Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Are we better off with Saddam, Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Assad out of power ?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Channe, Aug 28, 2014.

  1. Channe

    Channe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    14,961
    Likes Received:
    4,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are replacing brutal dictators with even more brutal Islamists. It's messed up how non-Muslims seemed better off with these secular dictators in power than they are now. If they were able to produce legit security for non-Muslims under the Caliphate, I think it would be more accepted. But ISIS has a very different view of the Caliphate than what I think was intended by the faith.

    Mission accomplished ! AMIRITE ?!
     
    Channe, Aug 28, 2014
    #1
  2. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    We're better off with semi-competent nut-jobs than with competent nut-jobs.





    ​
     
    Taxpayer, Aug 28, 2014
    #2
  3. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You asked if WE were better off and we are. The longer a brutal regime stays in power the more organized they become and the more power they have which ultimately makes it harder for the US to have an influence over them. With regime change comes chaos while they organize and that benefits us immensely because it is easier for us to work those regions towards our favor.

    What they do with their own people is not included in your question so it is not relevant to my answer.

    So for us, yes, it is better if these nations and regions stay in a state of flux, constantly at odds with each other.
     
    Spooky, Aug 28, 2014
    #3

Share This Page