Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was before we went in, so I don't really see the support our troops angle. I am in favor of supporting our troops, but not in favor of sending them through an obviously really stupid thing. I don't understand how the administration of that period somehow made opposition to engaging in that war as somehow NOT supporting our troops as I think sending people to potential harm for no good reason is probably the worst kind of support possible. Like I said, one of the good points is that Trump did change his mind.
I think we stay the course as now. We can't really do much else. We try to take the oil, then we definitely no longer have an ability to get a coalition together because we are now war profiteers. We disentangle ourselves as much as possible and make ourselves one of several players in the region. We also radically ramp up our renewable and nuclear energy research so we no longer have a pocketbook interest in the region aside from safe passage on the Suez for our ships. Iran and our not so great allies in the region won't be able to do a damn thing about regime change internally (without us doing a damn thing either) if demand for their oil plummets.
Basically, concentrate on ourselves and less volatile regions. Let the Middle East be a larger multinational affair without us having to be a main arbiter. Concentrate on science and technology expenditures and make sure the kids are technically skilled since the mathematics and analysis skill of the usual American born in the 70s and beyond, as far as I can tell, is horrendously atrocious and that seems to go hand in hand with an inability to discern things logically and procedurally.
We don't disagree much. But the oil is non negotiable for one reason. If we are attacked and in this case we are the only ones willing to go in and clean up the ISIS mess (I really don't see anyone else really trying, even the Russians weren't all in) then we take what we want. It can't just be "ohhh you attacked us, your attacking our allies I guess we will bomb a few buildings and vehicles and we are even" No, the very idea of waging war against our citizens and our way of life must be met with HEAVY consequences. Not only do you destroy everything, you don't send foreign aid to rebuild it, you take whatever natural resource available and you leave. The message must be simple....F*ck with Americans or American interests and you will suffer beyond imagination. But there is also a flip side to that, be our ally, our friends. We will trade with you and it will be a mutually beneficial relationship.
No need for unnecessary wars, but when it is necessary there is only one objective...kill more of them then they kill of you and WIN.
We don't disagree much. But the oil is non negotiable for one reason. If we are attacked and in this case we are the only ones willing to go in and clean up the ISIS mess (I really don't see anyone else really trying, even the Russians weren't all in) then we take what we want. It can't just be "ohhh you attacked us, your attacking our allies I guess we will bomb a few buildings and vehicles and we are even" No, the very idea of waging war against our citizens and our way of life must be met with HEAVY consequences. Not only do you destroy everything, you don't send foreign aid to rebuild it, you take whatever natural resource available and you leave. The message must be simple....F*ck with Americans or American interests and you will suffer beyond imagination. But there is also a flip side to that, be our ally, our friends. We will trade with you and it will be a mutually beneficial relationship.
No need for unnecessary wars, but when it is necessary there is only one objective...kill more of them then they kill of you and WIN.
I don't see how this can possibly play out well. The main point should be disentanglement. Oil isn't something that's like a crystal skull or some raiders of the lost ark kind of treasure--you can't physically just grab it and run. You need to build, maintain, and in this case, heavily protect a lot of equipment, workers, and all the concommittent infrastructure to be able to drill and then transport. All of this would be in a hostile environment so we would have to send excessive number of troops, even more so because we would be a foreign power and this was a war that we very wrongly pursued and which this profiteering is going to raise an ample amount of resistance, most importantly on the ground where we will encounter a lot of resistance but also politically on a global and national scale. I can't possibly see a scenario even with the fastest though most wasteful extraction methods where this can be a financially responsible thing to do. I mean, we've already seen that there is an effective short term ceiling on oil prices where when the price goes up tar sands and the like which we and our friendly northern neighbor have in spades become profitable and lower the effective value of this highly expensive and seriously politically damaging for US foreign policy solution. Why would we take such an expensive gamble which is likely to be a net red for the US? Why don't we just burn some money for heating this winter as it'd likely be less damaging on almost all accounts?
Not to mention how morally dubious this would be. I mean, essentially we invaded a country wrongly and on false pretexts (and officially, uh, haven't quite apologized for any of it), screwed it up royally since we didn't go in there with very much understanding or much of a plan, left it in shambles because we were afraid we'd be left too much on the hook for it, and then the plan is now to go in there screw things up some more, and then charge them financially for the exquisite pleasure of us screwing them over again? What are we, some kind of comic book supervillain?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 05-10-2016 at 09:50 PM..
He has recently said he will no longer spend his money to campaign and that he needs 1.5 billion for the general election. Are you going to contribute to his campaign?
He has been extremely frugal with his campaign so far using less money than Jeb Bush did to obliterate the field of establishment candidates.
As for the national election. It goes to show how dirty this business is, it takes billions of $$ just to sway people's minds.
I do think Trump has a shot because this is the new economy and there's enough FUD out there for people to be scared about the future if it keeps staying that way and Hillary is all about maintaining the status quo for her establishment donors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
