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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I have lived in the Middle East world

    Which part?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horny Hijabis)
    Which part?
    Saudi Arabia, which actually is Arabia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Saudi Arabia, which actually is Arabia.
    So you criticise me for asking actual Shia Iraqis, but the opinions of the Saudis matter more?


    No.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horny Hijabis)
    So you criticise me for asking actual Shia Iraqis, but the opinions of the Saudis matter more?


    No.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I did.
    you actually did, fair play.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horny Hijabis)
    Uncle Sam needs payments.
    Uncle Sam wasn't hired.

    So no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    Callicles, is it you? :innocent:
    When your neo-fascist ideology is already old
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Whatever you say hillshill
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    Whatever you say hillshill
    You're clearly nothing more than a fruitloop conspiracy theorist.
 
 
 
  • 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.