Clinton may have supported an illegal war but at least she didn't propose colonialism

What is the alt-right?

And no, I am not against self-determination of Africans. I am just saying they were better off under Anglo-Saxon rule than under their current "freedom". Let say if the majority of black in Zim make a referendum where the majority support to be back under Anglo-Saxon rule, would you back their will?

Oh and the video is from BBC Panomara aired in 2009. The poor black person is probably death by now..

I'm not really a Trump supporter but I do agree. If you win a war, why not keep the losing country's resources? I mean, wars are very expensive and there has to be a way of regaining that money and the best way to do that imo is through taking resources like precious metals, oil etc...

So the lives of people with incompetent leaders still bad, and the solution is to put them back under a discriminatory system. Clever :claps:

"When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money."

http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-pitched-iraq-business-opportunity-us-corporations-2121999

If you think Somalia is now better off than before the euro rule. Than why do you choose to live in the country of your opressors than in your supposed "free" native one?

If a country wins a war, why shouldn't they take whatever they can? They won fair and square. International law can be stupid at times

There's nothing inherently discriminatory about imperialism. I'd suggest that if you don't live in a democracy, it matters fairly little whether your rulers are 50 miles away or 1,500, have the same skin colour as you or profess to be governing you as one of "their own".

I'd certainly opt for benevolent imperialism over oppressive local dictatorship.

So to expand business franchise, not to steal oil.
The woman is a horrible candidate and I wish that someone else had been nominated in her stead. But she is the only one who can beat someone much worse.

Except that those aren't the only two options. Countries can and have deposed of tyrannical leaders and replaced them with those who can look after their interests better. The UK was ruled by oppressive monarchs throughout history, does that mean that this country needed to be colonised and robbed with people living under servitude of an occupying power?

One could argue that the badly drawn borders by the Europeans led to later wars such as the Somali-Ethiopia war which wreaked havoc on Somalia.

Are you capable of reading comprehension ? Corporations paid Clinton to have rights to extract oil in Iraq

Guess where the profits would go

I'll give you a suggestion not to the Iraqi people.

One could also argue that the undrawn borders of pre-colonial times led to wars as whole peoples attempted to migrate across the continent chasing a better life, with the strongest at that time always winning and forcing the weakest out. The Bantu started in west Africa and ended up in modern South Africa, for instance.

So? Donating a million dollars to a humanitarian charity is an immensely positive thing. Businesses also pay for high profile figures to make speeches and attend their events - many of which the Clinton family donate to charitable causes, including through their own foundation.

Lol they're starving because of colonialism The BRITISH EMPIRE AND OTHER STATES took over their land and DRAINED THEM OF THEIR RESOURCES AND STOPPED THEM FROM PROGRESSING. THIS RESULTED IN THEM BEING LIGHT YEARS AWAYIN PROGRESS.

Well unlike now they were not starwing from hunger, killing each other or dieing from disease. So it is plausible that many Africans wish colonialism back.

Afterall, why would they all want to move to Europe to serve the whites? Isnt it better Europe bring standard to them afterall.

he's not wrong; the problem with iraq was that we pulled out too early (not usually a bad thing...)

White guilt alert....

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+the+alt+right

I don't think you understand what self-determination means in international law. No, I wouldn't support that since being under Anglo-Saxon rule would practically end their right to self-determination; colonisation isn't a democratic process, it's almost always an imposition. I wouldn't support a democratic decision to abolish the democratic system itself either, nor would I support the majority's will to persecute the minority. Ever heard of something called human rights? They're a necessary constrain to curtail the ill-effects of self-determination. Also, while much of the problems are self-induced, Africa as a continent has been ravaged by history to this day there is a correlation the issues of today linked to the past. From the way the countries were mapped (colonisation) to the lack of economic structure (no real proper development), to proxy wars (regime support and dictators) Africa has had a bad deal.

Yes, one video of a person expressing discontentment with the lack of development = all Africans want to live under white Anglo-Saxons/colonisation is a good thing. Let's bring back slavery and get rid of women's rights too!

Do you think so?
Look at the interventions that were made in the middle east and Libya.
Libya is now in a complete chaos, Libya was a country where people had free electricity, free healthcare and accommodation.