Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slaven)
    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..
    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!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    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...
    Because it's illegal a war crime? Choosing to go to war and waste all of that money isn't the fault of the people who were invaded. It's like spending all of your money to fly to America and break into an old couples home, then as why you shouldn't be allowed to steal from them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    So the lives of people with incompetent leaders still bad, and the solution is to put them back under a discriminatory system. Clever :claps:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    "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...ations-2121999
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slaven)
    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?
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by akbar0123)
    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
    If you successfully break into someone's house, why shouldn't you be able to steal from them? How stupid the law can be.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    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.
    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.

    You are criticizing Trump for saying to take the oil, but Clinton in a public office position got money so that Corporations could do exactly that.

    "Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    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?
    We are still ruled by an occupying power. The Normans conquered us in 1066 and never left, our dynasty is descended from that lineage. They just (eventually) started speaking the same language as everyone else.

    It's a dichotomy, but given the experience of post-colonial countries it's far from a false one in many cases. Tyrants have made anti-imperialism a pillar of their legitimacy when it is nothing of the sort: unless you transition to a liberal, democratic state then there's no benefit whatsoever to be gained from so-called self-governance.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    Are you capable of reading comprehension ? Corporations paid Clinton to have rights to extract oil in Iraq
    No they didn't.

    Guess where the profits would go
    After tax, to the oil companies. Just as happens everywhere else they operate, including this country.

    I'll give you a suggestion not to the Iraqi people.
    Actually, that's precisely where public revenue raised from oil went. It was placed in the Iraqi development fund and, even during the Coalition administration, was restricted for use to projects that had material benefit for the people of Iraq.

    You are criticizing Trump for saying to take the oil, but Clinton in a public office position got money so that Corporations could do exactly that.

    "Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation."
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    People still cross borders in mass numbers in modern times despite the existence of the borders. Hence the recent migrant crisis for example. Or another hot topic is the mass migration of people from central America through Mexico into the USA. Both areas have clearly defined borders, some of which are quite well protected. People continue to carry on this chase for a better life, regardless of whether or not there are borders.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Britain is being colonized. Except this time the people are being replaced.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NimcoA)
    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.
    Yeah, because when the European powers left, they took all the soils, mineral deposits, forests, manpower and oil with them...

    It's totally not the incompetent, corrupt governments that took over and continue to fail despite billions of dollars in aid sent to them by Western nations each year. Their management skills are top notch. Pre-colonial Africa was a technologically advanced, peaceful, slavery-free, disease and famine-free, high life expectancy paradise filled to the brim with riches and laughing children before those Europeans came!
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slaven)
    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.
    I am from Africa and none of that is happening in my country.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    he's not wrong; the problem with iraq was that we pulled out too early (not usually a bad thing...)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NimcoA)
    White guilt alert....
    The truth hurts I see......
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    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!
    Self-determination is just that. What the people choose to live and under whome. According to you what the Scots did is not self-determination and that is just absurb. If the people do not want a democratic system than it is their choice and nobody should question this especially as the western system of rule prooved to be false and less attractive to adopt.

    And as said it is just not this one guy. Long time ago I was on a fb of a girl from Zim. She put a picture of Salisbury in the 70s. The comments on that were full of nostalgia.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jee1)
    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.
    the difference with Libya is that NATO went beyond their scope of protecting civilians and started attacking Gaddafi's forces even when there was no threat to civilians. when you attack a central government and don't commit ground troops to deal with the resulting power vacuum that's when you pave the way to chaos.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.