Total Posts:187|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Donald Trump on the Iraq War

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:25:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)

We already have enough mentally incapacitated high school hipsters claiming they want to leave US and go to Europe when they grow up, don't give them more reasons.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:27:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)

Right, because we cared so much about their opinion when we went in the first place.

Fact is, we are already imperialist by stationing our armies all across the EU. We had already declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil". What, we're supposed to just keel over and renege on what we say?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:27:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:25:14 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

We already have enough mentally incapacitated high school hipsters claiming they want to leave US and go to Europe when they grow up, don't give them more reasons.

It would be a fair trade-off. We get their best and brightest coming here, and we export the dregs of our society to them.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:32:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:27:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)

Right, because we cared so much about their opinion when we went in the first place.

Fact is, we are already imperialist by stationing our armies all across the EU. We had already declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil". What, we're supposed to just keel over and renege on what we say?

That's not what we should do, but some nations are claiming just to get credibility we must do this. I am not saying we should or shouldn't, it depends on what you value more.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:33:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:27:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:25:14 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

We already have enough mentally incapacitated high school hipsters claiming they want to leave US and go to Europe when they grow up, don't give them more reasons.

It would be a fair trade-off. We get their best and brightest coming here, and we export the dregs of our society to them.

Now I think that's a point we agree on.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:33:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:27:52 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:25:14 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

We already have enough mentally incapacitated high school hipsters claiming they want to leave US and go to Europe when they grow up, don't give them more reasons.

It would be a fair trade-off. We get their best and brightest coming here, and we export the dregs of our society to them.

Lol I like the way you put that.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:37:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)

I think taking some of their resources is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate thing. As Trump said "pay back." We spent a lot of money on that war and hundreds of billions of it wasn't just on bombs and bullets but money we gave to the Iraqis to rebuild their country. How else should we get that money back. And this is classic military doctrine throughout history. When you invade a place you take command of their natural resources. First to deny the enemy from using them and second to use them to supply your own forces.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 10:49:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:32:54 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:27:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)

Right, because we cared so much about their opinion when we went in the first place.

Fact is, we are already imperialist by stationing our armies all across the EU. We had already declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil". What, we're supposed to just keel over and renege on what we say?

That's not what we should do, but some nations are claiming just to get credibility we must do this. I am not saying we should or shouldn't, it depends on what you value more.

Ok. I understand you're stating this for sake of argument. Ok, I'll bite.

Let's assume that these "some nations" are the same nations that advocated a containment policy for communism during the Cold War. Let's see exactly what these "some nations" contributed to their own self interest:

Korean War:

South Korea 602,902[4]
United States 326,863[5]
United Kingdom 14,198

Everyone else, about another 30,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Vietnam War

~1,830,000 (1968)
South Vietnam: 850,000
United States: 536,100
Free World Military Forces: 65,000[7][8]
South Korea: 50,000[9]
Australia: 7,672
Thailand, Philippines: 10,450
New Zealand: 552
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Where was Europe during either of these conflicts? France had enough of Vietnam after losing on their own terms? Where was Britain in Vietnam? Where was the rest of Europe in either of these wars? Spain sent 30 medical troops to Vietnam???

We contained communism, and by doing so, strengthened the defenses of NATO. We did it primarily with the help of SOUTH KOREANS.

---

The Gulf War was a UN-led "international" coalition to contain the spread of a mad dictator.

http://www.nationmaster.com...

We had 10 times the force projection of the next European power, Great Britain. Saudi Arabia put in an impressive 100,000 troops. France put in a handful. Syria matched France put in more troops than Canada, Italy, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Norway, and Hungary COMBINED.

---

These were the major conflicts post WWII. The evidence is cleared - ONLY THE US MATTERED. WITHOUT THE US, NONE OF THESE WARS COULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED.

So you may say "oh dear, they're going to get mad". Guess what? Who cares?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:02:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:37:55 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)

I think taking some of their resources is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate thing. As Trump said "pay back." We spent a lot of money on that war and hundreds of billions of it wasn't just on bombs and bullets but money we gave to the Iraqis to rebuild their country. How else should we get that money back. And this is classic military doctrine throughout history. When you invade a place you take command of their natural resources. First to deny the enemy from using them and second to use them to supply your own forces.
d
I agree, I'm just telling you that once we do that the war can no longer be justified as 'murica fighting against the forces of evil', it turns more in to an economic/america first decision.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:06:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:49:15 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:32:54 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:27:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)

Right, because we cared so much about their opinion when we went in the first place.

Fact is, we are already imperialist by stationing our armies all across the EU. We had already declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an "axis of evil". What, we're supposed to just keel over and renege on what we say?

That's not what we should do, but some nations are claiming just to get credibility we must do this. I am not saying we should or shouldn't, it depends on what you value more.

Ok. I understand you're stating this for sake of argument. Ok, I'll bite.

Let's assume that these "some nations" are the same nations that advocated a containment policy for communism during the Cold War. Let's see exactly what these "some nations" contributed to their own self interest:

Korean War:

South Korea 602,902[4]
United States 326,863[5]
United Kingdom 14,198

Everyone else, about another 30,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org...


Vietnam War

~1,830,000 (1968)
South Vietnam: 850,000
United States: 536,100
Free World Military Forces: 65,000[7][8]
South Korea: 50,000[9]
Australia: 7,672
Thailand, Philippines: 10,450
New Zealand: 552
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Where was Europe during either of these conflicts? France had enough of Vietnam after losing on their own terms? Where was Britain in Vietnam? Where was the rest of Europe in either of these wars? Spain sent 30 medical troops to Vietnam???

We contained communism, and by doing so, strengthened the defenses of NATO. We did it primarily with the help of SOUTH KOREANS.

---

The Gulf War was a UN-led "international" coalition to contain the spread of a mad dictator.

http://www.nationmaster.com...

We had 10 times the force projection of the next European power, Great Britain. Saudi Arabia put in an impressive 100,000 troops. France put in a handful. Syria matched France put in more troops than Canada, Italy, Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Norway, and Hungary COMBINED.

---

These were the major conflicts post WWII. The evidence is cleared - ONLY THE US MATTERED. WITHOUT THE US, NONE OF THESE WARS COULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED.

So you may say "oh dear, they're going to get mad". Guess what? Who cares?

Do I agree that the Europeans are a bunch of self-absorbed bastards who can only mobilize a force in the six digits when it fully concerns them? Of course. You have made your point that you would prefer to look out for America then care what the more pacifistic community in the world thinks, I would tend to agree with you, I am just telling you that when other nations used to berate America, we could handle it and still be patriotic due to societal coercion and values being taught in schools, now that we don't have that we are easily subjected to self-hate and defeatism due to these influential pacifistic nations like most western EU nations.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:07:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:02:54 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:37:55 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:24:21 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:58 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:22:27 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...

Very good point, but there is a trade-off. Sometimes moral progress must be traded for economic progress. Not saying either is better, but for every tough decision you make there is a trade-off.

What moral progress?

It would probably be considered barbaric and imperialist by some if we basically stole resources from nations we invaded, i.e we would be considered morally regressive in comparison to the 'civilized' EU nations that no longer take part in such practices. (Well the western EU nations, that is)

I think taking some of their resources is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate thing. As Trump said "pay back." We spent a lot of money on that war and hundreds of billions of it wasn't just on bombs and bullets but money we gave to the Iraqis to rebuild their country. How else should we get that money back. And this is classic military doctrine throughout history. When you invade a place you take command of their natural resources. First to deny the enemy from using them and second to use them to supply your own forces.
d
I agree, I'm just telling you that once we do that the war can no longer be justified as 'murica fighting against the forces of evil', it turns more in to an economic/america first decision.

Also, to be fair they shouldn't have to pay us back because they never asked for us to come there in the first place, we invaded.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:10:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I take that back, even if it is fully beneficial for europeans to fight (like fighting the Soviet Union), if they can get America to do it they still won't fight unless they have to, or if they want to conquer and exploit nations for cheap labor and resources.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:12:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:06:00 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Do I agree that the Europeans are a bunch of self-absorbed bastards who can only mobilize a force in the six digits when it fully concerns them? Of course. You have made your point that you would prefer to look out for America then care what the more pacifistic community in the world thinks, I would tend to agree with you, I am just telling you that when other nations used to berate America, we could handle it and still be patriotic due to societal coercion and values being taught in schools, now that we don't have that we are easily subjected to self-hate and defeatism due to these influential pacifistic nations like most western EU nations.

No, I do not agree with this, especially the underlined. The EU can't even do that. Vietnam and South Korea fully concerned the EU. Now, for Korea, you can say that came too close off the heels of WWII, so Europe couldn't muster a force. But France was already in Vietnam this whole time.

The Gulf War was an UN imperative. Again, Europe's interests were on the line. They did jack-sh!t compared to what Saudi Arabia did. That's pathetic.

Even when EU interests are on the line, they are unable to muster a proper force. They are for all intents and purposes militarily impotent, and when it comes to military matters, their opinion simply does not matter.

The rest I do largely agree. I'm starting to get swayed by the non-apologist camp. I will say though (and I'm sure some will disagree) that we are all owed an apology for Bush's total incompetence during his administration, not just America but the world at large.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:13:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 10:13:06 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I didn't like the Donald's presidential campaign, but one area where I agreed with him was on foreign policy. Trump was keen on being HONEST and equating the Iraq War with OIL. Trump on this development:

"I"m not knocking China; I"m knocking our leadership. How can they allow this to happen? We spend $1.5 trillion, we lose thousands of lives, we destroy a country " but China is in there taking out all the oil, and we"re getting nothing," Trump said.

"I think it"s very nice of us, we have our Fifth Fleet over there making sure the waters are nice and calm," Trump said. "I"ve said it a thousand times " we shouldn"t have been there, but if we"re there, take the oil. Take the oil. At least pay back, at a minimum, pay back " take the oil. Well guess what? China is taking the oil, but they didn"t have to fight."


http://www.politico.com...

One must give a certain amount of respect to any public speaker advocating honesty, especially one associated with such controversy as this.

Nonetheless I cannot help but wonder if this is too far, I would agree with the sentiment that yes, it's OK to postion an argument for the right to trade fairly, on basic market tenants, that any forced monopoly, such as that advocated by the Ba'athists over oil (or any commodity for that fact) upsets the balance of power, on a side note this is something china accussed of (source 1)

But really 'take the oil' just sends out a very negative message, this is Politics afterall and mincings one's words is half of the game (source 2).

If Trump was advocating the chance for the peoples of Iraq to trade thier way towards economics stability and prosperity, absolutely, but 'take it' would inevitably redefine how the war is perceived, in my opinon.

Best Regards,
Ben

Source 1:
http://finance.yahoo.com...

Source 2:
"Political language". Is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind" " George Orwell
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:17:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:12:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:06:00 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Do I agree that the Europeans are a bunch of self-absorbed bastards who can only mobilize a force in the six digits when it fully concerns them? Of course. You have made your point that you would prefer to look out for America then care what the more pacifistic community in the world thinks, I would tend to agree with you, I am just telling you that when other nations used to berate America, we could handle it and still be patriotic due to societal coercion and values being taught in schools, now that we don't have that we are easily subjected to self-hate and defeatism due to these influential pacifistic nations like most western EU nations.

No, I do not agree with this, especially the underlined. The EU can't even do that. Vietnam and South Korea fully concerned the EU. Now, for Korea, you can say that came too close off the heels of WWII, so Europe couldn't muster a force. But France was already in Vietnam this whole time.

The Gulf War was an UN imperative. Again, Europe's interests were on the line. They did jack-sh!t compared to what Saudi Arabia did. That's pathetic.

Even when EU interests are on the line, they are unable to muster a proper force. They are for all intents and purposes militarily impotent, and when it comes to military matters, their opinion simply does not matter.

The rest I do largely agree. I'm starting to get swayed by the non-apologist camp. I will say though (and I'm sure some will disagree) that we are all owed an apology for Bush's total incompetence during his administration, not just America but the world at large.

By fully I meant if they were directly faced with invasion. Not all EU nations upheld the domino theory or containment. The UK did for a little while they slowly abandoned it when the Churchill era died. I would gladly debate with you anyday that Churchill was ultimately a hack who was ready to invade the soviet union before the rubble from WWII could even be cleaned up.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:19:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:02:54 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 10:37:55 AM, ararmer1919 wrote:

I agree, I'm just telling you that once we do that the war can no longer be justified as 'murica fighting against the forces of evil', it turns more in to an economic/america first decision.

I hope you will concur if I say that I have been largely consistent that the Iraq War was always about "America First", or at least it should have been.

The whole "forces of evil" line means "against Islamic extremists". Most of those are in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:21:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:13:48 AM, Homosapien wrote:

One must give a certain amount of respect to any public speaker advocating honesty, especially one associated with such controversy as this.

Nonetheless I cannot help but wonder if this is too far, I would agree with the sentiment that yes, it's OK to postion an argument for the right to trade fairly, on basic market tenants, that any forced monopoly, such as that advocated by the Ba'athists over oil (or any commodity for that fact) upsets the balance of power, on a side note this is something china accussed of (source 1)

But really 'take the oil' just sends out a very negative message, this is Politics afterall and mincings one's words is half of the game (source 2).

If Trump was advocating the chance for the peoples of Iraq to trade thier way towards economics stability and prosperity, absolutely, but 'take it' would inevitably redefine how the war is perceived, in my opinon.

Best Regards,
Ben

Source 1:
http://finance.yahoo.com...

Source 2:
"Political language". Is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind" " George Orwell

The idea is that during martial law, which Iraq was under during the US occupation, the military governor would take control of any and all aspects of a country...economically, politically, militarily, even culturally.

We earned that right via military conflict. It worked in Japan, and it could have worked in Iraq HAD WE PROPERLY PLANNED FOR IT.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:21:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, to france's credit, during WWII they had a reason to have the 'Live on my knees v. Die on my feet' ideal. France got their asses handed to then in WWI, except in WWI they actually did fight hard and suffered astronomical casualties, only beat by the Russian Empire, who hardly counts cause we all know they were an epic fail during WWI and forced their soldiers to use swords while everyone else had machine guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:25:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:21:46 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also, to france's credit, during WWII they had a reason to have the 'Live on my knees v. Die on my feet' ideal. France got their asses handed to then in WWI, except in WWI they actually did fight hard and suffered astronomical casualties, only beat by the Russian Empire, who hardly counts cause we all know they were an epic fail during WWI and forced their soldiers to use swords while everyone else had machine guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So cowardice trumps bravery. Assume this applies to all non-Axis European powers. And this is who we listened to when it comes to foreign policy?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:27:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:17:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:12:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:06:00 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

Do I agree that the Europeans are a bunch of self-absorbed bastards who can only mobilize a force in the six digits when it fully concerns them? Of course. You have made your point that you would prefer to look out for America then care what the more pacifistic community in the world thinks, I would tend to agree with you, I am just telling you that when other nations used to berate America, we could handle it and still be patriotic due to societal coercion and values being taught in schools, now that we don't have that we are easily subjected to self-hate and defeatism due to these influential pacifistic nations like most western EU nations.

No, I do not agree with this, especially the underlined. The EU can't even do that. Vietnam and South Korea fully concerned the EU. Now, for Korea, you can say that came too close off the heels of WWII, so Europe couldn't muster a force. But France was already in Vietnam this whole time.

The Gulf War was an UN imperative. Again, Europe's interests were on the line. They did jack-sh!t compared to what Saudi Arabia did. That's pathetic.

Even when EU interests are on the line, they are unable to muster a proper force. They are for all intents and purposes militarily impotent, and when it comes to military matters, their opinion simply does not matter.

The rest I do largely agree. I'm starting to get swayed by the non-apologist camp. I will say though (and I'm sure some will disagree) that we are all owed an apology for Bush's total incompetence during his administration, not just America but the world at large.

By fully I meant if they were directly faced with invasion. Not all EU nations upheld the domino theory or containment. The UK did for a little while they slowly abandoned it when the Churchill era died. I would gladly debate with you anyday that Churchill was ultimately a hack who was ready to invade the soviet union before the rubble from WWII could even be cleaned up.

Hello ConservativeAmerican,

Sir, if you're refering to operation unthinkable, it was written off as a military catastrophe in the making (Source 1).

The knee-jerk reaction from my part might be to defend Chruchill, at least from being called a hack, as I am not sure if this claim has any evidence, deceptive, yes, as one might expect any wartime leader to be.

The thrust of your point is correct, Chruchill considered attacking the Soviet Union, both the instigation of operation unthinkable and the RAF V-force (source 2) show the British governments willingness to once again in engage in war, or at least to flex what muscle they had.

Best Regards,
Ben

Source 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 2:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:33:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:25:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:21:46 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also, to france's credit, during WWII they had a reason to have the 'Live on my knees v. Die on my feet' ideal. France got their asses handed to then in WWI, except in WWI they actually did fight hard and suffered astronomical casualties, only beat by the Russian Empire, who hardly counts cause we all know they were an epic fail during WWI and forced their soldiers to use swords while everyone else had machine guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So cowardice trumps bravery. Assume this applies to all non-Axis European powers. And this is who we listened to when it comes to foreign policy?

It wouldn't have worked for all allies, but for France it did.

France got remarkably good treatment by the germans during their short period of occupation, and also received the least deaths out of all the EU Powers (UK, USSR, Germany), and they were eventually liberated too!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:35:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:33:01 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:25:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:21:46 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also, to france's credit, during WWII they had a reason to have the 'Live on my knees v. Die on my feet' ideal. France got their asses handed to then in WWI, except in WWI they actually did fight hard and suffered astronomical casualties, only beat by the Russian Empire, who hardly counts cause we all know they were an epic fail during WWI and forced their soldiers to use swords while everyone else had machine guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So cowardice trumps bravery. Assume this applies to all non-Axis European powers. And this is who we listened to when it comes to foreign policy?


It wouldn't have worked for all allies, but for France it did.

France got remarkably good treatment by the germans during their short period of occupation, and also received the least deaths out of all the EU Powers (UK, USSR, Germany), and they were eventually liberated too!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu...

Well, I'm certain the Germans regarded France as "the" prize out of the conflict. All of the eastern European nations they subsequently took, along with Spain and even the Middle East pale in comparison to the significance of taking Paris.

There probably also an extremely racist element here. They probably wanted to keep their "genetic" prize as intact as possible. The rest, eugenics.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:37:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:35:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:33:01 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:25:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:21:46 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also, to france's credit, during WWII they had a reason to have the 'Live on my knees v. Die on my feet' ideal. France got their asses handed to then in WWI, except in WWI they actually did fight hard and suffered astronomical casualties, only beat by the Russian Empire, who hardly counts cause we all know they were an epic fail during WWI and forced their soldiers to use swords while everyone else had machine guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So cowardice trumps bravery. Assume this applies to all non-Axis European powers. And this is who we listened to when it comes to foreign policy?


It wouldn't have worked for all allies, but for France it did.

France got remarkably good treatment by the germans during their short period of occupation, and also received the least deaths out of all the EU Powers (UK, USSR, Germany), and they were eventually liberated too!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu...

Well, I'm certain the Germans regarded France as "the" prize out of the conflict. All of the eastern European nations they subsequently took, along with Spain and even the Middle East pale in comparison to the significance of taking Paris.

There probably also an extremely racist element here. They probably wanted to keep their "genetic" prize as intact as possible. The rest, eugenics.

True, but that's why I said it was a good decision for France, not necessarily good for USSR, USA, UK, Balkans, etc.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:45:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:25:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/8/2013 11:21:46 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Also, to france's credit, during WWII they had a reason to have the 'Live on my knees v. Die on my feet' ideal. France got their asses handed to then in WWI, except in WWI they actually did fight hard and suffered astronomical casualties, only beat by the Russian Empire, who hardly counts cause we all know they were an epic fail during WWI and forced their soldiers to use swords while everyone else had machine guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So cowardice trumps bravery. Assume this applies to all non-Axis European powers. And this is who we listened to when it comes to foreign policy?

I'm going to take this back. I've known plenty of French people and IMHO this statement simply does not apply to them individually.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?