Trump provides evidence for his war crimes trial
 

Speaking today at the CIA, Trump said the following:

Shows plan to wage war with intent to pillage. Pillage happens to be a war crime. See discussion here: https://www.justsecurity.org/33040/t...age-iraqi-oil/

There appear to be many things our president doesn't "get". Playing nice with the underprivileged masses is going to be hard for him. Rules that apply to everyone else don't seem to apply to him.

Wasn't that a selling point of the Iraqi war?--that the oil would pay for the war.

BTW is the US signed on to this world court business?

The vast quantities of Iraq oil were supposed to drive the price way down, and fund nation building. No one said we'd steal the oil as i recall it....

No one asked the Germans if they were signed on to the Nuremberg court business. Trump gets my vote as 'most likely to land us in a situation like that.'

Geez you are really naive when it comes to the US versus the rest of the world.

Seems like an uncalled for personal attack Dondi. All I can say is don't be surprised or whine if you get it back in spades, my friend.

So I guess we need to use the oil up as fast as it will burn! Never a single thought of the next to follow? Maybe because there will be none?



Barney

So now you are choosing to believe the bullshit the Bush Administration put out as an excuse to invade Iraq? You really think they had no expectations of allowing Halliburton to make a shitload of money off of Iraq's oil? :rolleyes:

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. But your belief that I am is consistent with the thinking of authoritarians as i understand them.

Also consistent would be the idea that there are no real rules for nations, that might makes right, and if we can steal the oil, it's just 'naive' to insist there's something wrong with that.

That's pretty much how it is and has been for this country's entire history.

But I guess now that we might be able to attribute something like that policy to Trump it's time to get outraged about it.:rolleyes:

"Also consistent would be the idea that there are no real rules for nations, that might makes right, and if we can steal the oil, it's just 'naive' to insist there's something wrong with that."

*blank stares from the right*

Here's a Daily Kos report on the CIA speech. Mentions oil stealing, but puts a lots of emphasis on Trump's super-big lie of the day--that the inauguration crowd had been a million and a half.

Dond, I'm going to bet we agree on what Trump was doing there. He was establishing dominance. That giant lie was a way of saying to the CIA people "I'm boss and you have to eat my shit."

Am I right?

I do not know about the eating, but a civilian leader needs to affirm dominance early over any intelligence body.

Just why is that?

Intelligence is to inform, you know with unfiltered information. The last thing one should want is for the intel to effected by fear.
Just the facts and truth!




Barney

In the intelligence house their are many mansions.

"Personal attack" usual implies pejorative. I do not see that here.

So, now we are to drop all pretense and simply start invading other countries to steal their shit? Without even so much as making an excuse anymore? WOW! Just.....WOW!

I'm no Pollyanna, I know all about the "Banana Wars", the "regime changes" we've instigated around the world and other scummy shit we've done. But, now we're simply going to say, "Hey, nice oil you have there! Hand it over or we'll vaporize your people.".

This is a whole new level and a sharp descent into something very, very dark.

While we're at it we might as well enforce white supremacy.....

We can use the old abandoned malls as gas chambers.

Ah well, Americans have always thought of war as a big game, a joke. The only thing that will change that attitude are bombs falling on our own cities...maybe they we'll see just how horrible it it.

New York will be the new Dresden.

The Germans not being consulted on Nuremberg was might makes right.

Might made possible. But at least there was a trial, and some got off. That makes it more right.

How the hell were we supposed to consult with a country that didn't yet even have a government (the Federal Republic of Germany didn't come into being until 1949 with Konrad Adenauer as the first post-war Bundeskanzler)?

Nice bit of sophistry with a dash of false equivalency. It's still a shit argument.
Just ask any US soldier from Malmedy or any of the deathcamp survivors what they think of your words.

I wrote Germans, not Germany.

The Nuremberg trails are indeed an example of might makes right, which doesn't preclude the trials as being right.

OK, what were we supposed to do? Pick up some refugee off the roadside or some war widow and ask her what she thought about concentration camps that she never knew existed? Jeez.:rolleyes:

Context is everything. :)

Whatever floats your boat Mr. Non-sequitur. :rolleyes:

So is your president.

He's our president. :rolleyes:

Excellent question.

"Might Makes Right" is just a self affirmation for the victor.

The victor in any conflict will see himself as "right", regardless of the legitimacy of his claim. Just as so many believe personal wealth is an affirmation of their righteousness. No, scumbags can and do get rich all of the time. Tyrants and bullies do occasionally win and their victories invariably embolden them to commit even greater abuses.

He's an immature piece of shit.

As was the execution of Saddam Hussain.

Hmmm...feel Saddam got a bad deal?