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

[twomp]

Is that the best you can come back at me with? Pitiful. lol

Having you admit that I am smarter than you was more than enough for today. Thanks! =)

 

[LibertyEagle]

Having you admit that I am smarter than you was more than enough for today. Thanks! =)

You can dream. lol

 

[Danke]

Oil regimes don't agree with us. We have all the oil we need, we want to control the price of oil.

Not only the price, but in which currently it is traded. The Petrodallar.

 

[twomp]

You can dream. lol

LOL! I guess dreams do come true. Either that or you are delusional which would explain a lot...

Beats me. You're just too smart for me, twomp.

But if it's any consolation, while I am flattered, it's not that big of a deal. Trump supporters aren't all that bright...

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, Trump's main sin is supporting existing policy that Bush started, Hillary supported completely and Obama has been carrying on reluctantly. This is what we've been saying for a year now, Trump is a neocon.

Yeah, that's why Trump has talked so much against empire building and for using our military for our own national defense.

He doesn't take it far enough, but thus far, it's inaccurate to claim he is supporting Bush's plan for empire and overthrowing sovereign nations.

 

[robert68]

Trump Campaign Announces ​Amb. R. James Woolsey as a Senior Advisor - September 12, 2016

Former Bill Clinton Director of Central Intelligence Crosses Party Lines to Advise the Republican Nominee

New York, NY - Today, the Trump Campaign is proud to announce Amb. R. James Woolsey as a Senior Advisor.

Amb. R. James Woolsey stated, “I have been a ‘Scoop Jackson,’ ‘Joe Lieberman,’ Democrat all of my adult life, but I am pleased to be asked to participate with others I respect in advising GOP candidate Donald J. Trump on the urgent need to reinvest in and modernize our military in order to confront the challenges of the 21st century. Mr. Trump’s commitment to reversing the harmful defense budget cuts signed into law by the current administration, while acknowledging the need for debt reduction, is an essential step toward reinstating the United States’ primacy in the conventional and digital battlespace."
...

 

[puppetmaster]

I think what I was saying is that Trump supporters are WACK and you are proving my point. Do you know how to read? Look at the person I quoted. He said going in for oil was better than "the reason we were given." The reason we were given. The reason we were given. Get it? Probably not. Trump supporters aren't the brightest. Let me ask you, what reason were we given? Hmmmm??? Genius.

I think the truth is better than a lie. Even if you disagree with the truth. Relax a bit. I don't think one person on this board is really excited about a Trump presidency past the turmoil it has and will cause in our government . But what you call a Trump supporter is really just a person that doesn't want a hillary presidency. Until someone else steps up with a shot at beating the bitch, I will vote for Trump. I do not agree with most of what he stands for but I don't agree with anything hillary stands/lies for. The only people I have ever supported have been Ron and Rand Paul.

 

[nikcers]

Ihink the truth is better than a lie. Even if you disagree with the truth. Relax a bit. I don't think one person on this board is really excited about a Trump presidency past the turmoil it has and will cause in our government . But what you call a Trump supporter is really just a person that doesn't want a hillary presidency. Until someone else steps up with a shot at beating the bitch, I will vote for Trump. I do not agree with most of what he stands for but I don't agree with anything hillary stands/lies for. The only people I have ever supported have been Ron and Rand Paul.

You don't want someone pissing on you and telling you its raining so you prefer someone pissing on you and telling you its piss?

 

[nikcers]

I fail to see how this is an apples and oranges comparison when you can replace Bush with Trump and the statement doesn't become false.

Yeah, that's why Trump has talked so much against empire building and for using our military for our own national defense.

He doesn't take it far enough, but thus far, it's inaccurate to claim he is supporting Bush's plan for empire and overthrowing sovereign nations.

Yeah, that's why Trump Bush has talked so much against empire building and for using our military for our own national defense.

 

[puppetmaster]

You don't want someone pissing on you and telling you its raining so you prefer someone pissing on you and telling you its piss?

i don't want someone passing on me....you are correct. No one likes to be lied too.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

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

That's the plebe-tier leftist analysis. Saddam (along with Gaddafi and Asad) wanted to buck the petrodollar and the entangled alliances between the states in Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East were/are the only thing standing in the way an Americanism that controls the globe. As Moldbug said, there are three truly sovereign states on Earth today: China, Russia, and the "international community". Once you can substitute the word "global" in that last one, their work is done.

A realpolitik, classical imperialist policy on Iraq would go as follows:

1. Crush the Iraqi military with overwhelming force.
2. Go to the Baathists who are willing to play ball and offer them power under the new regime. I doubt too many of them were genuinely loyal to Saddam. Those who are, die.
3. Attempt to recreate the structure of government under Saddam as quickly as possible after the conflict ends, including the secret police.
4. Make it clear that although the Baathists will be given power, that suppression of Shiites by Sunni Muslims will no longer be tolerated so as not to create an insurgency. Shiites are to be allowed into the new government. Anyone who attempts to inflame sectarian conflict will be executed and their property seized.
5. Immediately start working out oil rights to enrich the US, while giving a cut to the Iraqis to keep the economy somewhat decent and the newly-created state happy.
6. Above all, NO DEMOCRACY!

Bush didn't do that. In fact, he did the opposite of what any king or emperor worthy of the title would have done.

 

[twomp]

I think the truth is better than a lie. Even if you disagree with the truth. Relax a bit. I don't think one person on this board is really excited about a Trump presidency past the turmoil it has and will cause in our government . But what you call a Trump supporter is really just a person that doesn't want a hillary presidency. Until someone else steps up with a shot at beating the bitch, I will vote for Trump. I do not agree with most of what he stands for but I don't agree with anything hillary stands/lies for. The only people I have ever supported have been Ron and Rand Paul.

Now you are lying. There are Trump supporters on these forums who are claiming he will be the end of the neo cons and champagne will fall from the heavens and freedom will ring all through America again. These are liberty oriented forums. So don't come here promoting an authoritarian for president and get all shocked by a hostile reply.

How would people at a church react if Muslims came in promoting their religion? How would people eating at a steak house react if vegetarians came in promoting their lifestyle? What did you think would happen when you came to a liberty oriented forum and started shilling for a tyrant? Sorry you and your fellow supporters feelings are hurt. I'm sure there's some other tyrant friendly forums where you can cheer on your authoritarian in peace.

 

[nikcers]

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.

Louis Farakhan has done interesting analysis on Obama and Trump.

Yeah but going soley on pre-election campaign rhetoric, Trump has criticized Obama for not supporting regime change in Iran..

 

[John F Kennedy III]

If this is true, Trump's main sin then is he is verbalizing in plain words an existing policy that Bush started, Hillary supported completely and Obama has been carrying on reluctantly.


In that case, thank you Mr. Trump for being so honest. Quite refreshing for a change.

Lol @ reluctantly

 

[A. Havnes]

If Saddam Hussein was left in power, ISIS wouldn't have gotten a foothold. If we hadn't invaded Iraq and imposed sanctions on them at all, then we wouldn't have this major blowback in the form of new terrorism. ISIS is surely formed, in part, by people who were negatively affected by our reckless invasions throughout the Middle East. Perhaps ISIS would have formed regardless of our own past actions, but it certainly wouldn't have the fuel that is does.

We provided ISIS with fuel, figuratively, ourselves when we sowed the seeds of despair and destruction throughout the region, and now we're stuck with a problem. Do we fight ISIS and risk creating yet another terrorist sect in its wake? Or is ISIS considered scarier than Americans? Maybe we should let Russia take care of ISIS and start minding our own business?

Now, in Trump's defense (it makes me gag to type this), an article at the Ron Paul institute suggests stopping ISIS through oil. It's a short-term operation that doesn't go into another dragged-out war, but it's an option. Note that it's never suggested to steal the oil, as such a move would stir unnecessary resentment.

You Won't Like It, But Here's the Answer To ISIS

 

[dean.engelhardt]

So taking the oil is a better reason for invading a country than democracy and freedom?? Trump supporters are wack.... Both reasons are equally retarded.

I am insulted being called a Trump supporter. Just as 4 years ago, Gary Johnson has my vote. IMO bombing innocent people to free them is many times more retarded the bombing them to take their resources. They are equally evil, but war to acquire resources has an attainable goal and has a long history. Yes you can have an evil, fiscally responsible war.

Remember that W. got elected in 2000 on a campaign that looked more Ron Paul than Neocon. The Iraqi war was something I could not figure out. We knew Saddam had used chemical weapons inside his borders. There were silly Intel reports of metal tubes that could be used as part of nuclear weapons. Saddam also was an Al-Qaida killer. There were verbal threats, but no real threat to the US from a Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq.

Add to it that we knew Al-Qaida was in Afghanistan and Pakistan region. We needed the military resources to fight the terrorist that attacked on US soil. North Korea posed a much realistic nuclear threat than Iraq.

I opposed the Iraq war from the first day but, I said the war only makes sense if Iraq becomes a US territory and the US acquires the oil.

 

[Ender]

That's the plebe-tier leftist analysis. Saddam (along with Gaddafi and Asad) wanted to buck the petrodollar and the entangled alliances between the states in Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East were/are the only thing standing in the way an Americanism that controls the globe. As Moldbug said, there are three truly sovereign states on Earth today: China, Russia, and the "international community". Once you can substitute the word "global" in that last one, their work is done.

A realpolitik, classical imperialist policy on Iraq would go as follows:

1. Crush the Iraqi military with overwhelming force.
2. Go to the Baathists who are willing to play ball and offer them power under the new regime. I doubt too many of them were genuinely loyal to Saddam. Those who are, die.
3. Attempt to recreate the structure of government under Saddam as quickly as possible after the conflict ends, including the secret police.
4. Make it clear that although the Baathists will be given power, that suppression of Shiites by Sunni Muslims will no longer be tolerated so as not to create an insurgency. Shiites are to be allowed into the new government. Anyone who attempts to inflame sectarian conflict will be executed and their property seized.
5. Immediately start working out oil rights to enrich the US, while giving a cut to the Iraqis to keep the economy somewhat decent and the newly-created state happy.
6. Above all, NO DEMOCRACY!

Bush didn't do that. In fact, he did the opposite of what any king or emperor worthy of the title would have done.

I am not a leftist- and I suggest you read:

Confessions Of An Economic Hitman by John Perkins

Quite enlightening about the Military/Industrial Complex run by crony capitalism.

 

[puppetmaster]

Now you are lying. There are Trump supporters on these forums who are claiming he will be the end of the neo cons and champagne will fall from the heavens and freedom will ring all through America again. These are liberty oriented forums. So don't come here promoting an authoritarian for president and get all shocked by a hostile reply.

How would people at a church react if Muslims came in promoting their religion? How would people eating at a steak house react if vegetarians came in promoting their lifestyle? What did you think would happen when you came to a liberty oriented forum and started shilling for a tyrant? Sorry you and your fellow supporters feelings are hurt. I'm sure there's some other tyrant friendly forums where you can cheer on your authoritarian in peace.

if you read my post you would see if am not promoting Trump. Just voting for him at this moment.

 

[twomp]

if you read my post you would see if am not promoting Trump. Just voting for him at this moment.

Well then, you don't need to feel offended. You and all your fellow supporters can vote for who you want. I will treat a Trump supporter that shills for him on this forum the same as I would treat a Clinton supporter who tries to shill for her on this forum. But I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with me doing that now would you?

 

[puppetmaster]

Well then, you don't need to feel offended. You and all your fellow supporters can vote for who you want. I will treat a Trump supporter that shills for him on this forum the same as I would treat a Clinton supporter who tries to shill for her on this forum. But I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with me doing that now would you?

Again I don't feel I am a Trump supporter but you can think what you want. I also think liberty has a better shot with Trump than with Hillary. I have no problem with you opinions here either.I'd drink an beer with anyone on this forum