In 2002, Donald Trump Said He Supported Invading Iraq

[RandallFan]

Cruz & Kasich's donors have spent billions in ads rewarding pro-war candidates and jobs for pro-war lobbyists.

I doubt Trump's little donors are giving him money thinking intervention is always needed.


Trump supports dropping bombs on people waving black ISIS flags. Not CIA ops against leaders who have differing views on oil pipelines under the black and caspian seas.

 

[jmdrake]

i wasn't. Howard Stern asks Trump in 2002 about invading Iraq. Yeah I guess so. That sounds like a ringing endorsement doesn't it. I guess so. Then Sean Shammity one of the biggest Bush Iraq war supporters around says the exact opposite. The same Sean Shammity who trashed Ron Paul for his opposition to the Iraq disaster

When he said "I guess so" on Howard Stern he added "We should have done it right the first time." What we "didn't to the first time" is overthrow Saddam. So sure, after Iraq was a disaster, Trump was willing to be against the Iraq war. But then he was for the Libya war. Calling Trump non interventionist in the light of the ovewrwhelming evidence to the contrary is just laughable.

 

[jmdrake]

I freely admit Shammity is an idiot. But he's friends with Trump. Known Trump personally for 20+ years.

Nothing that you have said at this point undermines the evidence that Trump actually was not against the war from the beginning. Someone who is against a war does not say "I guess so" to the question "Should we go to war." In 2002 Ron Paul was not saying "I guess so." Ron Paul also didn't say "We should have done the job right in Iraq the first time" implying that regime change should have happened sooner according to Trump.

 

[jmdrake]

The length of sophism that anti trump people sink to.

The length of mental gymnastics the pro Trump people will sink to. So now "I guess so" means "I'm against this." Hmmm...if you ask a woman if she'd like to have sex and she says "I guess so" and you have sex then you must be a rapist according to the pro Trump logic.

 

[jmdrake]

Trump supports dropping bombs on people waving black ISIS flags. Not CIA ops against leaders who have differing views on oil pipelines under the black and caspian seas.

Trump supported a full scale invasion against Ghaddaffi. The intervention in Libya that Trump supported helped give rise to ISIS! Yes Trump criticized it after the fact when it went bad. He's a hindsight non interventionist. Cruz was against the intervention in Libya the whole time.

 

[Mordan]

You mean we all agree that it's true that Trump supports military action against ISIS?

Or we all agree with him that we should do that?

I meant. We all agree that invading Afghanistan after 2001 was the right thing to do. In and Out. Job done. No nation building. I think Trump wants to do that with ISIS.

 

[Mordan]

OK. We are bickering about the meaning of words.

Just rank candidates "war hawk" value. I will agree Rand has the lowest. But between Hillary Trump and Cruz. Trump has the lowest. Sanders I'm not sure.

In my guts, I feel Trump just don't want wars. But he has to sound tough to win primaries in the GOP. The SC debate is proof.

 

[CPUd]

I meant. We all agree that invading Afghanistan after 2001 was the right thing to do. In and Out. Job done. No nation building. I think Trump wants to do that with ISIS.

Actually, Trump wants to bomb the shit out of ISIS, torture their families and take their oil.







Surely this will not piss them off even more.

 

[Mordan]

on the torture count I totally disagree with Trump.

On bombing ISIS, it is a figure of speech. It means "get a deal with Putin" and do what Ron Paul supported in Afghanistan. Get in. Destroy them. Get out. Get their oil means stop allowing Turkey to buy oil and fund ISIS! Maybe more because Trump is not a real pure non-interventionist, even though I see articles in the MSN saying Trump is an isolationist!!!! How can Trump be an isolationist? How dare he say that the USA should stop policing the world by spending billions of dollars.

It is called social pressure. Parents should be responsible for the education of their children.

 

[CPUd]

on the torture count I totally disagree with Trump.

On bombing ISIS, it is a figure of speech. It means "get a deal with Putin" and do what Ron Paul supported in Afghanistan. Get in. Destroy them. Get out. Get their oil means stop allowing Turkey to buy oil and fund ISIS! Maybe more because Trump is not a real pure non-interventionist, even though I see articles in the MSN saying Trump is an isolationist!!!! How can Trump be an isolationist? How dare he say that the USA should stop policing the world by spending billions of dollars.

It is called social pressure. Parents should be responsible for the education of their children.

No, he's not talking about just stopping countries from buying their oil. He's talking about bombing the shit out of their refineries and taking their oil.

 

[klamath]

OK. We are bickering about the meaning of words.

Just rank candidates "war hawk" value. I will agree Rand has the lowest. But between Hillary Trump and Cruz. Trump has the lowest. Sanders I'm not sure.

In my guts, I feel Trump just don't want wars. But he has to sound tough to win primaries in the GOP. The SC debate is proof.

No if you are going to rank them it would be Cruz first. He actually was speaking against the Libyan war AT THE TIME.
Sanders supports all democratic wars, opposes Republican wars.

 

[silverhandorder]

No if you are going to rank them it would be Cruz first. He actually was speaking against the Libyan war AT THE TIME.
Sanders supports all democratic wars, opposes Republican wars.

Cruz has no spine. He will do w/e is expedient. Trump on other hand can be trusted to stand up to pressure.

 

[Fivezeroes]

CPUd you're too liberal for your own good. I have destroyed your argument over going after ISIS family before and here it goes again. DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR FAMILY WOULD BE SAFE FROM THEM? Seriously DO YOU? Because if you do, I have Ocean Front property in Arizona that I can sell you, on the cheap.

 

[klamath]

Cruz has no spine. He will do w/e is expedient. Trump on other hand can be trusted to stand up to pressure.

I don't defend Cruz. Trump is the most mushy candidate of all the 20 running. The only thing he doesn't back down from is his insulting obloxious comments. EVERYTHING ELSE he mushes all over the place. He calls it flexible... He will be flexibly for his wars....

 

[CPUd]

CPUd you're too liberal for your own good. I have destroyed your argument over going after ISIS family before and here it goes again. DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR FAMILY WOULD BE SAFE FROM THEM? Seriously DO YOU? Because if you do, I have Ocean Front property in Arizona that I can sell you, on the cheap.

Can you rephrase this, in English please?

 

[Fivezeroes]

Can you rephrase this, in English please?

Your English comprehension a bit rusty? Slow down, re-read it and then get back to me.

 

[CPUd]

Your English comprehension a bit rusty? Slow down, re-read it and then get back to me.

I see you're only here to crap on peoples' threads now.

 

[Fivezeroes]

I see you're only here to crap on peoples' threads now.

No I'm here to debate with you. Terrorist don't care about your family, my family, anyone's family. Hell their family is already training for jihad at this moment. So do I think going after their family is fair game? Yep, I do. Because you can best bet if they had the chance to come after yours, mine, or Jim's down the street, they would and they would do much more than bomb you, they would likely cut off your head. Or maybe put you in a steel cage and slowly lower you into the water to drown.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't defend Cruz. Trump is the most mushy candidate of all the 20 running. The only thing he doesn't back down from is his insulting obloxious comments. EVERYTHING ELSE he mushes all over the place. He calls it flexible... He will be flexibly for his wars....

^This. Good grief it's exasperating dealing with the mental gymnastics. So Trump was in favor of the Iraq war before being against it, in favor of the Libya war before being against it, and that shows he can be trusted?

 

[CPUd]

No I'm here to debate with you. Terrorist don't care about your family, my family, anyone's family. Hell their family is already training for jihad at this moment. So do I think going after their family is fair game? Yep, I do. Because you can best bet if they had the chance to come after yours, mine, or Jim's down the street, they would and they would do much more than bomb you, they would likely cut off your head. Or maybe put you in a steel cage and slowly lower you into the water to drown.

How does this position, or support for a candidate who takes this position, advance the cause of liberty?