Posted on 08/16/2015 11:41:24 AM PDT by South40
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that the United States should send ground troops into Iraq to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) and use funds from seized oil fields to pay for veteran's services.
"You go and knock the hell out of the oil, take back the oil," he said on Sunday during an interview with Meet the Press. "We're going to have so much money."
The comments came as part of a wide-ranging interview with Chuck Todd on hot-button political topics from the U.S. debt to the role of lobbyists in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I like the bomb the oil fields idea.
Carpet bomb them with B-52s from high altitude.
” use funds from seized oil fields to pay for veteran’s services.”
Outstanding. Posted this since the beginning. It pissed me off those weak ass Iraqi ingrates chose those countries who didn’t side with the US during the invasion and gave them those oil contracts. This time, take over the oil fields permanently.
Many private employers are traditional, religious people - often who work out of their homes (basement offices and the like). The idea that Trump doesn't think a private employer should be able to hire and fire based on this is a bit disturbing and pretty much the leftist position on the issue.
I agree, the only way to stop what’s going on....
I hope obuma is there with Iraq and Iran when the troops go in, upends three snakes at once.....
Meaning of ‘upends’: ...sets or turns something on it’s end or upside down....
No ambiguity whatsoever. You tell the generals what the mission is, and they plan what it takes to get the job done. I believe that's what we used to call leadership.
Oh, c’mon. A smart employer will find other reasons to fire them if they don’t work well with the team. You’re grasping at straws.
His idea seems to be to take the oil. Not sure we want US troops seizing oil in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else in the region. Taking it from the bad guys and handing it over to friendlies is fine. Taking it for ourselves requires quite a commitment and would make us into some modern day colonial power seizing resources. These are the kind of positions that are going to unwind Trumps run for office - unless he has a better explanation of this policy than the current one which is “We’re going to have so much money”.
I say just destroy the oil fields.
Cut off that flow of money to ISIS.
It’s going to be long time before Iraq is stable enough for anybody to want to invest there.
No, you are making excuses for Trump. That is the problem with Trumpsters, they applaud all his good positions and just make excuses for the ones that are leftist or nonsensical.
This is the leftist position he is taking, and a pretty big one too. Most Republicans/conservatives oppose laws banning discrimination against homosexuals, and with good reason.
To put it bluntly, Trump's comment is simply loony.
Nope. Cannot support that.
This is not our fight.
This is an over 1,000 year old religious, tribal war that we cannot ‘win’ and we cannot quell.
Unless you are a Muslim or person from an Arab or other ME tribe, you have no dog in this fight. And even if you were, you might ‘win’ for your generation for a time but the next generation will fight the same battles all over again.
Let's be clear about this. ENDA grants special privileges to sodomites, while stripping employers of their religious liberty and their right to free association.
Yup, you got it.
This is the problem with Trump, for every good policy position he has (and I really like his plan for immigration), there is a terrible and nonsensical position mixed in.
This is the kind of stuff we won’t get with someone like Cruz who is a true ideological conservative through and through. He has thought these issues out for years, understands them, is familiar with the lefts arguments so he is able to counter them, etc.
The CRA already did that. And it is not just about gays, it will go far beyond that if we let it.
Private businesses should be able to hire whoever they want and do business with whoever they want. And other individuals can highlight those decisions and let the market decide. This is what Rand Paul was getting at when they twisted his words to say he supports racism and discrimination.
later
I think the modern slang term for that is “turnt”. Just learnt that today on Facebook.
I’m not sure destroying the oil fields is the answer. I think there is a way Trump could stick to his long held talking point of “seizing the oil” and make it sound less like we are a colonial power coming in and seizing resources.
He could just say something like “The US will seize rather than destroy the oil that is funding terrorists and turn it over to responsible groups or the host country once it can be guaranteed that the proceeds won’t go to terrorists. In the meantime, we will protect the assets of the nation this oil resides in and temporarily use the funds generated to defeat the terrorists which threaten the region”.
If he said something like that, I’d think it would achieve his policy end without making us sound like invaders coming to steal Muslim oil (which would alienate even our allies in the area).
Trump won't agree with us on everything. But on building a real fine wall, disintegrating ISIS, and US jobs for US workers, actually doing something about Obamacare, and bringing back pride in the US, he's 100%.
Why would anyone want a minor candidate who has been bought and programmed by their masters? Who won't be a force of nature when it comes to cleaning out the DC sewers?
This is shoot from the lip stuff
Time for Trump to put together a crack team to develop an overall position on global strategy and U.S. interests and approach this issue holistically
The sooner the better
Obama’s gaping failures offer a target rich environment to come up with better policy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.