is no match compared to the other Oligarchs.

If anything Hillary Clinton is more of an Oligarch than he is. She proved that when she had Billy boy make a one one secret meeting with the Attorney General during her ongoing active criminal investigation.

I don't think Hillary has proved anything of the sort here. Proving who has more power as an oligarch is impossible for a plebe like you or I. We'd have to have access to documents and information that we could never hope to have access too. So this is all 100% speculation and really just the result of jealously and sour grapes. Hillary may very well be corrupt, but I don't believe half the # said about her. There are FAR more lies said about her than truths.

Are you saying that Hillary isn't an Elite herself?

Nope. Never said that.

Maybe Saddam wasn't all that bought to the ideas of the western, more "civilized" world, but you can't deny one thing.

Compare Iraq now, and back when he was in charge. The difference is like night and day. Most people had problem with Gaddafi as well. Do the same thing with Libya.

a reply to: olaru12

Trump's infatuation for authoritarians who torture is a little weird. Carl Jung said, “The healthy man does not torture others – generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers."

Trump, besides having advocated for torture (even killing families of terrorists), sure is into punishing others. The women who have abortions. The protestor who should have his coat taken away and thrown out into the cold. Glee in telling people they're fired. Saying "she should suffer" about Hillary Clinton.

It is said about people who are into punishing others, making them suffer, that they are sadistic. I have seen a cohort of citizens, who for decades now have claimed to be victimized by cultural elitists, turn to sadistic figures as sort of a way to feed off their power. Wanna be sadistic authoritarians.

I never in my lifetime thought I would see the pus of authoritarianism ooze out onto our national political skin to this level, but ooze it does. Perhaps the boil finally has been lanced, and it is time to finally deal with the sadistic authoritarian pus as one would any physical infection with the potential to kill.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DupontDeux
1)
He does not "idolize" the man. Come on. Singling out characteristics and mentioning them in a positive way is pretty far from idolizing the man. You do not have to see every aspect of a person as bad to dislike him or her. That is just a silly notion.

No this is idolizing him. Saddam's atrocities are unforgivable. PLUS he didn't kill terrorists. He killed political dissidents. Terrorism wasn't a thing when Saddam was in power. So Trump is just flat out wrong and is praising Saddam for killing people who disagreed with him politically.

2)
I am pretty sure no civil rights were violated by Saddam. Because, you know .. dictators tend to award the people very few rights. He likely acted within the laws he himself had made. I know what you mean though, and I agree, but Trump's point, I am sure, was that the current administration lies in the other extreme.

Erm. Rights aren't provided by the state. As an American you should be well aware of this. So just because Saddam didn't think he was violating civil rights doesn't make it true.

Terrorism most certainly was "a thing" while he was in power, believe it or not the world has been dealing with radical islam a lot longer than the US has been waging the "war on/of terror"

Ask the Russians if radical islamic terrorists were "a thing" back then. And terrorist groups ARE political enemies when you run a dictatorship in the middle east.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

At the time it seemed like a good idea Krazysh0t, for the interest behind the Bush administration, we all know how they lie into invading Iraq after Afghanistan, after all Afghanistan didn't have the oil that Iraq had.

I always felt that Afghanistan was the door to Iraq.

When the powers wants to screw the world for their financial advances they can kill entire populations without a blink of the eyes, history will always be there to remind us that the elite are exempt from justice.

a reply to: marg6043

I think Afghanistan made sense because Osama was actually IN Afghanistan at one point, but Iraq, he was never anywhere near it.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds

I think there is much unknown about this subject. Saddam did a great job of controlling factions I think the place was better with him then without.
One view
www.rense.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was all ready to come into this thread and defend Trump for once. Saddam really wasn't that bad of a guy. He kept order, and relative to his successors and peers was quite progressive for the area. Iraqi's had many freedoms and luxuries that weren't present in surrounding countries.

But, after reading the speech... that's not what Trump talked about. Instead all he did was praise how effective Saddam was at killing people. That's the mark of a psychopath.

a reply to: Aazadan

Actually most dictators have some type of psychological problems, after all that is the reason they chose to rule without opposition and what made Saddam so successful keeping terrorism at bay and only when he felt like wagging it on his own people and his political enemies.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I dunno ... it seems to be stacking up as we either get Hillary as President, or Trump.

They both #ing have their very bad corrupt super rich people kind of agendas.

I vote Libertarian. 'Fish' it ... my vote is wasted if I vote for either of the big corrupt losers; so, at least I will have a vote I can sleep with at night.

The whole system in the US right now is CORRUPT. If anyone does not see that, they just stopped looking

No offense.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

At the time it seemed like a good idea Krazysh0t,

You might not remember, but a lot of us demonstrated against going to war with Iraq. I was briefly part of a Seattle street protest against taking action.

In any case (returning to topic), Trump lets his mouth run in a "stream of consciousness" manner... talking quickly, repeating phrases, not sticking to the topic, and lacing everything with praises for himself. In essence, he seems to have no control over himself. Where most of us might think twice about saying something, he feels so secure in his money and power that he just lets his mouth go.

It's pretty ugly.

He won't be an effective negotiator with most of our trading partners, and "stream of consciousness" just doesn't do it as a plan for economic reform. He might make his poor veep choice run around and do that heavy lifting while he runs around and continues in the same cant.

And no... I don't think that he understands the poor and the average person. His very wealthy father bailed him out of everything and gave him a lot of money and partnerships in his real estate businesses -- that's not something that most of us can relate to. We don't date supermodels and famous people. He's never had to sell scrap metal to get meat for the family's table and never been crushed under medical bills or desperately tried to get enough money to have teeth pulled (because he couldn't afford a dentist.)

We need someone who can articulate a clear plan (not ramble from topic to topic) and who doesn't anger our major trading partners with constant gaffes.

I'm really curious as to how Saddam classified "terrorist's"? ..could of been anyone I'm sure. Like Stalin, he decimated anyone his paranoid mind thought might challenge him at some point, and more often than not they were innocent of terrorism.

Trump is an absolute f@#$ktard. Next he will be admiring Mao and Stalin.

originally posted by: Byrd
..Trump lets his mouth run in a "stream of consciousness" manner... talking quickly, repeating phrases, not sticking to the topic, and lacing everything with praises for himself. In essence, he seems to have no control over himself. Where most of us might think twice about saying something, he feels so secure in his money and power that he just lets his mouth go.

..He won't be an effective negotiator with most of our trading partners, and "stream of consciousness" just doesn't do it as a plan for economic reform. He might make his poor veep choice run around and do that heavy lifting while he runs around and continues in the same cant.

We need someone who can articulate a clear plan (not ramble from topic to topic) and who doesn't anger our major trading partners with constant gaffes.

There was a famous phrase from a hearing in the 1950s said to the American communist witch-hunter Joe McCarthy: Have you no sense of decency, sir? Have you left no sense of decency?

Mr. Trump, have you no sense of decency? Have you no sense of shame? Have you no sense of what it takes to be the leader of the United States? Mr. Trump, have you no sense?!

I was just in my kitchen prepping for dinner, had the tv on to a channel at the time carrying Trump's latest speech, my husband was talking to me, but I could hear Trump's muffled voice in the background, couldn't make out a word. This was interesting, because Trump's voice and cadence was eerily similar to the cartoons I watched in the 1950s as a kid, when they would mock Hitler's speeches!

Of course, his ramblings also remind me of some, not all, elderly people who sit at the family holiday table and go on and on and repeat family or personal anecdotes, rambling, disconnected.

“Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy, a really bad guy,” Trump said. “But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists." And THAT part of his Saddam speech brought back memories to a 1980s situation when an older couple at the dinner table asked their family members, "But what about the good things Hitler did??"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

That's just a side point. Anything to say to the actual meat and potatoes of the OP or did you just come into complain about one of my sources?

I don't buy your source or your OP.

a reply to: Metallicus



It is all good if you don't like the source, but there is a video of Trump actually saying that about Hussain.

Did you see it?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So now Trump is praising authoritarians for violating civil rights? This is a clear sign of what a Trump Presidency would look like. The man idolizes despots for crying out loud! That's pretty scary right there.

You do realize we imprison people for much less than terrorism? And we often kill terrorists in many countries (if they don't kill themselves first).

It's kind of a given that if you're committing a terrorist act, you are probably about to lose your rights in one form or another.

I don't see you protesting Hillary's involvement in such activities.

a reply to: Aazadan

Naturally. I'd acknowledge that Saddam kept the country stable. He had decent public works and social programs and the country had the 4th largest military in the world, but come on. It's Trump we are talking about here. Did you expect him to accurately describe anything about the world at large; even if he IS partially correct?