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

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

How can one be an imperialist without being an interventionist first? what am I missing here?

Interventionism is a modern concept, whereas imperialism is ancient. "Interventionism" doesn't just refer to "proactive use of the military". It emerged in the 19th Century, then became the order of the post-Westphalian West after World War I. It is an invention of the nation-state and a recent phenomenon.

Imperialism also spread other things like killing, oppression, plunder, disease(not always on purpose)

Why did slavery rapidly disappear as a legal institution throughout much of the world in the 19th Century? The British Empire. Why did Sati (the Indian tradition of a widowed woman throwing herself upon her husband's funeral pyre) go away? The British Empire. Why did the Aztecs stop sacrificing people by the thousands to their pagan gods and playing polo with people's heads? The Spanish Empire.

I could go on.

but to the white nationalist crowd, imperialism was all peaches and cream.

That's what's funny and demonstrates the ignorance of so many WNs. Nationalism was originally a leftist, anti-imperialist and anti-monarchy ideology. That's one of the reasons I'm not (in principle) a nationalist. I support nationalism over globalism; one is clearly worse than the other at this point in history. The enemies of civilization are my enemies. Right now those are the globalists, but in the 19th Century it was the nationalists like the revolutionaries in France,

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.

To put your fears to rest, here's a picture of me in real life:

 

[Rad]

Trump is wrong but it makes more logical sense to me to plunder and have tribute paid to the United States than going into debt in order to buy armaments to keep jobs (which are dropped on poor people who really can't do anything serious to the United States) as Blitzer explained to Rand. The Iraq war was supposed to pay for its self. We've seen Trump thinking there and it failed. Iraqi oil has not been used to pay for the US attack and occupation of Iraq. How exactly is he going to take the oil? How many soldiers would it take to take and keep the oil indefinitely?

 

[dean.engelhardt]

How exactly is he going to take the oil? How many soldiers would it take to take and keep the oil indefinitely?

Probably similar to the number of troops at the DMZ between North and South Korea. I did not support the Iraq war or the idea of plundering the country, but the idea that stationing troops in Iraq is an undue financial burden should be applied to the other 150 countries we station troops for free.

 

[juleswin]

Probably similar to the number of troops at the DMZ between North and South Korea. I did not support the Iraq war or the idea of plundering the country, but the idea that stationing troops in Iraq is an undue financial burden should be applied to the other 150 countries we station troops for free.

The problem with getting other countries to pay for a service like the US military presence is that in the vast majority of the places where they are stationed, they are not needed there. The few places where they are truly needed like Ukraine and Syria(terrorist held areas), the group there cannot pay for it. Just imagine trying to convince the German, Japanese, Philippine, South Korean voters to pay the dollar amount the US govt spends on these guys? No fucking way they would agree to it. Its sorta like trying to get cable subscribers to pay extra for TLC channel. Nobody would pay for it, but wouldn't mind if it came for free or in some package where it doesn't cost extra to get.

Countries would rather pay for equipment and training for their own troops than hire foreign troops for 20-30 yrs +. But maybe Trump forcing these countries to pay full price for the troops will reveal the myth that they are there for the benefit of the host country as opposed to being there for self interest.

 

[Rad]

Probably similar to the number of troops at the DMZ between North and South Korea. I did not support the Iraq war or the idea of plundering the country, but the idea that stationing troops in Iraq is an undue financial burden should be applied to the other 150 countries we station troops for free.

That is true about the financial burden, but I think Korea is safer. I never hear of Americans being killed there. The troops provided a free service in Iraq as target practice for the locals and explosives producers. I think if Trump tried to take the oil there would be renewed interest in fighting Americans there.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Trump is wrong but it makes more logical sense to me to plunder and have tribute paid to the United States than going into debt in order to buy armaments to keep jobs (which are dropped on poor people who really can't do anything serious to the United States) as Blitzer explained to Rand. The Iraq war was supposed to pay for its self. We've seen Trump thinking there and it failed. Iraqi oil has not been used to pay for the US attack and occupation of Iraq. How exactly is he going to take the oil?

Have you heard of pipelines?

How many soldiers would it take to take and keep the oil indefinitely?

There would be no need to do that.

 

[Rad]

Have you heard of pipelines?



There would be no need to do that.

Someone would have to protect the oil infrastructure from sabotage.