In 2003 and 2004, I doubt that, they don't exist. If you found something lets see it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Debate 3
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
"Sept. 11, 2003: Joe Scarborough, who at the time was host of MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country,” airs interviews with New Yorkers — including Trump — on the second anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He asks about terrorism, the Iraq war and New York."
"Trump, Sept. 11, 2003: It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq."
Matthews, Nov. 4, 2003: Let me ask you about the president’s course from now until next election, until next November. How does it look over the next year? Is it going to stay up? I thought it was interesting that he low-balled this number. He said 7 percent, 7.2 percent, but don’t count on it continuing. Is that smart politics?
Trump: Well, I think it is smart politics. I think his bigger problem is going to be what’s happening in Iraq. I believe the economy is doing well. I think it could get better, but lots of surprises out on the horizon, and what is going to happen with Iraq, what is going to happen with the world situation, that could be the bigger problem that President Bush has.
Matthews: What is the economic impact? Is it the cost factor of about $100 billion a year for the military and the rebuilding, is that the cost, or is it psychological?
Trump: Well, I think it’s psychological. It is also tremendous amounts of money being pumped into Iraq. I mean, you look at states like New York and California, where they can`t afford school systems, and we are giving $87 billion to Iraq and that is just the beginning. So, you know, it is a tremendous cost to this country, what’s gone on there, and again, we are getting some very, very unpleasant surprises in Iraq, and hopefully something is going to be done about it quickly.
Matthews: This was an elective war. The president thought we had to do it. He made a judgment call. He took us into Iraq. Do you think he will reconsider that judgment as the costs rise?
Trump: I don’t think he is going to. He is a very committed guy, he’s committed to that whole situation and I don’t think he will really reconsider. I don’t think he probably can at this point. Other people will, and you are going to find out at the polls whether or not those other people are right. I mean, you see more and more doves, if you call them doves. The question is whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/
It is clear, Trump did not think we should have been fighting a war in Iraq.
Where are the headlines? Trump never gives a stance on it, just says people questioned it. Even in Dec 2003.
Plus alludes to the fact he would have attacked a country, maybe or maybe not Iraq.
Who cares if he's saying the war costs a lot.
This suggests he doesn't agree with Dean.
Not to mention the fact that Trump supported what US did in Libya. Trump isn't some anti-war pacifist.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I'm okay leaving it at that. You see what you want to see, and I will see what I want to see.
Notanumber
A Free Man
I was against the Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arab Spring conflicts, but Donald was right about taking the oil.
If you go to war, you should be able to take the spoils of war to help pay for the cost of war.
This was Mohammad’s policy and he is still worshiped to this day.
If you go to war, you should be able to take the spoils of war to help pay for the cost of war.
This was Mohammad’s policy and he is still worshiped to this day.
This is what is called a war crime. You can't just steal the natural resources of another country. This is not the 7th Century,
What Donald proposes is a mugging, large scale. You can't just decide to attack another nation and walk away with the spoils.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Thanks, it seems we were both wrong, but presidents have legal advisors to avoid these situations from occurring.
What was the point of going into Iraq then, when it already had a strong leader that we could control?
The money that was spent on this fruitless exercise would have been far better spent on homeland defence and just as importantly, on foreign aid.
At the time, there were mass protests in the streets of London chanting that we were only invading because we wanted the oil.
If it had been fully explained to these protestors and the general public that we cannot take the oil because it would be classed as a war crime, there may well have been even more protestors chanting what are we going to get for our efforts by invading.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, if the Russians couldn’t win their campaign what chance did we have?
Gaddafi was more unpredictable than Saddam, but he also knew how to keep his population under control far better than us. All we did was take the lid off the container.
What was the point of going into Iraq then, when it already had a strong leader that we could control?
The money that was spent on this fruitless exercise would have been far better spent on homeland defence and just as importantly, on foreign aid.
At the time, there were mass protests in the streets of London chanting that we were only invading because we wanted the oil.
If it had been fully explained to these protestors and the general public that we cannot take the oil because it would be classed as a war crime, there may well have been even more protestors chanting what are we going to get for our efforts by invading.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, if the Russians couldn’t win their campaign what chance did we have?
Gaddafi was more unpredictable than Saddam, but he also knew how to keep his population under control far better than us. All we did was take the lid off the container.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think so. Prove that taking Iraqi oil is a "war crime". Show me the statute. We are not obligated as a nation to abide by the Geneva Convention anyhow. If anything, we simply agree to abide by the Geneva Convention. Oil is military equipment in my book... and so according to rule 49, The parties to the conflict may seize military equipment belonging to an adverse party as war booty.
Oil is not military equipment. I don't care what kind of nonsense is written in your book.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
How is oil not military equipment? Whether it's fuel to power machines, lubricants for those machines and other machines, plastic parts and equipment, and Twinkies (just to throw out as a disgusting reminder of what they are actually made of and probably because a number of troops have probably carted around a Twinkie or two with them), oil is a pretty major resource for the military, and social stability as a whole, further putting it within military interests.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
So you don't need it to run tanks, trucks and planes?
You want the US to be like pirates now? Burn and pillage and collect spoils?
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I don't mind taking everything from terrorists. Everything, their lives, and their oil.
That wouldn't be taking from terrorists thats taking from civilizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looting
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
So be it. If those people are too chicken sh** to put an end to ISLAMIC TERRORISM, Then they deserve what they get. That part of the world has no civilization. They are anti-civilization.
Mighty christ like of you to think so.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
He's going to destroy the whole F-ing world because of people like them. And maybe because of people like me too, but mostly because of people like them.
I tend to be more of an optimist.
You can stretch this to define anything at all as military equipment. Oil, metal, iron ore. How about cash, you need cash to run a military. Food, an army marches on its stomach.
Remember, we are not talking about barrels of oil ready to be used in tanks, we are not talking about tanks of processed gasoline. We are talking about oil fields, natural resources. If you define that as military equipment then any natural resource, or manufactured resource for that matter, can be classified as military equipment.
How about gold? If a country has lots of gold and uses that gold to fund its military, is it ok for the U.S. to invade it and take that gold? Is the gold military equipment?
We are not talking about terrorists here. We are talking about the Iraqi government, the one that the U.S. helped set up after they took out Saddam.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Do you believe that overlooking lies is optimistic? I see it as being a defeatist.