You claimed that people who know nothing of the Arab world criticise the invasion. Well, there you have it; there are several people in the Arab world who do.

And you come to that conclusion by speaking to a few Shia Iraqis. OK.

Reply 103

Cain Tesfaye

1

Original post by WBZ144

Saudi Arabia, which actually is Arabia.

Seeing as you care so much about illegal wars/colonialism why don't you make a thread about Saudi Arabia's war-crimes in Yemen (the poorest country in the region), which they are currently bombing on a daily basis and have killed over 2000 civilians?

Reply 104

username471863

OP

19

Original post by Cain Tesfaye

Seeing as you care so much about illegal wars/colonialism why don't you make a thread about Saudi Arabia's war-crimes in Yemen (the poorest country in the region), which they are currently bombing on a daily basis and have killed over 2000 civilians?

I did.

Reply 105

Horny Hijabis

Original post by WBZ144

And you come to that conclusion by speaking to a few Shia Iraqis. OK.

Well it is their country isn't it.

Reply 106

Cain Tesfaye

1

Original post by WBZ144

I did.

you actually did, fair play.

Reply 107

username471863

OP

19

Original post by Horny Hijabis

Well it is their country isn't it.

Obviously, but are they going to be representative of the whole population? You can find various Iraqis of opposing opinions if you look for them, speaking to a few doesn't really show anything. And are they aware that you think that it's acceptable to steal from their oil fields? They probably wouldn't take that well.

Reply 108

Horny Hijabis

Original post by WBZ144

Obviously, but are they going to be representative of the whole population? You can find various Iraqis of opposing opinions if you look for them, speaking to a few doesn't really show anything. And are they aware that you think that it's acceptable to steal from their oil fields? They probably wouldn't take that well.

Uncle Sam needs payments.

Reply 109

username471863

OP

19

Original post by Horny Hijabis

Uncle Sam needs payments.

Uncle Sam wasn't hired.

So no.

Reply 110

Horny Hijabis

Original post by WBZ144

Uncle Sam wasn't hired.

So no.

National borders and laws are completely arbitrary, the only expression of righteousness is strength, uncle sam gets what he takes

Reply 111

Cain Tesfaye

1

Original post by Horny Hijabis

National borders and laws are completely arbitrary, the only expression of righteousness is strength, uncle sam gets what he takes

Callicles, is it you? :innocent:

Reply 112

Horny Hijabis

Original post by Cain Tesfaye

Callicles, is it you? :innocent:

When your neo-fascist ideology is already old

Reply 113

1010marina

16

Under regulations I'd actually support colonialism tbh... Too many countries are run by terribly corrupt people (and I'm not saying other countries aren't either - but they are generally safer). If the aim was to provide political stability and secular government, instead of profiting on the tea trade, I think great things could actually be achieved.

As a westerner who grew up thinking men were equal to women, that you can choose your faith or lack thereof, can wear whatever style of clothing ya fancy, can choose how much of your body to have out if it's warm or cold or whatever, everyone deserves an education and healthcare... I grew up thinking all of this and I can't imagine how awful it would be to exist without these freedoms. Places like Saudi boggle the mind - can't drive a car if you have a vagina as though that makes you some kind of invalid...

So yeah, I think Trump has a point there. There's no point defeating ISIS only to put some people in power who are inexperienced/corrupt/ignorant/power mad, etc...

Reply 114

L i b

19

Original post by Crijjkal

So Exxon Mobile gets a deal to start extracting oil and at the same time gives a "donation" to the Clinton foundation ? And you believe that sounds about right ?

Not corrupt AT ALL.

Yes, it sounds entirely reasonable because there is no link at all between these things, nor am I particularly convinced that if one was going to be corrupt that one would wish their ill-gotten gains to be donated to a charitable foundation. Hardly seems worth it, does it?

Forgive me if I'm mistaken here, but from what I can see the agreement to work in Iraq was signed in 2010. Putting aside the obvious point - that the Coalition Provisional Authority was not some creature of the US State Department and, even if it was, the US Secretary of State does not decide who contracts go to - it had left by then. This deal was with the sovereign government of Iraq. Last time I checked, Hilary Clinton was not a member of that government.

Exxon is a major oil company, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that it could not win a contract with the Iraqi government without some sort of corruption.

Reply 115

Crijjkal

3

Original post by L i b

Yes, it sounds entirely reasonable because there is no link at all between these things, nor am I particularly convinced that if one was going to be corrupt that one would wish their ill-gotten gains to be donated to a charitable foundation. Hardly seems worth it, does it?

Forgive me if I'm mistaken here, but from what I can see the agreement to work in Iraq was signed in 2010. Putting aside the obvious point - that the Coalition Provisional Authority was not some creature of the US State Department and, even if it was, the US Secretary of State does not decide who contracts go to - it had left by then. This deal was with the sovereign government of Iraq. Last time I checked, Hilary Clinton was not a member of that government.

Exxon is a major oil company, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that it could not win a contract with the Iraqi government without some sort of corruption.