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

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    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."
    Except that your original post did not say that.

    If the Clintons did make money from theft from Iraqi oil fields as opposed to legitimate transactions then they are criminals, no doubt.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh, if you're spending all that money on a war and you win, you might as we'll take anything you can. It's not like they can fight you back once you destroy them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Except that your original post did not say that.
    I assumed you would read at least the beginning of the article I linked.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horny Hijabis)
    Iraq should repay the West for liberating it, it's only fair.
    """"liberating it""""
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slaven)
    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.
    I'm afraid the international law disagrees. Where did I say the Scottish referendum was not an exercise in legitimate self-determination? Did they vote to demolish democracy and get rid of their own, Scottish representatives? Are you really so dense as to compare the Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK and colonisation of Africa? If people vote to abolish the democratic system, why should that be respected? Non-democratic self-determination is an oxymoron. And you didn't answer address my point about the tyranny of the majority. Let's suppose your worst fear materialises and the Muslims become a majority in Europe, and let's also suppose they're all sympathetic to Islamist causes now (thanks to rising Islamohobia and alienation as a consequence thereof). The Muslim majority expresses a democratic will to violently kill Christians in Europe. By your contradictory reasoning, nobody should question this. Who are we to go against the majority, right?

    Oh wow, a video and a facebook post! Let's invade!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    """"liberating it""""
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I'm afraid the international law disagrees. Where did I say the Scottish referendum was not an exercise in legitimate self-determination? Did they vote to demolish democracy and get rid of their own, Scottish representatives? Are you really so dense as to compare the Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK and colonisation of Africa? If people vote to abolish the democratic system, why should that be respected? Non-democratic self-determination is an oxymoron. And you didn't answer address my point about the tyranny of the majority. Let's suppose your worst fear materialises and the Muslims become a majority in Europe, and let's also suppose they're all sympathetic to Islamist causes now (thanks to rising Islamohobia and alienation as a consequence thereof). The Muslim majority expresses a democratic will to violently kill Christians in Europe. By your contradictory reasoning, nobody should question this. Who are we to go against the majority, right?

    Oh wow, a video and a facebook post! Let's invade!
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I'm pretty sure Iraq would be better off without ISIS rampaging the country .. Saddam Hussain was a million times better than what they have had since.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    I'm pretty sure Iraq would be better off without ISIS rampaging the country .. Saddam Hussain was a million times better than what they have had since.
    IS is the result of Western half-measures.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horny Hijabis)
    IS is the result of Western half-measures.
    Yes, the West was completely incompetent. I wonder why we focused on Iraq of all places, there were brutal dictators all over the world but the U.S. went after Saddam whose crimes were killing ~100 people in the 80s .. mm really makes you think.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    I'm pretty sure Iraq would be better off without ISIS rampaging the country .. Saddam Hussain was a million times better than what they have had since.
    Not true for everybody. The Kurds are better now than under Saddam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    Yes, the West was completely incompetent. I wonder why we focused on Iraq of all places, there were brutal dictators all over the world but the U.S. went after Saddam whose crimes were killing ~100 people in the 80s .. mm really makes you think.
    Ask yourself this, why did the NSDAP-movement die in 1945?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    Yes, the West was completely incompetent. I wonder why we focused on Iraq of all places, there were brutal dictators all over the world but the U.S. went after Saddam whose crimes were killing ~100 people in the 80s .. mm really makes you think.
    You forgot a few zeros.

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCovera...2761722&page=1
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm no Trump supporter, but I think he's not advocating for colonialism at all. He means that if the US is fighting a regime or organization which poses a threat to America, the military should pursue unconditional surrender and not half-measures, like imposing artificially democratic regimes just to invade again 5 years later. He is right about this. Which is better: post WWII Japan, or Iraq, with its amazing democratic government and ISIS?
    Besides, the whole concept of war crime is ridiculous. Every war fought by the US in the last 70 years has been a crime in and of itself.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    If you successfully break into someone's house, why shouldn't you be able to steal from them? How stupid the law can be.
    The two aren't really comparable lol
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    Yes, the West was completely incompetent. I wonder why we focused on Iraq of all places, there were brutal dictators all over the world but the U.S. went after Saddam whose crimes were killing ~100 people in the 80s .. mm really makes you think.
    Not only did Saddam kill people, in numbers much higher than those you have given, he also invaded and annexed another country.

    In Kuwait, they have a national holiday on February 26 called Liberation Day where celebrate Kuwait's liberation from Saddam by the Americans.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    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.
    I really can't comprehend why Gadaffi was attacked. Libya had everything going for it, oil and wealth. I even met one Libyan man in the UK a few years ago who told me that the Libyan government has paid for his UK university fees and accommodation while he was studying for his University course.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jee1)
    I really can't comprehend why Gadaffi was attacked. Libya had everything going for it, oil and wealth. I even met one Libyan man in the UK a few years ago who told me that the Libyan government has paid for his UK university fees and accommodation while he was studying for his University course.
    arab spring; armed rebellion; civil war; targeting civilians; NATO gets involved and attacks Gaddafi despite their mandate being limited to protecting civilians
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    You forgot a few zeros.
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Not only did Saddam kill people, in numbers much higher than those you have given, he also invaded and annexed another country.
    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 ?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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