The Biggest Trump Gaffs Never Make the News.

[flacaltenn]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

This one of his classic drunk-guy-in-a-bar-talking-about-what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge things.

He just blurts things out that simply can't be done, because he doesn't know better.

And then people just fall in line because they're committed and evidently don't know better, either.

One long, ongoing national embarrassment.
.

I guess then if you are correct, I shouldn't be waiting for some talking head to bring up this weird and dangerous fantasy of his --- and MAKE folks pay attention to it. There's been SOME discussion of this. But Dayam, nobody seems to be grading papers here anymore. All the truth-o-meters are worn out testing email gossip and bimbo eruptions. We must clone Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal -- there is no other rescue from this insanity.

This one issue is the tip of the iceberg as far as bad ideas coming from Trump. Why is stuff like this never covered in depth? No time for that, no one watches for more than a few minutes, people are busy. Media today is about quick emotional headlines, and a quick one sided article (There are great balanced articles and journalism still but it is few and far between, no money in it, no one cares if it doesn't validate their position) Maybe eliminating the fairness doctrine wasn't the best idea?

Govt attempting to "fix" politics is a horrible idea. As in the "fairness doctrine". Last thing we need is the lazy incompetent press in charge of the "truth meters". Take that from a person with absolutely no love for ANY of the arrogant, power hungry defectives that are haunting the airwaves today.

The media just doesn't DO journalism anymore. It could be catering to a "knumbed down" populace. Because folks are FLEEING the 2 brand name parties and tuning out. When you can ABSOLVE a candidate of any crime or lapse in moral judgement by just pointing out a worse commission on the other side, the SOLUTION is to get more fingers pointing in various directions. Two fingers pointing at each other is a very unstable situation..

 

[ChrisL]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

 

[flacaltenn]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

 

[ChrisL]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

 

[ChrisL]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

A little bit off topic, but don't you find it odd that we are willing to take in Syrian refugees, but we would not take in the Yazidi people? Doesn't anyone wonder what is REALLY going on with our government?

Isis burns 19 women alive for rejecting sex slavery

 

[Dalia]

Trump is right because Isis must be destroyed soon before it destroys us.

You destroy ISIS by providing Ground, Air, and Air Cav support so that Exxon can Steal Iraqi oil? One thing has nothing to DO with the other. Plenty of ways to fight ISIS. Adding the THEFT of a nation's resources is a VERY bad way to deal with it..

Bonsoir, To justify the no-ground-troops policy, the president Obama conjures up the Bush administration's nation-building experiences, which did involve the deaths of thousands of troops and years of insurgency. But this argument has two flaws. The first: If Obama is serious about destroying ISIS, with or without U.S. ground troops involved, he will be faced with a major "day-after" problem once the group is driven underground. That is exactly what happened after, without ground troops, the United States forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan and destroyed the Qaddafi regime. In short, the "nation-building" argument is only logical if the president really does not intend to do anything more than contain and degrade ISIS.

How to Defeat ISIS: The Case for U.S. Ground Forces

 

[Montrovant]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Which people would have better lives if we stayed where? And based on what metric? Would it be a 'trading freedom for safety' kind of dynamic?

Even if people would have better lives under US rule in some ways, that doesn't mean those people would appreciate a foreign nation taking over part of their country, nor does it mean other Mid-East nations would look at such a move favorably. I think that was flacaltenn's point.

 

[ChrisL]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Which people would have better lives if we stayed where? And based on what metric? Would it be a 'trading freedom for safety' kind of dynamic?

Even if people would have better lives under US rule in some ways, that doesn't mean those people would appreciate a foreign nation taking over part of their country, nor does it mean other Mid-East nations would look at such a move favorably. I think that was flacaltenn's point.

Which people? All of them. Who cares what they feel? ISIS certainly doesn't.

 

[flacaltenn]

Trump is right because Isis must be destroyed soon before it destroys us.

You destroy ISIS by providing Ground, Air, and Air Cav support so that Exxon can Steal Iraqi oil? One thing has nothing to DO with the other. Plenty of ways to fight ISIS. Adding the THEFT of a nation's resources is a VERY bad way to deal with it..

Bonsoir, To justify the no-ground-troops policy, the president Obama conjures up the Bush administration's nation-building experiences, which did involve the deaths of thousands of troops and years of insurgency. But this argument has two flaws. The first: If Obama is serious about destroying ISIS, with or without U.S. ground troops involved, he will be faced with a major "day-after" problem once the group is driven underground. That is exactly what happened after, without ground troops, the United States forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan and destroyed the Qaddafi regime. In short, the "nation-building" argument is only logical if the president really does not intend to do anything more than contain and degrade ISIS.

How to Defeat ISIS: The Case for U.S. Ground Forces

This whole fallacy of making Democracy bloom in the MidEast has ALWAYS been folly. And my Libertarian Party has been saying that for 25 or 30 years. YET -- it is still alive in Hillary Clinton. Who thinks that what she helped to do in Libya was a brilliant victory. And NOW wants to do the same thing to Syria..

The reality IS -- we can NEVER focus on ISIS when we still believe in "counter insurgencies" and democratic reform in the MidEast. And NEVER have any credibility in the WORLD -- if we add "stealing their oil" to that fantasy.

The MidEast NEEDS ruthless tyrants to keep them from killing each other. And THOSE tyrants are not OK with radical Muslim militias and ISIS like creations. If we didn't CREATE the voids of power, we wouldn't HAVE an ISIS problem now. Or Iran effectively controlling about a 1/3 of Iraq....

 

[flacaltenn]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Not at all. You're propping up a FANTASY of a Democratic Iraq. That was never gonna happen. And by removing Saddam, you created permanent sectorial frictions between Sunni, Shia and Kurds.

Their lives did NOT improve after 12 years of occupation. And it did not improve for the PREVIOUS 12 years when we bombing Saddam DAILY and locking up their economy. WE are responsible for over 400,000 deaths in that country since we started the no-flys and containment in the late 80s. They didn't love us then. And they CERTAINLY are never gonna be grateful for destroying their country.

 

[Siete]

Trump is right because Isis must be destroyed soon before it destroys us.

You destroy ISIS by providing Ground, Air, and Air Cav support so that Exxon can Steal Iraqi oil? One thing has nothing to DO with the other. Plenty of ways to fight ISIS. Adding the THEFT of a nation's resources is a VERY bad way to deal with it..

hell yeah steal the oil !

sheesh ...

it's almost like a contest to see who can be the dumbest Trumpbot on the board. And they wonder why it's so damn hard to take them serious.

 

[flacaltenn]

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Which people would have better lives if we stayed where? And based on what metric? Would it be a 'trading freedom for safety' kind of dynamic?

Even if people would have better lives under US rule in some ways, that doesn't mean those people would appreciate a foreign nation taking over part of their country, nor does it mean other Mid-East nations would look at such a move favorably. I think that was flacaltenn's point.

Which people? All of them. Who cares what they feel? ISIS certainly doesn't.

Seriously? Who cares what they feel? You do know that we starved them of food and medicine for 12 years before Bush had the guts to "DO SOMETHING". Unfortunately, the thing he SHOULD have done is end the containment and walk away. But at least the 200,000 deaths during the containment policy got ended.

Mad Albright is on record saying that 200,000 dead Iraqis was "acceptable collateral damage". Are YOU that callous and ridiculous? I don't think so...

 

[ChrisL]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Not at all. You're propping up a FANTASY of a Democratic Iraq. That was never gonna happen. And by removing Saddam, you created permanent sectorial frictions between Sunni, Shia and Kurds.

Their lives did NOT improve after 12 years of occupation. And it did not improve for the PREVIOUS 12 years when we bombing Saddam DAILY and locking up their economy. WE are responsible for over 400,000 deaths in that country since we started the no-flys and containment in the late 80s. They didn't love us then. And they CERTAINLY are never gonna be grateful for destroying their country.

If we took over that country, those people would be a whole heck of a lot better off than they are now, no?

 

[ChrisL]

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Which people would have better lives if we stayed where? And based on what metric? Would it be a 'trading freedom for safety' kind of dynamic?

Even if people would have better lives under US rule in some ways, that doesn't mean those people would appreciate a foreign nation taking over part of their country, nor does it mean other Mid-East nations would look at such a move favorably. I think that was flacaltenn's point.

Which people? All of them. Who cares what they feel? ISIS certainly doesn't.

Seriously? Who cares what they feel? You do know that we starved them of food and medicine for 12 years before Bush had the guts to "DO SOMETHING". Unfortunately, the thing he SHOULD have done is end the containment and walk away. But at least the 200,000 deaths during the containment policy got ended.

Mad Albright is on record saying that 200,000 dead Iraqis was "acceptable collateral damage". Are YOU that callous and ridiculous? I don't think so...

That is the fault of their greedy dictator. HE was the reason for sanctions.

 

[Siete]

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.


if we had let Iraqi's fight for their own Democracy, and minded our own business, both countries would be better off.

Be real.

 

[flacaltenn]

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Not at all. You're propping up a FANTASY of a Democratic Iraq. That was never gonna happen. And by removing Saddam, you created permanent sectorial frictions between Sunni, Shia and Kurds.

Their lives did NOT improve after 12 years of occupation. And it did not improve for the PREVIOUS 12 years when we bombing Saddam DAILY and locking up their economy. WE are responsible for over 400,000 deaths in that country since we started the no-flys and containment in the late 80s. They didn't love us then. And they CERTAINLY are never gonna be grateful for destroying their country.

If we took over that country, those people would be a whole heck of a lot better off than they are now, no?

How long do think you think we need to "take over a country" that we already punished for 12 years?

NO. They would have been MUCH better off with a crazy shotgun waving dictator who bragged too much about his WMDs.

AND HE --- wouldn't accept an militant Islamic insurgency in his country..

 

[ChrisL]

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Which people would have better lives if we stayed where? And based on what metric? Would it be a 'trading freedom for safety' kind of dynamic?

Even if people would have better lives under US rule in some ways, that doesn't mean those people would appreciate a foreign nation taking over part of their country, nor does it mean other Mid-East nations would look at such a move favorably. I think that was flacaltenn's point.

Which people? All of them. Who cares what they feel? ISIS certainly doesn't.

Seriously? Who cares what they feel? You do know that we starved them of food and medicine for 12 years before Bush had the guts to "DO SOMETHING". Unfortunately, the thing he SHOULD have done is end the containment and walk away. But at least the 200,000 deaths during the containment policy got ended.

Mad Albright is on record saying that 200,000 dead Iraqis was "acceptable collateral damage". Are YOU that callous and ridiculous? I don't think so...

So, smarty pants . . . you realize that we have a "global economy" nowadays, right? What do you do with a nation who controls one of the MOST precious natural resources and who will not cooperate, who attacks his neighbors? What do you do?

 

[ChrisL]

How would it be a bigger threat than ISIS? Explain please.

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Not at all. You're propping up a FANTASY of a Democratic Iraq. That was never gonna happen. And by removing Saddam, you created permanent sectorial frictions between Sunni, Shia and Kurds.

Their lives did NOT improve after 12 years of occupation. And it did not improve for the PREVIOUS 12 years when we bombing Saddam DAILY and locking up their economy. WE are responsible for over 400,000 deaths in that country since we started the no-flys and containment in the late 80s. They didn't love us then. And they CERTAINLY are never gonna be grateful for destroying their country.

If we took over that country, those people would be a whole heck of a lot better off than they are now, no?

How long do think you think we need to "take over a country" that we already punished for 12 years?

NO. They would have been MUCH better off with a crazy shotgun waving dictator who bragged too much about his WMDs.

AND HE --- wouldn't accept an militant Islamic insurgency in his country..

You starting to sound more and more like a liberal every day. It's a turn off, honestly.

 

[flacaltenn]

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Which people would have better lives if we stayed where? And based on what metric? Would it be a 'trading freedom for safety' kind of dynamic?

Even if people would have better lives under US rule in some ways, that doesn't mean those people would appreciate a foreign nation taking over part of their country, nor does it mean other Mid-East nations would look at such a move favorably. I think that was flacaltenn's point.

Which people? All of them. Who cares what they feel? ISIS certainly doesn't.

Seriously? Who cares what they feel? You do know that we starved them of food and medicine for 12 years before Bush had the guts to "DO SOMETHING". Unfortunately, the thing he SHOULD have done is end the containment and walk away. But at least the 200,000 deaths during the containment policy got ended.

Mad Albright is on record saying that 200,000 dead Iraqis was "acceptable collateral damage". Are YOU that callous and ridiculous? I don't think so...

So, smarty pants . . . you realize that we have a "global economy" nowadays, right? What do you do with a nation who controls one of the MOST precious natural resources and who will not cooperate, who attacks his neighbors? What do you do?

We FIXED that. We chased Saddam out of Kuwait and destroyed his army. They need customers for their oil. And that's pretty much ALL they got to offer. We don't have to invade, occupy, and leave ANY more bombed out voids in that region for terrorists to breed in. WE created that problem with our stupid dreams of having Democracies and upgrading their cultures from the 13th Century.. Just stay the fuck out unless they shoot at us or steal from us. OR -- at a minimum --- at LEAST get INVITED in to help...

 

[flacaltenn]

There isn't a moderate MidEast state that isn't gonna shun us as pillagers and thieves. I hope you can see the reputation damage from such a stupid "plan". That's ABOVE the logistics of actually PROTECTING those stolen assets. The US becomes the mafia and it WILL BE the bigger threat to them than ISIS..

IF we had stayed there and if we were in control of things, those people would have MUCH better lives. Let's be real.

Not at all. You're propping up a FANTASY of a Democratic Iraq. That was never gonna happen. And by removing Saddam, you created permanent sectorial frictions between Sunni, Shia and Kurds.

Their lives did NOT improve after 12 years of occupation. And it did not improve for the PREVIOUS 12 years when we bombing Saddam DAILY and locking up their economy. WE are responsible for over 400,000 deaths in that country since we started the no-flys and containment in the late 80s. They didn't love us then. And they CERTAINLY are never gonna be grateful for destroying their country.

If we took over that country, those people would be a whole heck of a lot better off than they are now, no?

How long do think you think we need to "take over a country" that we already punished for 12 years?

NO. They would have been MUCH better off with a crazy shotgun waving dictator who bragged too much about his WMDs.

AND HE --- wouldn't accept an militant Islamic insurgency in his country..

You starting to sound more and more like a liberal every day. It's a turn off, honestly.

Sorry about that. It's not a Liberal thing. It's proper foreign policy. And America is realizing that now. Get on the train baby because our Democracy in the ME policy and nation building days there are over. American opinion has changed DRASTICALLY in the past 4 years. And my folks were correct about this 25 years ago.. .