The Biggest Trump Gaffs Never Make the News.

[ChrisL]

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...

We shouldn't go unless there is something in it for us. HOWEVER, once we already went there, it was kind of important to keep our interests safe! We lost all of those lives and all of that money, and for what?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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..

Bright Makes Right and Bright Makes Might

Resources belong to the advanced intellects who have the ability to discover their use, not to dumb savages like the rabid Arab rabble. "Use It or Lose It" is the only way the fittest can lead. The rest can benefit; no reason to exterminate them unless they are parasites and lazily insist that the intelligent become their providers.

What is natural to Low IQ beasts is what happened after we violated these laws of evolution. They formed an illegal price-gouging cartel with the wealth that they never earned. Ignorant, weak, and decadent multiculturalists allowed the Neanderthals to use the oil giveaway to advance an economic and terrorist jihad. The traitors who insist that the Third World greedy and bloodthirsty savages have equal rights must be dealt with harshly before productive nations can move forward to their natural destiny.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

So what, we should model ourselves on ISIS?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.
.

And how you continue to equte this political, diplomatic, and in many ways surprisingly social dilettante to Ms. Clinton and report that there is scant difference is a mystery.

Ms. Clinton is not perfect but when you stack up the simple store of experience, knowledge of the mechanics of government, the jiu jitsu of dealing with the institutional memories of the bodies of politics and comparative classiness vs. her opponent, it's not that close a call.

Hillareich

She is the sea in which our ship shall sink.

 

[Siete]

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..

Bright Makes Right and Bright Makes Might

Resources belong to the advanced intellects who have the ability to discover their use, not to dumb savages like the rabid Arab rabble. "Use It or Lose It" is the only way the fittest can lead. The rest can benefit; no reason to exterminate them unless they are parasites and lazily insist that the intelligent become their providers.

What is natural to Low IQ beasts is what happened after we violated these laws of evolution. They formed an illegal price-gouging cartel with the wealth that they never earned. Ignorant, weak, and decadent multiculturalists allowed the Neanderthals to use the oil giveaway to advance an economic and terrorist jihad. The traitors who insist that the Third World greedy and bloodthirsty savages have equal rights must be dealt with harshly before productive nations can move forward to their natural destiny.

oh brother...

advanced intellects don't plow through the world running over soverign countries and stealing their natural resources because they deem themselves "advanced intellects" .... actions like that lower the US to terrorist levels, and make us no better than they are.

 

[skye]

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.
.

And how you continue to equte this political, diplomatic, and in many ways surprisingly social dilettante to Ms. Clinton and report that there is scant difference is a mystery.

Ms. Clinton is not perfect but when you stack up the simple store of experience, knowledge of the mechanics of government, the jiu jitsu of dealing with the institutional memories of the bodies of politics and comparative classiness vs. her opponent, it's not that close a call.

Hillareich

She is the sea in which our ship shall sink.

^^^^

Beautifully said. Thank you.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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?

Only a Fool Believes in History and Ethics Written by the Establishment's Flunkies

Saddam was producing beyond his quotas and lowering the world price of oil. This cut into the American oil companies' obscene profit margins. They ordered Bush, Sr. to attack him for invading the illegitimate country of Kuwait, which had always belonged to Iraq/Mesopotamia.

After that Exxon-ordered war, Saddam violated his sanctions quotas on oil and drove transnational petrocracy's profits down again. This time, Bush, Jr., used 9/11 as an excuse to attack him again. The result was 11 years of high oil prices, the main cause of all our recessions since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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..

Bright Makes Right and Bright Makes Might

Resources belong to the advanced intellects who have the ability to discover their use, not to dumb savages like the rabid Arab rabble. "Use It or Lose It" is the only way the fittest can lead. The rest can benefit; no reason to exterminate them unless they are parasites and lazily insist that the intelligent become their providers.

What is natural to Low IQ beasts is what happened after we violated these laws of evolution. They formed an illegal price-gouging cartel with the wealth that they never earned. Ignorant, weak, and decadent multiculturalists allowed the Neanderthals to use the oil giveaway to advance an economic and terrorist jihad. The traitors who insist that the Third World greedy and bloodthirsty savages have equal rights must be dealt with harshly before productive nations can move forward to their natural destiny.

oh brother...

advanced intellects don't plow through the world running over soverign countries and stealing their natural resources because they deem themselves "advanced intellects" .... actions like that lower the US to terrorist levels, and make us no better than they are.

Homo Sapiens V. Homo Erectus: The Final Chapter

In whose interest is it to make High IQs into sissy pushovers, like you want them to be? Only mindless parrots squawk such insulting ethics.

 

[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.

So what, we should model ourselves on ISIS?

I don't think I even insinuated such a thing. Just stating facts. It is a FACT that those people would be better off today if we were there than they are now.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.
.

And how you continue to equte this political, diplomatic, and in many ways surprisingly social dilettante to Ms. Clinton and report that there is scant difference is a mystery.

Ms. Clinton is not perfect but when you stack up the simple store of experience, knowledge of the mechanics of government, the jiu jitsu of dealing with the institutional memories of the bodies of politics and comparative classiness vs. her opponent, it's not that close a call.

Hillareich

She is the sea in which our ship shall sink.

^^^^

Beautifully said. Thank you.

Adapted from Manuel de Falla's El Amor Brujo: Soy el mar en que naufragas.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Only a Fool Believes in History and Ethics Written by the Establishment's Flunkies

Saddam was producing beyond his quotas and lowering the world price of oil. This cut into the American oil companies' obscene profit margins. They ordered Bush, Sr. to attack him for invading the illegitimate country of Kuwait, which had always belonged to Iraq/Mesopotamia.

After that Exxon-ordered war, Saddam violated his sanctions quotas on oil and drove transnational petrocracy's profits down again. This time, Bush, Jr., used 9/11 as an excuse to attack him again. The result was 11 years of high oil prices, the main cause of all our recessions since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.

Oh, so Saddam Hussein - good. United States - bad? Good grief. Some of you people are just insane. Sad really.

 

[ChrisL]

I think BEFORE discussing serious issues with people on this site, I should ask them a series of prerequisite questions, such as . . . What conspiracy theories do you believe in?

 

[ChrisL]

Before we take any kind of actions, we should ask ourselves, what is this going to do for the United States?

 

[Siete]

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..

Bright Makes Right and Bright Makes Might

Resources belong to the advanced intellects who have the ability to discover their use, not to dumb savages like the rabid Arab rabble. "Use It or Lose It" is the only way the fittest can lead. The rest can benefit; no reason to exterminate them unless they are parasites and lazily insist that the intelligent become their providers.

What is natural to Low IQ beasts is what happened after we violated these laws of evolution. They formed an illegal price-gouging cartel with the wealth that they never earned. Ignorant, weak, and decadent multiculturalists allowed the Neanderthals to use the oil giveaway to advance an economic and terrorist jihad. The traitors who insist that the Third World greedy and bloodthirsty savages have equal rights must be dealt with harshly before productive nations can move forward to their natural destiny.

oh brother...

advanced intellects don't plow through the world running over soverign countries and stealing their natural resources because they deem themselves "advanced intellects" .... actions like that lower the US to terrorist levels, and make us no better than they are.

Homo Sapiens V. Homo Erectus: The Final Chapter

In whose interest is it to make High IQs into sissy pushovers, like you want them to be? Only mindless parrots squawk such insulting ethics.

my ethics .... that's rich.

your imagination is unfettered by lawless logic.

sage? it doesn't show.

 

[ChrisL]

After posting on this message board and reading a lot, hearing the not very nice things foreigners have to say about us, what they think of us, etc., I find myself to be becoming more and more an isolationist unless there is something in it for us. FTW.

 

[ChrisL]

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..

Bright Makes Right and Bright Makes Might

Resources belong to the advanced intellects who have the ability to discover their use, not to dumb savages like the rabid Arab rabble. "Use It or Lose It" is the only way the fittest can lead. The rest can benefit; no reason to exterminate them unless they are parasites and lazily insist that the intelligent become their providers.

What is natural to Low IQ beasts is what happened after we violated these laws of evolution. They formed an illegal price-gouging cartel with the wealth that they never earned. Ignorant, weak, and decadent multiculturalists allowed the Neanderthals to use the oil giveaway to advance an economic and terrorist jihad. The traitors who insist that the Third World greedy and bloodthirsty savages have equal rights must be dealt with harshly before productive nations can move forward to their natural destiny.

oh brother...

advanced intellects don't plow through the world running over soverign countries and stealing their natural resources because they deem themselves "advanced intellects" .... actions like that lower the US to terrorist levels, and make us no better than they are.

Homo Sapiens V. Homo Erectus: The Final Chapter

In whose interest is it to make High IQs into sissy pushovers, like you want them to be? Only mindless parrots squawk such insulting ethics.

my ethics .... that's rich.

your imagination is unfettered by lawless logic.

sage? it doesn't show.

How pompous and obnoxious to refer to your own self as a "sage" anyways. Everyone here seems to think they know what's going on even when they don't.

 

[Siete]

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..

Bright Makes Right and Bright Makes Might

Resources belong to the advanced intellects who have the ability to discover their use, not to dumb savages like the rabid Arab rabble. "Use It or Lose It" is the only way the fittest can lead. The rest can benefit; no reason to exterminate them unless they are parasites and lazily insist that the intelligent become their providers.

What is natural to Low IQ beasts is what happened after we violated these laws of evolution. They formed an illegal price-gouging cartel with the wealth that they never earned. Ignorant, weak, and decadent multiculturalists allowed the Neanderthals to use the oil giveaway to advance an economic and terrorist jihad. The traitors who insist that the Third World greedy and bloodthirsty savages have equal rights must be dealt with harshly before productive nations can move forward to their natural destiny.

oh brother...

advanced intellects don't plow through the world running over soverign countries and stealing their natural resources because they deem themselves "advanced intellects" .... actions like that lower the US to terrorist levels, and make us no better than they are.

Homo Sapiens V. Homo Erectus: The Final Chapter

In whose interest is it to make High IQs into sissy pushovers, like you want them to be? Only mindless parrots squawk such insulting ethics.

my ethics .... that's rich.

your imagination is unfettered by lawless logic.

sage? it doesn't show.

How pompous and obnoxious to refer to your own self as a "sage" anyways. Everyone here seems to think they know what's going on even when they don't.

sage in the dressing ...

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Irrelevant.

Would you be fine with Candida walking in this nation and setting up a puppet government because they thought you were 'better off?' I think not. Why should they accept such a thing?

One of the cornerstone of our government - one of the reasons that it exists - is the firm belief in self governance. What does that say when you walk into other nations and attempt to control them? It certainly does not speak to actual American values.

 

[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?

Irrelevant.

Would you be fine with Candida walking in this nation and setting up a puppet government because they thought you were 'better off?' I think not. Why should they accept such a thing?

One of the cornerstone of our government - one of the reasons that it exists - is the firm belief in self governance. What does that say when you walk into other nations and attempt to control them? It certainly does not speak to actual American values.

What is Candida? I believe that is a bacteria.

They'd have more freedom than they do now!

 

[FA_Q2]

^ you did not address the point.