It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Trump's plan to seize Iraq's oil: 'It's not stealing, we're reimbursing ourselves'

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: Bhadhidar

What are you talking about? We saved Iraq. They're much better off now. And most of the people there asked us to go. There's tons of emails from when they had Internet before we invaded them asking George Bush and more specifically Cheney to help them. And if Bush and Cheney didn't delete their emails if prove it!

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:39 AM
a reply to: Profusion

I would like to see the U.S. spend more time and money into new and clean energy sources. We've been using the internal combustion engine far too long. We've moved on with new technologies in other areas, but ignore the most important need. The need for oil has become an evil by itself. It's caused wars, threatens and destroys the environment, and keeps people and government enslaved to corporate oil conglomerates.

edit on 21-9-2016 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:40 AM
Forrest Trump is dumping the shrimps to Bubba and making oil great again.

Sounds legit.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 09:59 AM
a reply to: Profusion

A couple of things here.

First, Trump was talking about taking Iraq's oil BEFORE ISIS was even a thing. The oil has never been ISIS's oil, it's Iraq's oil. Stealing a countries oil and justifying it by saying you are doing it so others don't steal it doesn't make it right.

Second, if you steal from a thief, you are still stealing. If the US would somehow recover stolen oil from ISIS, it should be returned to it's rightful owner...not kept by us for "reimbursement".

If you see someone steal a women's purse and you run them down and take the purse from them, is the purse yours to keep as reimbursement for your effort?

If you know a terrorist is going to steal from someone to use the money to make a bomb, is it justified for you to steal from that person first in order to stop the terrorist?

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:28 AM
I wonder if Trump is willing to volunteer his children to put their boots on the ground to reclaim that oil; or is it just up to other parents to sacrifice their kids?

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:36 AM
a reply to: Sillyolme

^5 for your point!
And just how do we "take the oil"? You believe that the Iraqi people will stand around and watch us take it? We'd have a standing army there until it went dry!
What if,when we bought alaska,there was the common "mineral rights" clause? Do we owe russia for the oil and gold?
Just proves my theory...Trump is an idiot

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:38 AM
Ah. So this is why Pence is resurrecting Cheney. He must literally be licking his chops. Finally, he get the oil.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 10:39 AM
a reply to: WeRpeons

if we could do that,and we probably could,oil would be worthless and ISIS will have no money.Same effect,and no dead soldiers.Its a shame war makes so much money.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:01 AM

originally posted by: Christosterone
Since Obama took office, I thought Iraq was full of rainbow sunshines, chocolate gumdrops and unicorns...

What's that you say? Isis controls great swaths of territory throughout the conquered lands of Iraq....hmm, ok....
Lemme think....I know it's George W Bush's fault but I need to figure out why....hmm

Ok I got it:
Obama and Hillary are perfect and Donald Trump is a racist mysoginist....and that's why we have Isis...
I did it....

Also, dissenting is patriotism if a republican is president but dissenting is racist/sexist if a democrat is in office or running for office...

Do y'all understand....
Essentially it's Trumps fault...for everything....sure he's never held public office but it's his fault...
Black panthers with night sticks at the 2008 ballots? well, that was Trumps fault...
Benghazi? Trump....
Arab Spring? Trumps fault unless you think it was a good thing in which case Obama did it...
2008 Crash? Trump and his capitalist cronies did it....
Chelsea Bomber? Trumps rhetoric caused it despite never holding public office...
Emboldened Russia? Trump did it despite never holding political office...
Syria? Trumps support of Israel did it...
Nice, FR? Trump went to the Eiffel Tower in the 90s soooooo...he caused it...
Brexit? Trump(and American racists somehow)
Fergusson? Trump and his evil police state even though he's never been in office...
Juanita Broderick? Trump in a Bill Clinton mask
Hillary's "pneumonia": Hillary went full out limp but let's talk about who pence thinks is "deplorable"....I'm sure if George W Bush or Trump had passed out at a 9/11 ceremony the media would act the same...sure, ok


Just can't stand it when your great orange Messiah is wrong can you?

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:10 AM
ACtually we can hit iraq with services renedered charges and actually make them pay back what is owed to us. Countries have always been able to sanction others for un paid debts and the method of payment can vary from resources to money.

See we need to start Hiring out our military instead of just sending them for nothing. I am not saying go corporate i am just saying only send them if their is something in it for us.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:11 AM
I never have to go far to find stupid.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:15 AM

originally posted by: Lysergic
I never have to go far to find stupid.

True. Hey maybe we should sue the japanese for damages to pearl harbor. Might as well try to get paid back by all those countries we helped as well while we are at it.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:26 AM

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The Geneva convention says otherwise.
More things trump just doesn't know.

Are ISIS protected under the Geneva convention?

Yes. Well, sort of. Non-lawful combatants (terrorists, rebels, freedom fighters, take your pick) are afforded the same protections as everyone else under the Third Geneva Convention if the warring power recognises them as a prisoner of war, if they don't then it doesn't apply.

They are supposed to be given a competent trial to determine their nationality, allegiance and lawful or unlawful status under the Third Convention.

the fourth convention says something about giving them the same fair treatment as any other POW during the trial period

It's fairly vague other than that. Since the Geneva convention deals with war between two sovereign powers. Not with rebel groups.

The answer, at the end of the day is entirely up to who they're fighting against.

The Geneva convention certainly applies to Iraq though.

Which section of the Geneva convention covers the protection of enemy assets?
The thread is about taking the oil, not the treatment of lawful or non lawful combatants.
I can't find anything that stops the seizure of assets... though it might be there somewhere.

edit on 21/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:37 AM
If anyone could provide an addition to the below, I'd be grateful. Trying to find the specifics around the Geneva Convention rules regarding assets...

Convention I: This Convention protects wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel, who are not taking active part in hostility against a Party, ensuring humane treatment without adverse distinctions founded on race, color, sex, religion or faith, birth or wealth, etc. To that end, the Convention prohibits execution without judgment, torture, and assaults upon personal dignity (Article 3). It also grants them the right to proper medical treatment and care.

Convention II: This agreement extended the protections mentioned in the first Convention to shipwrecked soldiers and other naval forces, including special protections afforded to hospital ships.

Convention III: One of the treaties created during the 1949 Convention, this defined what a Prisoner of War was, and accorded them proper and humane treatment as specified by the first Convention. Specifically, it required POWs to give only their name, rank, and serial number to their captors. Nations party to the Convention may not use torture to extract information from POWs.

Convention IV: Under this Convention, civilians are afforded the protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded in the first Convention to sick and wounded soldiers. Furthermore, additional regulations regarding the treatment of civilians were introduced. Specifically, it prohibits attacks on civilian hospitals, medical transports, etc. It also specifies the right of internees, and those who commit acts of sabotage. Finally, it discusses how occupiers are to treat an occupied populace.

Protocol I: In this additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, the signing Nations agreed to further restrictions on the treatment of "protected persons" according to the original Conventions. Furthermore, clarification of the terms used in the Conventions was introduced. Finally, new rules regarding the treatment of the deceased, cultural artifacts, and dangerous targets (such as dams and nuclear installations) were produced.

Protocol II: In this Protocol, the fundamentals of "humane treatment" were further clarified. Additionally, the rights of interned persons were specifically enumerated, providing protections for those charged with crimes during wartime. It also identified new protections and rights of civilian populations.

The United States has ratified the four Conventions of 1949, but has not ratified the two additional Protocols of 1977.
Disputes arising under the Conventions or the Protocols additional to them are settled by courts of the member nations (Article 49 of Convention I) or by international tribunals.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent has a special role given by the Geneva Conventions, whereby it handles, and is granted access to, the wounded, sick, and POWs.

Article 3, Commonly Applied to All Four Protocols of the General Conventions.

The Article 3 of Geneva Conventions covered, for the first time, situations of non-international armed conflicts, types of which vary greatly. They include traditional civil wars or internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States (countries), as well as internal conflicts in which third-party States or multinational forces intervene alongside the government.

Common Article 3 functions like a mini-Convention within the larger [Geneva) Convention itself, and establishes fundamental rules from which no derogation is permitted, containing the essential rules of the Geneva Convention in a condensed format, and making them applicable to non-international conflicts.

It requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without any adverse distinction. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, the taking of hostages and unfair trial.
It requires that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked be collected and cared for.
It grants the ICRC the right to offer its services to the parties to the conflict.
It calls on the parties to the conflict to bring all or parts of the Geneva Conventions into force through so-called special agreements.
It recognizes that the application of these rules does not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict.
Given that most armed conflicts today are non-international, applying Common Article 3 is of the utmost importance. Its full respect is required.

Applicability of the Geneva Conventions

The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.
The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[12]

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:43 AM
This is interesting to me for another reason.

Many on the right have annihilated Obama for continuing war and want us all to "leave other nations alone." Now the right's talking piece wants to go in and take it back...hence...military action...hence...taking oil that is NOT rightfully ours...hence...great possibility for another war.

So if Obama or Hillary are evil due to war or continuation of war, why is it ok for Trump to advocate what will very likely turn to war on the back of theft?

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:49 AM
Hmm, I seem to remember another guy who ran for president and wanted to steal another country's oil while bombing the Middle East. What was his name... it's on the tip of my tongue... oh yes, now I remember.

So Donald Trump is the new George W. Bush.

Wow. That escalated quickly.
edit on 21/9/2016 by MongolianPaellaFish because: added some other stuffs...

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:49 AM
a reply to: Profusion

Talk like this will probably cost him more votes than it gains him as far as I can see.

Hey, if you're gonna do Imperalism, don't pussyfoot around with it at least. Civilizations have been plundering each other for millenia.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:50 AM

originally posted by: DeReK DaRkLy
a reply to: Profusion

Talk like this will probably cost him more votes than it gains him as far as I can see.

Hey, if you're gonna do Imperalism, don't pussyfoot around with it at least. Civilizations have been plundering each other for millenia.

And Trump is a globalist, so imperialism is right up his street.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:51 AM
Bush II era war and patriot act was a child's play compared to what is coming from Trump presidency -Begs money from Saudi to fight Iran, and will have bigger legislation than patriot act.

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:52 AM
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

And Trump is a globalist, so imperialism is right up his street.

I'm thinking he's more of a nationalist with global self-interests for the nation.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in