Let's analyze Trump's response about stealing Iraq's oil from last night's forum.

op, i'm surprised you're not getting more responses here from our trump supporters.

i think they're in the other thread squabbling about whether Hillary wore an ear piece or not.

a reply to: Fromabove

I fully support taking the oil. "To the victor goes the spoils of war."

But Trump said there were no victors...that is kind of the point, he contradicted himself.

We take the oil and sell it to pay off the war and then only give it back if the nation that attacked us changes it's ways.

You do realize that the oil we are talking about is still in the ground...right?

Which brings us to Lauer's question..."how".

Trump's answer..."we leave a certain group"...of course, we didn't I think of that.

a reply to: kruphix

That certain group will be Trump Oil

Will be the best oil ever sold,ever!

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: kruphix

That certain group will be Trump Oil

Will be the best oil ever sold,ever!

Protected by Trumps Troopers...his PMC branch

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: kruphix

That certain group will be Trump Oil

Will be the best oil ever sold,ever!

LOL.

Every barrel of oil will come with a Trump steak and an honorary diploma from Trump U.

a reply to: knoxie

op, i'm surprised you're not getting more responses here from our trump supporters.

trump acolytes don't deal in facts, just fantasy.

I remember there was discussion re "why not just take the oil" when The US invaded Iraq, 2003. Sure sounds good, "to the victor belongs the spoils", but as of 1907 (Hague and then later Geneva Conventions) it is against international law. A nation's resources must be safeguarded by the occupiers (for the benefit of the people of the country occupied), although it can be used to offset costs of occupation while occupying, and under no circumstances is the resource to be used for "enrichment" of the occupier.

short version
long version pdf

What Trump wants to do is against international law.

a reply to: kruphix

Unfortunately, he's said similar things before. I just made THIS POST several days ago about it, and that was before the recent forum. It includes an interview w/the Wall Street Journal in 2011 where he was also saying we should take their oil (and that he wouldn't have attacked Libya unless we took their oil, too).

But I guess we're supposed to ignore that to talk about a possible earpiece in Hillary's ear, as if that's even remotely as bad as what Trump's saying. So I've concluded that his supporters know about this stance and are ok with it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I bounce in between them both. Never seen two candidates give me so much ammo Haha.

originally posted by: desert
I remember there was discussion re "why not just take the oil" when The US invaded Iraq, 2003. Sure sounds good, "to the victor belongs the spoils", but as of 1907 (Hague and then later Geneva Conventions) it is against international law. A nation's resources must be safeguarded by the occupiers (for the benefit of the people of the country occupied), although it can be used to offset costs of occupation while occupying, and under no circumstances is the resource to be used for "enrichment" of the occupier.

short version
long version pdf

What Trump wants to do is against international law.

Yep agree, and what they currently do blowing up countries just to bring the big corps in to make a fortune off rebuilding them. All the while robbing us taxpayers.

originally posted by: kruphix
Liberals don't see the military as a tool for conquest and gain, they see it as a tool for protection and peace.

Classic liberals may have felt that way...
Regressive(current) liberals are very authoritarian and are not beyond making individual's comply with force. Take Obama care for example. If you don't opt-in then the IRS fines you. If you do not comply to that then the IRS shows us with armed agents. Kinda weird for a group of people so against the military/police they would embrace the whole progression of force ideology. An almost exact opposite ideology that liberalism was founded on.

By all means keep telling yourself the military is only a tool for peace under liberal control. Meanwhile the people of Yemen and Somalia are experiencing more unsanctioned outside of combat drone strikes than the world has ever seen. All brought to you by the Liberal and Chief sitting in the White house.

a reply to: JAY1980

Obama has bombed more countries than Bush, just saying.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: JAY1980

Obama has bombed more countries than Bush, just saying.

Numbers without reasons? Just a flat out number doesn't really say all that much.

Do you have body count comparisons too?

a reply to: Annee

Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia. Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.


Bush has more, Obama has more US citizen assassinations

They should have "taken the oil", he is right.

And he will probably do that if he is elected.

It's a good strategic move.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Annee

Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia. Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.


Bush has more, Obama has more US citizen assassinations

Years?

Body Count? (ours and theirs)

Cost of war(s)

Just naming countries really doesn't mean much. Its like a "false value".

a reply to: Annee

I made a statement, the statement was true. And now your attaching other things, youre more than welcome to Google any of your questions that you brought up.


By the way this is no secret. Obama said he did it when defending the Iran seal.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia. Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.

there's an idea yemen was bombed as early as 2002, under w.

either way 2002 or 2011, its 2016 and were still bombing, if it ain't broke...

a reply to: Annee

Let me reiterate the broad view of my point. Obama hasn't changed much, presidents get put there to keep things the way they are. He is as "conservative" as Bush minus Obama care. Great product by the way.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Annee

Let me reiterate the broad view of my point. Obama hasn't changed much, presidents get put there to keep things the way they are. He is as "conservative" as Bush minus Obama care. Great product by the way.

Interesting read: Who killed more terrorists, Obama or Bush? It depends: www.politifact.com...

I'm not going to agree with your "conspiracy" viewpoint.

IMO - - Obama is left with what Bush escalated.

Obama has no choice but to react to the increase in terrorism. He isn't really left with any other choice.