It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Funny they shared alot of the same donors and not much has changed as promised. Home or abroad. I disliked both just to put it out there. And Hillary seems as she will be a as heavy handed in foreign affairs.




posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Annee

Funny they shared alot of the same donors and not much has changed as promised. Home or abroad. I disliked both just to put it out there. And Hillary seems as she will be a as heavy handed in foreign affairs.


You can believe that - its your choice.

From the PNAC. Have you read it?:


Kristol and Kagan advocated regime change in Iraq throughout the Iraq disarmament crisis. Following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, core members of the PNAC including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick, and John Bolton were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Portraying Saddam Hussein as a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, and emphasizing the potential danger of any Weapons of Mass Destruction under Iraq's control, the letter asserted that the United States could "no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections." Stating that American policy "cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council," the letter's signatories asserted that "the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." Believing that UN sanctions against Iraq would be an ineffective means of disarming Iraq, PNAC members also wrote a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, urging Congress to act, and supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which President Clinton signed into law in October 1998. In February 1998, some of the same individuals who had signed the PNAC letter in January also signed a similar letter to Clinton, from the bipartisan Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective. The memo questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition, which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion. Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", or regime change. The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," even if no evidence surfaced linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks. The letter warned that allowing Hussein to remain in power would be "an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."] From 2001 through the invasion of Iraq, the PNAC and many of its members voiced active support for military action against Iraq, and asserted leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism." en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

What are you implying with that article.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Annee

What are you implying with that article.


Are you aware of the PNAC?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Thank you for showing that to me. I tried to find the funding for it but failed. I have a thread on the poison of Think Tanks, unfortunately I haven't had time to do much research on it.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix


Yea tax payers should foot the bill when the country has all that oil wealth. You cant be serious. Lets stop being fools. We liberate your country and you will help with the bill.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: kruphix


Yea tax payers should foot the bill when the country has all that oil wealth. You cant be serious. Lets stop being fools. We liberate your country and you will help with the bill.


The US wasn't asked to. In fact the UN said NO. So why should they foot the bill for something that was thrust on them? Sounds like piracy to me.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

So if I invaded my neighbors house to remoddle it, and made it worse. Does he still help me with the bill when he didn't ask and I made it worse?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't know maybe for you it would.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid


The who?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I get the joke, but they didn't want us to and it's obviously far worse now. So I say we suck it up and learn our lesson on that one.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: intrepid


The who?



Exactly. Dismissed the UN. Dismissed Iraq. Did what they wanted to. How does that mean that Iraq should pay for it?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

This is why people hate the US. Not me, I just want my country to recognize our mistakes fix them and move on.
edit on 8-9-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well fro one thing its not like the joe six packs of the country side are going to share in any of the oil wealth. The only cry babies were the dam hob knobers. We should have taken the oil and not acted like a bunch of chump boy scouts about it.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid


Its called the real world. Are we boy scouts, world cops what? Joe Taxpayer paying for it thats ok with you then? Not even a lesser of two evil or some thing?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

What's funny is you think you'd benefit from that. Oil companies would. Or we can stop purposely retarding batteries technology and drive around for pennies. But oh no, you wouldn't make your republican friends richer. And than you wouldn't get praise from them for your free shilling ... Womp womp.
edit on 8-9-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: intrepid


Its called the real world. Are we boy scouts, world cops what? Joe Taxpayer paying for it thats ok with you then? Not even a lesser of two evil or some thing?



No. The world wants you to piss off and leave us and our resources alone. Your "real world" is lacking in reality.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Hay man spare me the drip. At least we didn't charge anyone for all the mass graved dead bodies mass murdered by Sad-Dam that we dug up.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: kruphix
Yea tax payers should foot the bill when the country has all that oil wealth. You cant be serious. Lets stop being fools. We liberate your country and you will help with the bill.

Yes, the invading country should pay for it. Its the invader's govt who decided to invade another country, not the other way around. Why should Iraq pay the US for destroying its cities, disbanding it largest political party, disbanding its military, and helping kill hundreds of thousands of its civilians? Invaded countries should get paid restitution for being attacked, not be charged for being invaded (since wars of aggression are against international law, anyway).

In a case like the Gulf War/Desert Storm, the GCC countries basically used Western troops to fight the war for them. So yeah, it makes sense for them to pay some of the costs. But neither the govts of Iraq nor Syria even want us there, meaning that argument doesn't work in those cases.


originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: kruphix
Yea tax payers should foot the bill when the country has all that oil wealth. You cant be serious. Lets stop being fools. We liberate your country and you will help with the bill.


The US wasn't asked to. In fact the UN said NO. So why should they foot the bill for something that was thrust on them? Sounds like piracy to me.


Exactly. Conquerors throughout recorded history have claimed they were helping the people they invaded, slaughtered, and plundered. And it's always the conquered nations who pay the highest prices anyway, both in the number of dead and in the destroyed infrastructures.

Defense contractors profit from selling the equipment to attack & occupy a country, then other contractors profit from repairing the damage & arming the new govt. Neither situation helps the average taxpayer/citizen.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: intrepid

Hay man spare me the drip. At least we didn't charge anyone for all the mass graved dead bodies mass murdered by Sad-Dam that we dug up.



YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE! Sorry. It seems like you may be hard of hearing.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join