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

Scroll to see replies

arab spring; armed rebellion; civil war; targeting civilians; NATO gets involved and attacks Gaddafi despite their mandate being limited to protecting civilians

I thought the west learned from what happened in Iraq. Now Libya is destabilized and that's why many migrants can cross through to Europe everything was fine as it was.

From sources I have read, Gadaffi wanted to trade in gold which would have made Africa competitive

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 81

Josb

Original post by Crijjkal

Even with all his crimes (I already admitted he was brutal) do you honestly think the U.S. would have invaded and toppled Saddam if he was the leader of some random country in Africa ?

It depends on whether this African country has oil and is an enemy of the Saudi.

Reply 82

fksociety

Original post by slaven

What is wrong with colonialism? All Africa would wish it back since they were better of under french or british rule.

Actually most experts will tell you that the political and hierarchal structure of Africa before colonisation was far more progressive than British imperialism and even democracy.

What you have said is a common misconception that nationalist morons blurt out.

Reply 83

username1044970

Original post by Horny Hijabis

and if it comes to that, international law won't do anything to save the Christians/Atheists/leftist snowflakes, because international law is like an emperor's new clothes situation, it only has the illusion of reality so long as people mutually agree to go along with the collective delusion.

Strong username

Reply 84

Horny Hijabis

Original post by Dima-Blackburn

Strong username

It's true, I'm not saying every Muslim would do that, but if it came to that, international law would fail to have any influence, just like it fails in North Korea, it fails in Saudi Arabia, it fails in Syria, it fails in Russia.

Reply 85

username471863

Original post by Crijjkal

I assumed you would read at least the beginning of the article I linked.

I cba to open links from a mobile phone. Will have to do it at home.

Reply 86

username471863

Original post by akbar0123

The two aren't really comparable lol

Yes they are; theft is theft. That's why during war, soldiers can't enslave the population of the invaded country and rape the women, even though that was totally fine "back in the day". This is the 21st century, not the Stone Age.

Reply 87

username471863

Original post by Horny Hijabis

They should have been thankful, the only things America did wrong was not to continue paying the Iraqi army's wages and actually releasing people like Baghdadi, I've said this before and I say it all the time, America has been the kindest, most benevolent superpower to have ever existed in the history of mankind, they're not tough enough, they're a load of pussies.

Who are you to tell them how they "should" be feeling? They are the ones living with the consequences of the war, not you. Or are you suddenly an expert who knows more about life in Iraq than Iraqis?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 88

Horny Hijabis

Original post by WBZ144

Who are you to tell them how they "should" be feeling? They are the ones living with the consequences of the war, not you. Or are you suddenly an expert who knows more about life in Iraq than Iraqis.

Yes I am, I am a more developed human being in every sense of the word/

Reply 89

username471863

Original post by Horny Hijabis

Yes I am, I am a more developed human being in every sense of the word/

OK, so you're a troll. Pointless conversation then

Reply 90

Horny Hijabis

Original post by WBZ144

OK, so you're a troll. Pointless conversation then

If you're going to come out with personal absurdities you will receive answers befitting your behaviour.

Reply 91

Horny Hijabis

Every Shia Iraqi I have spoken with (and it has been more than 1) is happy that Saddam is gone, literally the only people I know who are against the invasion are White leftists and south Asian Sunnis who have literally nothing to do with Arabia or the Arab world.

Reply 92

Cain Tesfaye

Original post by Horny Hijabis

prsom

Reply 93

Josb

Original post by fksociety

Actually most experts will tell you that the political and hierarchal structure of Africa before colonisation was far more progressive than British imperialism and even democracy. .

Even the Zulu Empire?

Reply 94

El Salvador

Original post by slaven

Nah, how come Hong Kong was clever enough to use the advantages of the Empire and not Africa?

Very different contexts. Hong Kong was taken first as a storage zone then as a trading port. The British weren't there purely to exploit natural and human resources. Hong Kong succeeded also because it's not China but still very close to China. It's totally geographical.

Reply 95

fksociety

Original post by Josb

Even the Zulu Empire?

You can research it yourself. If you want to discuss this get rid of your attitude.

Btw, what i've said is completely true.

Reply 96

username1044970

Original post by fksociety

You can research it yourself. If you want to discuss this get rid of your attitude.

Btw, what i've said is completely true.

He's French; the attitude is natural :rofl:

Just kidding, don't report me. PC gone mad?! :eek:

Reply 97

IronicalMan

Yeah without colonialism Africa would have industrialized first, would be on the moon in the 1600's and would be flying around in helicopters by the 18th century. LOL just kidding.

Reply 98

username471863

Original post by Horny Hijabis

I have lived in the Middle East, as opposed to spoken to a few Shia Iraqis. Saddam may have been far from loved but the 2003 invasion remains highly unpopular, it's not like the people were asking to be invaded. Besides, Iraq isn't Arabia.

And even if they were happy with it, that does not justify theft.