Trump: Acquiring plunder is what he thinks U.S. foreign policy is for.

[alucard13mm]

To be honest... where is this plunder? As a tax payer, are we not entitle to some of that plunder? :o...

 

[Jamesiv1]

To be honest... where is this plunder?

It's comes from a land down under
where women glow and men plunder.

Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder?
you better run, you better take cover.

 

[twomp]

To be honest... where is this plunder? As a tax payer, are we not entitle to some of that plunder? :o...

Do you really think the U.S. government will cut you a check? Trump supporter logic...

 

[alucard13mm]

Do you really think the U.S. government will cut you a check? Trump supporter logic...

i guess i should add the sarcasm tag to the end

 

[Ender]

You are a leftist, at least on some issues, especially cultural ones.


I have read it. As well as many other things.


If you're putting forth a position, you shouldn't just say "read [book x]". It's not a way to respond to someone's argument and you shouldn't assume that someone who disagrees is ignorant of your position and what you know.

If you want to have some real dialog, try it w/o insults- you seem intelligent and it will certainly get you farther.

 

[TheCount]

To be honest... where is this plunder? As a tax payer, are we not entitle to some of that plunder? :o...

Plunder from colonies has never gone to the people. It used to go to the rulers. Now it goes to the corporations.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Yea and holding a girl down with a pistol, raping her with a condom on and then blowing her head off with said pistol after you are done makes a lot more sense than raping a girl and then letting her live to rat you out. Fellas, if you are going to be a thieving, murderous, warmongering, imperialist, at least be efficient and good at it. This is the life lesson brought to you by the paleocons and alt right crowd.

Nobody ever stops to ask why Trump want to steal resources, they are Ok just as long as he is good at stealing it.

Imperialism is not the same thing as interventionism. Imperialism spread civilization, enriched the world and improved savage culture. Interventionism created ISIS. That's the point.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If you want to have some real dialog, try it w/o insults- you seem intelligent and it will certainly get you farther.

What insults? The leftist comment? That wasn't supposed to be insulting. From the posts I've seen from you, you are on the cultural left just as I am on the cultural right. It was supposed to be purely descriptive.

Characterizing ideological opponents' disagreements as attacks and insults? You really are​ a leftist.

 

[TheCount]

Imperialism spread civilization, enriched the world and improved savage culture.

 

[unknown]

"If you're gonna attack and beat the shit outta someone, at-least steal their wallet" - Donald J. Trump.

 

[osan]

Taking the oil is the most dangerous and irresponsible of all of the Republican nominee’s policy proposals.

Starts out soundly, and then...

If you want permanent war in the Middle East and a titanic clash of cultures between Islam and America, it’s your best bet.

That ship's sailed. It isn't GOING to happen. It IS happening. Had we left the sand fleas to their sex with pigs, camels, and small children, chances are that they would have left us in peace and Saeed Qotb would not have amounted to so much as a fart in the hurricane of history. But, of course, we didn't and now we will either have to submit to Islam, wipe the world clean of over a billion people, or hope they get tired and go away. Which one of those options appeals to you most?

Trump’s “take the oil” rhetoric is notable for being one of the few consistent foreign policy positions he has held over the years. It unites both his support for military interventions in the region (so that we could then take the oil) and his later criticism of how those interventions were conducted (they were failures because we didn’t take the oil).

Over the years? Has he been making public statements about this for yearS? Anyone?

That aside, what is the object of this article? Hit piece? Fine - so what is the author's alternative? Clinton?

Let us superficially examine the flaws of this hand-wringer's reasoning.

Firstly, the only alternative as of this moment is Clinton. We all know it. We further suspect that this election will be rigged in her favor, so what in hell is this panty-waste crying about?

Failing that and assuming Trump is both elected, INAUGURATED, and is not slain in office, how likely is he to be any worse than Clinton? How likely is it that he would be able to do what he is here accused of planning?

Finally, while we cannot a priori divine what he will actually do as president, we at least have some indication that he might treat US better than would Hillary. If the choice is between a president that may hold us in some actual esteem, however marginally and narrow-mindedly, and Clinton who openly shows her endless contempt and enmity toward us, I would deem Trump the lesser evil. And yes folks, that is hand we have been dealt. We as a statistical body are not rising up, neither "within the system" nor with our rifles, so let us not even waste our time with speak about "alternatives". Theye have the statistical trend WAY on their side, and so therefore until we as a people decide in sufficient numbers either to use "the system" properly and toward less insane goals, or start shooting, we have nothing to talk about other than which of the two Klowns will hurt us less.

We can talk "freedom" all we want. It will avail us no whit until such time as enough of us decide to act as if we were free men and not as sissy men bemused with the fantasies of freedom, too lazy and/or cowardly to actually make a move to snatch it back from the hands we have allowed to steal it from us. Yak yak yak... "oh we'll show 'em next election..." Please. What most in the "liberty movement" appear to want is exactly the same thing the rest of retarded Americans want: freedom handed to them by someone else, having assumed none of the risks and costs of getting it for oneself.

It’s a thoroughly unjust idea

And likely non-practicable to such an extent that it would not be attempted, unless we were willing to commit a true genocide... and even then. Consider the reality of such a move - we put, say, 1 million troops into Eye-Rack and kill every man, woman, and child in the land area. Now we move 10 million Americans into the 51st state and begin pumping the Texas Tea homeward. Does anyone think that, even were we to survive the international repercussions of exterminating an entire national population, we would not have to defend the infrastructure from attack by those sneaking into the area from abroad? What about Russia and China? Would they sit passively by? We could come up with a substantial list of problems with even the simplest scenarios. And what of the American people? Are we so far gone in terms of our morals that we would tolerate such a move, much less condone it? OK, that one may be a gimme... I cannot really tell anymore, given the apparent nature of most of these so-called "millennials" who appear to have all the moral fiber of gravel and even less in the way of clue.

it would be completely illegal to do

And where was this author for the past eight years? That's not a rhetorical question. Has he been complaining about Bammy's actions, or has he been silent?

It should be a reminder that there is no aggressive policy too reckless or provocative that Trump wouldn’t support so long as the U.S. can extract payment or resources along the way, and it tells us that acquiring plunder is what he thinks U.S. foreign policy is for.

BLAH BLAH BLAH goes the author of a cheaply contrived and transparent hit-piece, offering no alternatives and no analysis of the broader circumstance. FAIL.

This is nothing better than a load of childish bullshit. Yes, I agree that the policy is completely ill-conceived, but that is where agreement ends. Whoever the author is, he should get off his keyboard and get himself a real job at something for which he is qualified, like taking up broom and mop and keeping a middle-school's toilets clean for the up and coming generations.

So, for those so wholly against Trump (and let me reiterate that I am not FOR him), what is your alternative? I will warn you ahead that if you say "LP" or some 0.5% poller, I will be forced to whip you with a wet noodle. The only marginally intelligent and principled alternative I can think of is "stay home in November". That, of course, may guarantee Clinton the seat. THEN WHAT? Seriously, what are YOU going to say when after having become the 45, she whips out the giant 13" penis (flaccid) she's been so half-heartedly hiding from public view all these years, gets it all ready and then orders YOU to bend over, men with guns standing at the ready to ensure your compliance? Or do you believe that she is the lesser evil? If so, please explain how you come to that assessment.

 

[osan]

Acquiring plunder is what all governments think domestic policy is for, so why not extend it to the empire?

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Of course, the pound-level of buy-in brings with it some potentially very hard edges. Not every population is so intelligent as to know when they have been conquered, which tends to cut into one's profits... in more ways than one, I would add.

 

[osan]

RJB is a great American.

Danke is a Great American™.

 

[osan]

Going in with overwhelming force and seizing the resources makes a lot more sense than a waging a flaccid war ran by lawyers and spending years and years nation-building. That's the difference between a Carlylean Great Man like Caesar Augustus and a fool like George W. Bush.

See post #92.

 

[osan]

If his plunder doctrine was deemed real, he would be the preferred candidate for Wall Street lobbies, Goldman Sachs of the world, MIC, War profiteers etc. and not this overheating puppet:

I'd forgotten to make this very point. The author quoted in the OP failed to consider that the apparently vehement opposition to him by those you cite would make zero sense if Trump was actually embracing the policies claimed. Would he not be Theire boy under such a case? If not, why not?

 

[osan]

Bush WAS after resources- that's why he attacked Iraq in the first place. Had nothing to do with spreading democracy.

If that be the case, why didn't he get any? I mean, where ARE the resources? Or were the resources in question the profits of Haliburton and so forth? I guess I'm not clear on what the resources in question actually were.

 

[osan]

Iraq before Desert Storm had the fourth largest military in the world. I think it was more influence from Israel that led us to destroy their military. Iraq was a threat to Israel. But, We (U.N. coalition ) didn't finish the job, so we had to go back and create the chaos in the Middle East for, guess what, Israel. Plus any country that does not trade oil in Our Petrodollars will be taken out, just look at Libya and now Syria and eventually Iran. Why is North Korea considered such a threat, no IMF central bank?

Israel is expansionary, they want more and more land. Now, it is just portions of Syria. But their goal goes beyond that.

We have plenty of our own resources, and can trade for whatever we lack. It is the threat to our monetary system (dominance) that drives wars.

If all this is true, and I don't know that it is or is not, why did Israel withdraw from Lebanon? They had it dead to rights. Why didn't they simply keep it as they did Golan, etc.? This appears to be an inconsistency.

Also, why have they not either expatriated the Palestinians or exterminated them? If they truly control America, why would they give a rat's ass about the opinions of the rest of the world? I am thinking perhaps they do not CONTROL America, but simply manipulate it. The results can be functionally identical, but the positions from which each is waged are fundamentally different. Manipulative "control" is not equivalent to hard-wired control in terms of the stability and guarantee of position.

 

[osan]

Going solely by pre-election campaign rhetoric, Obama would then be an "anti war Nobel Peace prize winner" pacifist. I'm sure you don't really believe that.

Just cuz he pretends at times to be something does not mean he actually is something.

That's a money shot right there.

Campaign rhetoric is designed with a goal in mind. Just as with a chasing bear, you only have to not be the slowest person - your rhetoric only has to be good enough.

Once in office, everything changes. Your example of Bammy is perfect. Just hearken back to all his yak... what he was going to do, and so forth. All lies... or perhaps only rendered as such by the hard and cold reality of the office and the context in which it operates. Doesn't really matter. What counts is that we have seen this time and again. What makes anyone thing Trump will be different?

Louis Farakhan has done interesting analysis on Obama and Trump.

Link?

 

[osan]

You can dream. lol

Yes, but with so much moisture? It's uncouth.

 

[juleswin]

Imperialism is not the same thing as interventionism. Imperialism spread civilization, enriched the world and improved savage culture. Interventionism created ISIS. That's the point.

How can one be an imperialist without being an interventionist first? what am I missing here? Imperialism also spread other things like killing, oppression, plunder, disease(not always on purpose) but to the white nationalist crowd, imperialism was all peaches and cream.

But the point of my post is that if you are going to do anything, you might as well do it right. That is what makes sense. You know, if there was one person on this site that was a mustache twirling bad guy, it would be you. You scare the shit out of me because I know unlike some of the other white nationalists out here, you are serious about the stuff you say.