The Biggest Trump Gaffs Never Make the News.

[Indeependent]

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?

The way the Arabs have been pillaging the US?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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?

The way the Arabs have been pillaging the US?

Our Transnationalist Xenophile Ruling Traitors Must Be Made to Live in Fear


To conform to our imposed Dhimmi doormat ethics, let's say that we had an obligation to create the Muslims' oil industry for them and let them own it. Then let's say the 1,000+% profit margins they gouged us on was their right as owners and had nothing to do with an economic jihad to weaken Infidelphia. Will we continue our decadent suicidal weakling morality and pretend that Islam's terrorists would exist without Islam's oil money? Take away all of it and they'll be fighting us with sticks and stones. Even those thrill-killing beasts would give up.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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..

One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

actually it does ISIS is selling lots of oil that it stole

it is important to cut off thier funding

ISIL sells its oil, but who is buying it?

 

[Dalia]

Yes i agree, like Turkey buys oil from ISIS... isis must be destroy lives count first but also the foremost Syrian heritage Palmyra was massacred by those madmen.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

You insinuated that when you use ISIS as an example when asking, "Who cares what they feel?".

It is not a fact that they would be better off. Not only must you define what being better off means, not only is that a subjective metric, but you are talking about a series of events that did not happen and assuming that would happen is a fact.

And, of course, whether a people would be better off is not exactly a great reason to decide whether to invade or occupy a country.

 

[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..

One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

actually it does ISIS is selling lots of oil that it stole

it is important to cut off thier funding

ISIL sells its oil, but who is buying it?

Then go after ISIS. Not Americanize the oil. This is insane. A STABLE Syria/Iraq govt would NEVER have been run over by ISIS. We DESTABILIZED both of them. And America has NO WILL or right to spend another 12 years and 3000 dead and wounded troops defending oil for Exxon Mobil.

ISIS TOOK heavy military equipment and arms from the Iraqis like candy from children. And it was OUR weapons. How much longer do you want US to be the "Iraqi Army" ????

 

[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.

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.

You insinuated that when you use ISIS as an example when asking, "Who cares what they feel?".

It is not a fact that they would be better off. Not only must you define what being better off means, not only is that a subjective metric, but you are talking about a series of events that did not happen and assuming that would happen is a fact.

And, of course, whether a people would be better off is not exactly a great reason to decide whether to invade or occupy a country.

Why not? Let's cut out the PC bullcrap for once, huh?

 

[ChrisL]

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..

One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

actually it does ISIS is selling lots of oil that it stole

it is important to cut off thier funding

ISIL sells its oil, but who is buying it?

Then go after ISIS. Not Americanize the oil. This is insane. A STABLE Syria/Iraq govt would NEVER have been run over by ISIS. We DESTABILIZED both of them. And America has NO WILL or right to spend another 12 years and 3000 dead and wounded troops defending oil for Exxon Mobil.

ISIS TOOK heavy military equipment and arms from the Iraqis like candy from children. And it was OUR weapons. How much longer do you want US to be the "Iraqi Army" ????

Right. And then it was our responsibility to stay and defend our interests. Instead, we left too early and now the place is a mess.

 

[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..

One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

actually it does ISIS is selling lots of oil that it stole

it is important to cut off thier funding

ISIL sells its oil, but who is buying it?

Then go after ISIS. Not Americanize the oil. This is insane. A STABLE Syria/Iraq govt would NEVER have been run over by ISIS. We DESTABILIZED both of them. And America has NO WILL or right to spend another 12 years and 3000 dead and wounded troops defending oil for Exxon Mobil.

ISIS TOOK heavy military equipment and arms from the Iraqis like candy from children. And it was OUR weapons. How much longer do you want US to be the "Iraqi Army" ????

Right. And then it was our responsibility to stay and defend our interests. Instead, we left too early and now the place is a mess.

If 12 years and 4000 wounded and dead American boys and $Trill didn't make Iraq bloom with enlightenment and unity and Democracy --- what other "interest" would keep you there indefinitely? We went IN on false premises. Which means that 24 years now, we tortured and bombed and destroyed their lives and their political stability. And NOW you want us to go back and protect oil that belongs to Exxon Mobil?

You do realize that now IRAN is in effective control of 1/3 of Iraq. The Sunni/Shiah split looks more permanent every day, and the KURDISH region is never going back under Iraqi control. You ready to fix all that?

NOTE Chris -- there are 3 questions there -- PLEASE try to answer them..

 

[flacaltenn]

This Trump gaffe is COMPLETELY indefensible. It's sad to see some folks attempting to defend it.

 

[ChrisL]

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..

One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

actually it does ISIS is selling lots of oil that it stole

it is important to cut off thier funding

ISIL sells its oil, but who is buying it?

Then go after ISIS. Not Americanize the oil. This is insane. A STABLE Syria/Iraq govt would NEVER have been run over by ISIS. We DESTABILIZED both of them. And America has NO WILL or right to spend another 12 years and 3000 dead and wounded troops defending oil for Exxon Mobil.

ISIS TOOK heavy military equipment and arms from the Iraqis like candy from children. And it was OUR weapons. How much longer do you want US to be the "Iraqi Army" ????

Right. And then it was our responsibility to stay and defend our interests. Instead, we left too early and now the place is a mess.

If 12 years and 4000 wounded and dead American boys and $Trill didn't make Iraq bloom with enlightenment and unity and Democracy --- what other "interest" would keep you there indefinitely? We went IN on false premises. Which means that 24 years now, we tortured and bombed and destroyed their lives and their political stability. And NOW you want us to go back and protect oil that belongs to Exxon Mobil?

You do realize that now IRAN is in effective control of 1/3 of Iraq. The Sunni/Shiah split looks more permanent every day, and the KURDISH region is never going back under Iraqi control. You ready to fix all that?

NOTE Chris -- there are 3 questions there -- PLEASE try to answer them..

They were coming along and then we left them high and dry, along with wasting all of that money and all of those lives.

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

actually it does ISIS is selling lots of oil that it stole

it is important to cut off thier funding

ISIL sells its oil, but who is buying it?

Then go after ISIS. Not Americanize the oil. This is insane. A STABLE Syria/Iraq govt would NEVER have been run over by ISIS. We DESTABILIZED both of them. And America has NO WILL or right to spend another 12 years and 3000 dead and wounded troops defending oil for Exxon Mobil.

ISIS TOOK heavy military equipment and arms from the Iraqis like candy from children. And it was OUR weapons. How much longer do you want US to be the "Iraqi Army" ????

Right. And then it was our responsibility to stay and defend our interests. Instead, we left too early and now the place is a mess.

If 12 years and 4000 wounded and dead American boys and $Trill didn't make Iraq bloom with enlightenment and unity and Democracy --- what other "interest" would keep you there indefinitely? We went IN on false premises. Which means that 24 years now, we tortured and bombed and destroyed their lives and their political stability. And NOW you want us to go back and protect oil that belongs to Exxon Mobil?

You do realize that now IRAN is in effective control of 1/3 of Iraq. The Sunni/Shiah split looks more permanent every day, and the KURDISH region is never going back under Iraqi control. You ready to fix all that?

NOTE Chris -- there are 3 questions there -- PLEASE try to answer them..

They were coming along and then we left them high and dry, along with wasting all of that money and all of those lives.

You must have missed the news that they weren't sad to us go. Refuse to give us legal immunity for our military operations IN THEIR COUNTRY. Where are the answers to the 3 questions? And why are you prostrating yourself to defend Trump?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

You insinuated that when you use ISIS as an example when asking, "Who cares what they feel?".

It is not a fact that they would be better off. Not only must you define what being better off means, not only is that a subjective metric, but you are talking about a series of events that did not happen and assuming that would happen is a fact.

And, of course, whether a people would be better off is not exactly a great reason to decide whether to invade or occupy a country.

Why not? Let's cut out the PC bullcrap for once, huh?

If you think that invading another nation and occupying that nation because we think their people would be better off is "PC", I don't know what to say. That is just crazy, and seem ridiculously too willing to kill and destroy to push your own version of what is 'better' on the world. You've already compared the situation to the US being parents and Iraq a child. That kind of arrogance and willingness to ignore the costs of any war is probably a big part of why we keep getting into conflicts we have no good reason to be in in the first place.

I am not willing to send American troops to fight and die, to kill who knows how many foreign soldiers and civilians in their own nation, just because I think they'd be better off.

 

[ChrisL]

One thing has nothing to DO with the other.

actually it does ISIS is selling lots of oil that it stole

it is important to cut off thier funding

ISIL sells its oil, but who is buying it?

Then go after ISIS. Not Americanize the oil. This is insane. A STABLE Syria/Iraq govt would NEVER have been run over by ISIS. We DESTABILIZED both of them. And America has NO WILL or right to spend another 12 years and 3000 dead and wounded troops defending oil for Exxon Mobil.

ISIS TOOK heavy military equipment and arms from the Iraqis like candy from children. And it was OUR weapons. How much longer do you want US to be the "Iraqi Army" ????

Right. And then it was our responsibility to stay and defend our interests. Instead, we left too early and now the place is a mess.

If 12 years and 4000 wounded and dead American boys and $Trill didn't make Iraq bloom with enlightenment and unity and Democracy --- what other "interest" would keep you there indefinitely? We went IN on false premises. Which means that 24 years now, we tortured and bombed and destroyed their lives and their political stability. And NOW you want us to go back and protect oil that belongs to Exxon Mobil?

You do realize that now IRAN is in effective control of 1/3 of Iraq. The Sunni/Shiah split looks more permanent every day, and the KURDISH region is never going back under Iraqi control. You ready to fix all that?

NOTE Chris -- there are 3 questions there -- PLEASE try to answer them..

They were coming along and then we left them high and dry, along with wasting all of that money and all of those lives.

You must have missed the news that they weren't sad to us go. Refuse to give us legal immunity for our military operations IN THEIR COUNTRY. Where are the answers to the 3 questions? And why are you prostrating yourself to defend Trump?

I'm not defending anyone. I'm stating my opinions on the topic.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

You insinuated that when you use ISIS as an example when asking, "Who cares what they feel?".

It is not a fact that they would be better off. Not only must you define what being better off means, not only is that a subjective metric, but you are talking about a series of events that did not happen and assuming that would happen is a fact.

And, of course, whether a people would be better off is not exactly a great reason to decide whether to invade or occupy a country.

Why not? Let's cut out the PC bullcrap for once, huh?

If you think that invading another nation and occupying that nation because we think their people would be better off is "PC", I don't know what to say. That is just crazy, and seem ridiculously too willing to kill and destroy to push your own version of what is 'better' on the world. You've already compared the situation to the US being parents and Iraq a child. That kind of arrogance and willingness to ignore the costs of any war is probably a big part of why we keep getting into conflicts we have no good reason to be in in the first place.

I am not willing to send American troops to fight and die, to kill who knows how many foreign soldiers and civilians in their own nation, just because I think they'd be better off.

We had already invaded. Too late. It was important that we stay and make sure things go right.

I'm sorry. They ARE like children.

 

[ChrisL]

It's really quite pitiful that people cannot see how the world REALLY is because their brains are clouded by PC nonsense. This is not fucking Candy Land.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

You insinuated that when you use ISIS as an example when asking, "Who cares what they feel?".

It is not a fact that they would be better off. Not only must you define what being better off means, not only is that a subjective metric, but you are talking about a series of events that did not happen and assuming that would happen is a fact.

And, of course, whether a people would be better off is not exactly a great reason to decide whether to invade or occupy a country.

Why not? Let's cut out the PC bullcrap for once, huh?

If you think that invading another nation and occupying that nation because we think their people would be better off is "PC", I don't know what to say. That is just crazy, and seem ridiculously too willing to kill and destroy to push your own version of what is 'better' on the world. You've already compared the situation to the US being parents and Iraq a child. That kind of arrogance and willingness to ignore the costs of any war is probably a big part of why we keep getting into conflicts we have no good reason to be in in the first place.

I am not willing to send American troops to fight and die, to kill who knows how many foreign soldiers and civilians in their own nation, just because I think they'd be better off.

We had already invaded. Too late. It was important that we stay and make sure things go right.

I'm sorry. They ARE like children.

So you don't care what THEY think or say. And now you think they need a mommy?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Isis, the Taliban, and every other 'terrorist' group exists exactly because some power in the world said 'screw those people, let's take what we want from them, what are they going to do' at some point in the past.

There are very few people's who endure oppression forever. At some point they say 'what do we have to lose, we are being murdered and our wealth stolen'. Religion is simply a rallying flag to unite a large enough group to fight back, it isn't the driver of the anger. Isil and the other groups have to be defeated but you cause great misery to the people around them that aren't violent and after a while they too will get violent.

The only answer is to allow these people to form whatever country they form. Better to keep others from interfering like Iran but they share a border and that is nearly impossible. Iraq is a created state to begin with. The best thing to do with Iraq is break it up into three countries. Sunni, Shia, and Kurd in the North. Otherwise they'll fight until the end of time.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

You insinuated that when you use ISIS as an example when asking, "Who cares what they feel?".

It is not a fact that they would be better off. Not only must you define what being better off means, not only is that a subjective metric, but you are talking about a series of events that did not happen and assuming that would happen is a fact.

And, of course, whether a people would be better off is not exactly a great reason to decide whether to invade or occupy a country.

Why not? Let's cut out the PC bullcrap for once, huh?

If you think that invading another nation and occupying that nation because we think their people would be better off is "PC", I don't know what to say. That is just crazy, and seem ridiculously too willing to kill and destroy to push your own version of what is 'better' on the world. You've already compared the situation to the US being parents and Iraq a child. That kind of arrogance and willingness to ignore the costs of any war is probably a big part of why we keep getting into conflicts we have no good reason to be in in the first place.

I am not willing to send American troops to fight and die, to kill who knows how many foreign soldiers and civilians in their own nation, just because I think they'd be better off.

We had already invaded. Too late. It was important that we stay and make sure things go right.

I'm sorry. They ARE like children.

So you don't care what THEY think or say. And now you think they need a mommy?

Obviously they do. Is that not clear to you?

 

[flacaltenn]

You insinuated that when you use ISIS as an example when asking, "Who cares what they feel?".

It is not a fact that they would be better off. Not only must you define what being better off means, not only is that a subjective metric, but you are talking about a series of events that did not happen and assuming that would happen is a fact.

And, of course, whether a people would be better off is not exactly a great reason to decide whether to invade or occupy a country.

Why not? Let's cut out the PC bullcrap for once, huh?

If you think that invading another nation and occupying that nation because we think their people would be better off is "PC", I don't know what to say. That is just crazy, and seem ridiculously too willing to kill and destroy to push your own version of what is 'better' on the world. You've already compared the situation to the US being parents and Iraq a child. That kind of arrogance and willingness to ignore the costs of any war is probably a big part of why we keep getting into conflicts we have no good reason to be in in the first place.

I am not willing to send American troops to fight and die, to kill who knows how many foreign soldiers and civilians in their own nation, just because I think they'd be better off.

We had already invaded. Too late. It was important that we stay and make sure things go right.

I'm sorry. They ARE like children.

So you don't care what THEY think or say. And now you think they need a mommy?

Obviously they do. Is that not clear to you?

No it is not clear that they need US to mommy them. They are the "basket of civilization". They had a functioning country for THOUSANDS of years before we put them "under containment" 25 years ago. And YOU or the the entire RESOURCES of the USA is not able to fix now what we broke.