Donald Trump praises Saddam Hussein's ability to commit crimes against humanity - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50664229]Trump shooting a terrorist dead himself and cackling maniacally as he does it on camera would be convincing evidence that he enjoys killing people. His remarks are not. And with war, there is no good or evil, winner or loser, only who is left. There are no ethics in a real war. You get the idea of "wipe them out" but the longer you beat around the bush with basing your strategic decisions on human rights and sympathy for the enemy in a war situation the more of your people will be killed by your opponent who has no rules. The whole issue here is where is the security vs. humanity. War is hell because a proper war strips the humanity out of people for the sake of security. Either take your human rights and accept the security risks or wipe the enemy off the face of the earth and sleep with peace at mind.[/QUOTE] Are those really our only two options though? This binary notion of war as some philosophical conflict of human nature doesn't allow much room for nuance. If we're going to get philosphical, think of terrorism as an autoimmune disorder. Its goal is to induce self-destructive behavior in an otherwise healthy state; to confuse its citizens and make them unable to distinguish between threats and non-threats. We can debate the nature of war all we want, but once we start denying the fundamental humanity of others, that's a very slippery slope. I don't think that a little consideration for human rights necessarily has to come at the expense of security.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50664217]He didn't just "state a fact," he stated the fact as if Hussein's war crimes were a model we should be following in the fight against extremists. You'd have to be completely deluded to ignore the obvious implication.[/QUOTE] Seriously, this is like the most blatantly ridiculous thing for a candidate for president to say, and [I]somehow[/I] the Donald Trump Apologetics Squad tries to make it sound reasonable. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50664229]Trump shooting a terrorist dead himself and cackling maniacally as he does it on camera would be convincing evidence that he enjoys killing people. His remarks are not. And with war, there is no good or evil, winner or loser, only who is left. There are no ethics in a real war. You get the idea of "wipe them out" but the longer you beat around the bush with basing your strategic decisions on human rights and sympathy for the enemy in a war situation the more of your people will be killed by your opponent who has no rules. The whole issue here is where is the security vs. humanity. War is hell because a proper war strips the humanity out of people for the sake of security. Either take your human rights and accept the security risks or wipe the enemy off the face of the earth and sleep with peace at mind. The soldiers of the war bear the burden of guilt and horrors of war for the rest of us, which is why we need to take care of our veterans.[/QUOTE] Okay there, Colonel Kurtz.

Holy shit this election is really bringing out the worst in people.

[url=https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9a/51/4f/9a514f97c4c319eee4862ffa914d990d.jpg]Here's the evil terrorists Saddam so economically killed.[/url] NSFW.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50664425][url=https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9a/51/4f/9a514f97c4c319eee4862ffa914d990d.jpg]Here's the evil terrorists Saddam so economically killed.[/url] NSFW.[/QUOTE] Nah, that's from when Saddam went after their families. It's another 'good trick'.

I guess all those Kurdish villagers he had gassed/shot and citizens tortured for being against his dictatorship were terrorists too. I still can't take Trump seriously when he says shit like this, too dumb to believe.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50664254]So, the ends justify the means in your opinion? Using chemical weapons against civilian populations to kill the dissenters among them, one of he ways in which Hussein "killed terrorists so good," is an acceptable course of action so long as it deals a blow to military strength?[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to argue for one thing or the other, I am trying to highlight that you can't have both without compromising the other. No one likes innocent people getting killed in the name of security, and no one likes terrorists taking advantage of our freedoms to attack our country. I'm not here to say which is better or what a proper balance of each should exist, only that there is conflict in meeting the two goals at once.

Considering Trump's views and previous statements, how can one defend this? Sometimes the most ignorant and biased people say smart and appropriate things and vice versa, but this is not one of them.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;50664379] Okay there, Colonel Kurtz.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50664229] [B]Labeling people and putting words in others' mouths detracts from the actual issues and ruins any productive discussion.[/B][/QUOTE]

What kind of productive discussion can you have here though? Nothing Saddam did adressed any issues without causing or worsening tons of other issues. His way of dealing with "terrorism" isn't something any governing power should imitate, as it has been said before, it is like arguing Hitler was a bad guy but atleast he kept the trains running on time and therefor we can have a productive discussion about that subject.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50662308]Eh, yeah, this seems really overblown, but the way he phrased it really wasn't clear. He didn't say "Saddam Hussein was [I]good at[/I] killing terrorists," he said "He killed terrorists. He did that so good." The way he phrased it, by following it with "They didn't read 'em the rights, they didn't talk," sorta implies that not reading them their rights was "good." Because Saddam killed them "so good." I can see how people interpret it both ways. Still pretty ambiguous, because either interpretation makes sense.[/QUOTE] He's shit at communicating because of his inane habit to keep his word choice short and understandable, which is kind've ironic when you think about it.

today i learned that people can actually justify trump saying "horrible mass murderers being ok" is a good thing [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] if trump wants to use examples of people good at combating terrorists, he shouldn't use people like, i don't know, hussein?

Everyone realizes he says all this controversial shit because it gives him more media attention, and in the end, a greater following, right?

[QUOTE=Spartan8907;50665430]Everyone realizes he says all this controversial shit because it gives him more media attention, and in the end, a greater following, right?[/QUOTE] Pretty much this.

[QUOTE=Spartan8907;50665430]Everyone realizes he says all this controversial shit because it gives him more media attention, and in the end, a greater following, right?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty certain he's approaching peak following. The core group of people who believe this sort of stuff have been following him for a year now. Praising Sadaam isn't going to make moderate conservatives who dislike him go "hm yeah that's real good." Not all press is good press. Some of the ridiculous shit he says will bring in more lunatics, and some of the shit he says will push people away.

It's a shame though, media gives him coverage because it makes them revenue from people who think he's nuts and people who support him because "he says what nobody dares to say for fear of being branded racist". As an individual who cares about people, there is no winning. All you can do is to ignore him, but while it's easy to ignore him it's not as easy to ignore the immense amount of people who support him, and while being condescending to the ones who do support him does nothing but reinforce their views it's just as difficult to ignore the (to some of us) mind-boggling ignorance he thrives off of. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] If people recieved decent education this wouldn't be so much of an issue, because there wouldn't be such a lack of critical, objective thinking, but even as someone who has gone through the basic educational system in Sweden, I am still prone to so much bias and have often caught my views wrapped by emotional factors. I can't imagine what it's like in the US where higher education is a capitalistic privelege and basic education is very much affected by this - not to say Swedish education isn't, just less so.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50664202]Here's a fact for you: The original organization that would eventually become ISIS was formed in 1999 - in Iraq, under Saddam's nose. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline].[/QUOTE] would isis or any organisation like it in iraq have been able to grow to the point isis has if saddam would still be there? yes/no [editline]8th July 2016[/editline] AGAIN to everyone jumping on their moral high horses... put saddam on a scale and isis on the other scale... isis will easily weigh out to be far more immoral and evil... thats what a bloody war with tons of civilian casualties bought us... bush was even warned several times things like this could and WOULD happen... it was objectively worse to do the war then it was to do nothing about saddam.

[QUOTE=butre;50663022]personally, I'd take freedom over security any day[/QUOTE] he says while typing in the comfort of his american home. lol

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50665506]It's a shame though, media gives him coverage because it makes them revenue from people who think he's nuts and people who support him because "he says what nobody dares to say for fear of being branded racist". As an individual who cares about people, there is no winning. All you can do is to ignore him, but while it's easy to ignore him it's not as easy to ignore the immense amount of people who support him, and while being condescending to the ones who do support him does nothing but reinforce their views it's just as difficult to ignore the (to some of us) mind-boggling ignorance he thrives off of. [editline]7th July 2016[/editline] If people recieved decent education this wouldn't be so much of an issue, because there wouldn't be such a lack of critical, objective thinking, but even as someone who has gone through the basic educational system in Sweden, I am still prone to so much bias and have often caught my views wrapped by emotional factors. I can't imagine what it's like in the US where higher education is a capitalistic privelege and basic education is very much affected by this - not to say Swedish education isn't, just less so.[/QUOTE] Its not that simple, a lot of people vote trump as a protest against the established choice of 'left vs right but they are all the same' the problem is not the people and their education, although ofc im not against better education. The problem is the political system and the sharks that have stared to make their home there.

Trump addressed this very thing (23:30) [video=youtube;2T_ow1UJZJs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T_ow1UJZJs[/video] Goes to show how dishonest the media is.

Trumps gonna win, Hillary keeps stacking up dirt like a broken fertilizer tank valve... at this point trump actually seems more appealing to me too... rather pick a troll then a snake for prez

[QUOTE=orgornot;50672248]Trump addressed this very thing (23:30) [video=youtube;2T_ow1UJZJs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T_ow1UJZJs[/video] Goes to show how dishonest the media is.[/QUOTE] surely trump wouldn't just [I]go back [/I]on what he said!

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50672315]Trumps gonna win, Hillary keeps stacking up dirt like a broken fertilizer tank valve... at this point trump actually seems more appealing to me too... rather pick a troll then a snake for prez[/QUOTE] He hasn't passed her in the polls once. [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html[/url] I'm not a fan of Clinton, but so far it's looking like a pretty clear path to victory for her. Compare that to 538's predictions, and the numbers just aren't on Trump's side.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50679476]He hasn't passed her in the polls once. [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html[/url] I'm not a fan of Clinton, but so far it's looking like a pretty clear path to victory for her. Compare that to 538's predictions, and the numbers just aren't on Trump's side.[/QUOTE] Trump likes to be unpredictable. If this was some typical politician then I'd agree with you. But this is Trump.

So, what, you think Trump is just asking the entire country to keep their support for him on the Down Low until he's ready to spring? The only other presidential candidate in the last fifty years to have favorability ratings lower than Trump was an honest-to-god Ku Klux Klan leader.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50679774]So, what, you think Trump is just asking the entire country to keep their support for him on the Down Low until he's ready to spring?[/QUOTE] I'd wait until at least after the conventions when the real campaigning begins.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50679777]I'd wait until at least after the conventions when the real campaigning begins.[/QUOTE] IT WAS SUPPOSED TO START AS SOON AS TRUMP CLINCHED THE NOMINATION, HE BLEW IT, CLINTON HAS A FUCKING WAR CHEST, TRUMP ONLY GOT A MEAGER CAMPAIGN, AND HE HAS FOUR MONTHS LEFT, BUT THEN HE GOT HIS EMAIL FUNDRAISER SERVICE BLACKLISTED, GOP DONORS ARE FUCKING SCARED THAT HE'S FUNNELING MONEY TO HIS BUSINESSES! [highlight](User was banned for this post ("DON'T TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, THAT IS ANNOYING TO LOOK AT! I DON'T LIKE IT! IT DOESN'T MAKE YOUR POINT! I AM BANNING YOU BECAUSE OF IT! DON'T DO IT AGAIN OR YOU WILL BE BANNED AGAIN!" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;50661906]You're absolutely right. He proposed doing it by killing their families. Sheesh people, get it right![/QUOTE] You know that was him trying to get attention in a huge crowd of Republicans at the time right? You're barely hearing it these days.

I honestly can no longer tell which posts in this thread supporting trump here are ironic or not.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50679667]Trump likes to be unpredictable. If this was some typical politician then I'd agree with you. But this is Trump.[/QUOTE] Oh my god. Are you seriously suggesting that Trump is polling terribly on purpose to be 'unpredictable'? What benefit would that provide? What reason would he have for doing it? He isn't some magic candidate that doesn't have to follow the rules, if he doesn't get enough votes, that's it, he's lost, and right now, that's what all the evidence is suggesting will happen.