http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/0 … ep-the-oil
I've said the same thing as Trump way before he went on Oreilly. I'm opposed to war unless it's in self defense and in that case to the victor go the spoils! If we're forced into war we should be compensated for it. So yes take Iraq make it ours take their oil and put Iran on notice!
so it would be take afghan and compensate iraqi for attacking it ..since no one forced usa into iraq... ..well ofcourse oil was purpose from day 1 in iraq...but trump is not usa president and definitely does not understand current world scenario...what he is talking is like ordinary man or woman on streets who has no idea of how world operates and has his/her opinion ...i thought trump was little bit more intelligent than bush...
Trump is a successful business man - that's all. But the US tends to fall in love with bigger-than-life mouth pieces. Bush was a failed businessman and a failed leader.
No Trump is another rich American fool. The states have plenty of these money addicted low-lifes.
I saw his interview with O'Reilly, it was pathetic.
If he or Pailin get in, America will be seen as finished by most of the developed world.
Trump's view of the world is typical of a business tyrant with no knowledge of reality and an attitude that reflects who he is, just like on his show.
Where has the dead rodent gone that he always wore? I saw him the other day with what looks like real hair!
What kinds of fools and low-lifes fill your country?
@earnetshub i agree with you...trump lacks understanding of how world operates as far as politics and affairs goes...he might know how to make money but he seems to lack understanding of every thing else... but on do you think he would have same opinion when he becomes president...i dont think so...speaking on interview is different thing and sitting in hot seat is different thing...it is there when one understands how world operates...i remember obama stating he wont object crossing afghan border to enter pakistan for nabbing terrorist but when he became president , he realize that they can't win afghan without pakistan and he worked on different strategy...speaking in campaign based on no first hand information should not be taken too seriously...
"I'm opposed to war unless it's in self defense "
Huh, we agree on something. Do I hear a seal cracking?
Unfortunately, the rest of the post I can't agree with. First, punitive peace tends to breed resentment, and the resentment festers until perhaps a new war of vengeance breaks out. That's what happened with the punitive peace after WWI.
And pisean already pointed out that the invasion of Iraq was an elective war; nobody in Iraq was planning to (or even capable of!) attack the US until our destabilization of the country allowed al-qaida to move in and start their insurgency.
Your "view" is that Iraq was an elective war that isn't necessarily a fact. Regardless we spent 1.4 Trillion and freed a nation. The Shia now have a voice and hold power and are no longer killed or persecuted. There is now a freely elected government with control over their resources. They OWE us for the lives and treasure expended regardless of the debate on whether it was necessary to our defense.
They should either pay or expect us to take what's ours in victory.
yes usa did blew 1.4 trillion because of one man called bush...how about trying to seize his property and take money from it for spending trillions of hard earn money of people in useless war...why should iraqi pay for that?..it was match between two arrogant men...bush and saddam...and coming to free the nation...well bush finished the nation...once usa goes , iraq would get split in 3 ...and that is finishing the nation , not freeing it...
"Your "view" is that Iraq was an elective war that isn't necessarily a fact. "
Did Iraq attack us? Nope. So it sure wasn't self-defense.
"They OWE us for the lives and treasure expended"
Well, considering all of the collateral damage Iraq suffered during our invasion, and during the subsequent battles with the insurgents, maybe we should just call it even.
I realize that the value of human life in Iraq is not as high as we place on it here in the US.
Still.... I think any jury would add on extra for "pain and suffering."
I don't think we can really call what we did to Iraq "even" (and I know you are just being generous and non-combative, Jeff).
They don't owe us reparations. That's bullshit.
I couldn't have said that better if I tried.
It might also be worth mentioning the fact that we have already had our reparations from Iraq's missing billions of dollars. We (the US) robbed that country blind.
Nonsense! Anyone could have said it better. According to that rather old article the missing pittance (perhaps 23b) could just be not properly accounted for. In any case its a drop in the bucket compared to what we spent in treasure and lives and wounded. I think an oil rich country and one's freedom is worth much.more than 23 billion... but for the haters of America maybe not.
Then, maybe LL just wants Iraq to become our 51st state. That would be a hoot!
Not to rehash the Iraq war but there was a strong case to pursue such action. I would go so far as.to say if Clinton was to serve his second term at the time Bush did, it would have been Clinton that would have attacked which explains why Hillary voted for the war.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … asp?page=1
I'll ask one more time.
Did. Iraq. Attack. Us?
Rather than answer that question, you bring up a whole bunch of other stuff. But, but, but, there was a case for it! But, but, but, Hillary voted for it!
But none of that has anything to do with what I asked.
Did Iraq attack us?
no it didnt...did iraq attack?...no it didnt either...did libya had uprising...yes it had...did united nations called for implementing no fly zone...yes it did...did un backed iraq...no it didnt , infact then secretary general of un called usa's war on iraq illegal...
I did ask anything about Iraq, I asked a simple question.
Now that Obama has committed to military action in Libya, it will be interesting to see if Democrats and anti-war pundits line up to criticize him. Considering an interview today with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), maybe, just maybe, it will happen.
Appearing on Fox News today, Kucinich opened up his interview by reading a quote from none other than Barack Obama, who back in the day criticized President Bush for military action in the Mideast:
“I’m gonna read this and then tell you who said it. ‘The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’ Now that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20, 2007. We’ve got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and president Obama didn’t do that.”
Kucinich also had this nugget: the intervention we’ve already committed to will cost “half-a-billion dollars.”
“We cannot be the policemen of the world, as tragic as the situations are across the world, the United States cannot afford nor do we have the authority to go and intervene,” he added.
As Gateway Pundit reports via USA Today, back in 2007 Obama said preventing genocide is not enough to justify military action:
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
so is it OK since Obama started this war? GW did go to congress. who cares about the UN that is a joke and everyone knows this, they have countries who abuse the citizens and they are on panels. complete joke
The Secretary General of the UN whose son was making a fortune in black market oil deals with saddam while the Iraqi people starved and died of illness because the oil-for-food program had become so corrupt (involving many countries and individuals who were interestingly oppposed to holding saddam accountable to the terms he agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War...).
Flawless logic as always Lady Love.
They OWE us for the lives and treasure expended regardless of the debate on whether it was necessary to our defense.
So by your logic, if someone points a gun to your head and forces you to eat at a restaurant, you should also be responbible for picking up the tab.
Wow.... Home schooled?
What does "home schooled" have to do with anything? Just expressing a prejudice?
"[Iraq]is now a freely elected government with control over their resources."
An oversimplification. The MiddleEast is a collection of tribal clans. The objective, in the most general way possible, is to seek empowerment and or autonomy for their respective group. Human nature is what it is. I believe...the Sunni's will retake what they regard as theirs. Count on it. "Free" elections can't possible work in Middle East. Only white people seem to be consistently under this illusion.
And thus the problem with attempting to superimpose Western political structures on a culture that is not Western...
While I agree that there are fundamental differences in culture, I tend to think that the revolutions in the mid-east stem from a desire for opportunities that the youth in the mid-east see in western cultures. I don't think a carbon copy of traditional democracy will work, but the Facebook generation wants a slice of the pie which totalitarian regimes have denied them.
The questions are:
What will work for that culture?
How do we bring them to what will work for them?
This idea that what we do or don't do affects the level of resentment felt by Muslims is nonsense. The negativity toward all things not Islam is built into the religion itself.
They MIGHT like us better if we slit our own throats but I doubt it.
"This idea that what we do or don't do affects the level of resentment felt by Muslims is nonsense."
Well, it affected the level of resentment felt by Germans after WWI. It's a human thing, not a Muslim thing. Of course, I see the people of Iraq as, y'know, people. I'm funny that way.
"They don't owe us reparations. That's bullshit."
No, they really don't. If anything, we owe them a rebuilt infrastructure. We can't, of course, make up for all the lives lost.
Jeff, it's falling on deaf ears. One of the characteristics of hard-line conservatives is that they are able to compartmentalize human beings, rank them. In other words, no - not everyone is equal in their eyes. It's classic social dominace theory and it's classic conservatism...
That's funny coming from a liberal extremist, given their own attitudes in that regard!
I was, in the past, more of an independent - never voted along party lines, but you Tea Baggers have pretty much soiled the water of impartiality.
First, people who insist on using a childish/vulgar term for that movement effectively remove themselves from any serious political discussion. Anyone who cannot discuss a topic without resorting to such playground nonsense cannot be trusted to, and obviously has no interest in, any serious discussion.
Second, I am not a part of, nor have I ever attended a Tea Party rally or other gathering.
Finally, if you have CHOSEN to take the easy/lazy road of becoming an extremist, don't blame anyone for that choice but yourself.
I just don't believe that you can be serious!
You constantly use childish/vulgar terms, you can't discuss a topic without steering it in directions that you feel safe in and that do not relate to the topic.
You obviously have no interest in discussing any topic, instead engaging in playground nonsense to deflect it!
I have not taken the easy road - I am not an extremist. However we are talking about the Tea Party, or at least i was, and the Tea Party is an extremist, near Neo-Fascist organization. That isn't an accusation - that's an opinion based on their "party" platform. I am an Independent.
Democrats are referred to daily on these forums as libtards, dummycrats, socialists, communists, freedom-hater, haters of the Constitution, etc. etc.
Now it is mainly Tea Party members, or self-professed Tea Party members who sling the insults. So again, who has, at least traditionally, taken this down to the level of schoolyard insults?
AnnCee - you make an interesting observation about how "all things non-Muslim garner hatred..." Of course let's not forget that Christian passage, involving "no man comes to the Father but through me..." So I am not so certain we Christians have much room to talk.
that post made no sense.
How can you be against war, except for defense, but be FOR attacking Iraq?
What? How in the hell did you come to that conclusion?
I'm utterly baffled!!!
Iraq never once attacked us!!! what are you talking about? What?
my brain actually hurts from trying to make sense out of what LadyLove wrote.
Should we have waited for Americans to be killed first when all indications were an attack was immenent? Do we have to first have innocents killed before we act? As I said and as was indicated in the national review piece even Clinton regarded Iraq as a threat.
The fact that he wants to stick it to China gets my vote.
Let's take Iraq and make it ours?
Thanks for your arm-chair foreign policy...but it is clear you have no clue what you're talking about Lady...as usual.. How reckless you are...
By the way..your link doesn't work..
Yes I agree, he would have to change his tune if he got in, but fortunately his big mouth will prevent him even getting a start.
He can't say anything that does not expose his narrow view, and as I said, if he gets in America is finished. No country will survive with a lunatic at the helm. He is a fool, no doubts about it. I don't mind that he is rich, but being rich has never meant that someone is smart, and he certainly is not.
As someone once said, "Say what you will, you can but say what you are."
ya...if some one like him sits in office , well usa is heading for more trouble than what bush gave ..
That is a scary thought for an Australian as well. We are massively dependent on the USD here, and if it gets a cold, we as a small economy get the flue.
I do hope the loony tunes who hate Obama will become as obvious to Americans as they are to Australians.
I'm confident that America will not be stupid enough to go with Donald because he has wealth. He may owe twice what he's worth anyway, as many of these rich fools do. Money is never enough for the trumps of this world, although no matter how much wealth they have it is never enough to calm the sickness which causes this behavior. He, like all those like him are never happy with what they have and want more.
I would hate to see another apparent megalomaniac who in truth has an inferiority complex running America.
Trump is transparently lacking in any real self worth.
Have you worked up a complete psychological profile, or is this just part of your "I hates them rich folks!" attitude?
"I do hope the loony tunes who hate Obama will become as obvious to Americans as they are to Australians."
They're obvious to some of us...
"[Trump] may owe twice what he's worth anyway, as many of these rich fools do. "
Dude, that's, like, the American way! He'll breeze into office.
The only thing that is going to stop war is if we use the internet for world peace. Donald Trump can promise all he wants, but we will still be involved in war.
by My Esoteric3 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on...
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney release their memoirs early next year. What are they and other neoconservatives who pushed for the Iraq War in the Bush Administration saying now? Brookings Institution Senior...
by philx7 years ago
While it would be a just cause I don't think it could ever happen. Look how long it took for Congress to recognize slavery and made the appology in a late night session. This country never has or will admit...
by BillyDRitchie6 years ago
MARCH 19, 2011OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...MARCH 19, 2003BUSH: 'American and...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Oh no! Our commander in chief's strategies have now killed the #1 and the #2 al-Quaeda leaders. Don't you just hate when that happens??Funny how we here zero, zippo, nada anymore about the "war on terror"...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.