Article

2016-09-12 Home Front: WoT

‘Anything is legal’ in war: Giuliani defends Trump ‘taking’ Iraqi oil

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2016-09-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 ‘Anything is legal’ in war

Except loosing.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2016-09-12 05:22|| 2016-09-12 05:22|| Front Page Top

#2 Don't recall winners facing facing 'war crimes' trials.

Last week, Trump said the US would have been right to "take the oil" in Iraq as a "spoil of war," to keep it out of the hands of the Islamic State

It's just another version of Scorched Earth.

Posted by Procopius2k 2016-09-12 07:00|| 2016-09-12 07:00|| Front Page Top

#3 "He didn't say we should take it for ourselves necessarily. .."

Yes he did Rudy. And he has said as much on more than one occasion. God almighty, the Trump defenders never miss an opportunity to offend their audience 's intelligence. Clarify. ..spin...whatever. ..just save your horseshit for someone else.

Posted by Phack Smith9251 2016-09-12 08:23|| 2016-09-12 08:23|| Front Page Top

#4 Ok, he did. So what? You want ISIS to have control of the oil? Maybe the Russians. Perhaps Iran?

Good God, Phack, are you that clueless that you have no sense of world affairs, world politics, and world balance? You think it would be evil for the United States to keep a strategic resource out of the hands of terrorists?

Why don't you explain to us how this should work, sport?

AoS moderator

Posted by Steve White 2016-09-12 11:31|| 2016-09-12 11:31|| Front Page Top

#5 OK, first of all, Stephanopoulos is not a journalist or a news man of any sort. He is a Democrat party apparatchik so anything that any honest man like Giuliani says to him is going to be twisted to fit the Democrat narrative of the day.

So now, was flying airplanes into the Twin Towers legal? How about shooting innocent civilians in Paris? Or bombing an airport terminal in Brussels? How about shooting up a gay bar in Orlando?

You don't win wars with lawyers. You win wars with soldiers, sailors and airmen who have orders simply to kill people and break things until the enemy either surrenders unconditionally or until all of them are dead.

You do not engage in wars just because you have some cockeyed image of yourself as the world's policeman. You fight wars to eliminate threats to the freedom and safety of the American people.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2016-09-12 12:04|| 2016-09-12 12:04|| Front Page Top

#6 Having said that, I would have preferred taking Soddy oil instead of Iraqi oil.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2016-09-12 12:06|| 2016-09-12 12:06|| Front Page Top

#7 Ok, so he did. So what? You want ISIS to have control of the oil? Maybe the Russians? Perhaps Iran?

Holy reducio ad absurdum there Strawman. Pointing out Guliani's total misrepresentation is hardly advocating for terrorist control of Iraqi resources.

Why don't you explain to us how this should work,sport?

Since you asked, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of that whole Empire thing all together. Perhaps, you could describe the favorable outcome if the Iraqi's were to be told that their primary resources were no longer in their control?

Posted by DepotGuy 2016-09-12 12:45|| 2016-09-12 12:45|| Front Page Top

#8 Perhaps, you could describe the favorable outcome if the Iraqi's were to be told that their primary resources were no longer in their control?

They would revolt and kill 4000 Americans?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2016-09-12 13:16|| 2016-09-12 13:16|| Front Page Top

#9 DepotGuy, we would be completely justified taking at least enough oil to pay for our war effort and any misguided nation building that followed. You might call it reparations. Indeed, they would no longer be in control of their resources. Tough shit. They lost. But, as I said, we went after the wrong oil field. The threat was, and still remains, Soddy Arabia. But as long as we are ruled by the Bush/Clinton dynasty that is totally beholden to the House of Sod, the Soddies won't have to worry.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2016-09-12 13:19|| 2016-09-12 13:19|| Front Page Top

#10 Perhaps, you could describe the favorable outcome if the Iraqi's were to be told that their primary resources were no longer in their control?

When were those resources *ever* in their control?

Posted by Crusader 2016-09-12 13:22|| 2016-09-12 13:22|| Front Page Top

#11 ..and hasn't that been part of the squabble among the post-Saddam in house factions, who gets who much to sale?

Posted by Procopius2k 2016-09-12 15:51|| 2016-09-12 15:51|| Front Page Top

23:49 anon1
23:44 George Gurly-Brown7324
23:31 Crusader
23:21 Crusader
23:16 newc
23:08 phil_b
22:59 Glenmore
22:54 trailing wife
22:44 Crusader
22:37 Jack salami
22:32 Jack salami
22:31 Crusader
22:18 Frank G
22:13 USN, Ret.
21:52 USN, Ret.
21:50 USN, Ret.
21:34 Blossom Unains5562
21:28 Blossom Unains5562
21:20 newc
21:18 newc
21:04 Anguper Hupomosing9418
20:59 SteveS
20:58 Pappy
20:53 Blossom Hupager6063