|
Someone's gender or race does not make them automatically a good or bad person. Same is true for politicians, I'm British and we had Margaret Thatcher and now Theresa May. We also had strong Queens back in the day, anyway, my issues with Hilary are pretty much exclusively down to her deep involvement in the perpetuation of the American military empire, destabilisation of the middle east and illegal drone wars.
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
Americans of all colours and creeds have a hard time accepting that their 2 million strong military, 1000+ bases around the world, numerous illegal wars, torture and destabilisation are bad things and that their country is a violent military empire that ruins most of what it touches.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
You don't need to have an armed revolution you can just elect non-militaristic, non-imperial politi... lol ahaha I can't say it with a straight face
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. America has turned into exactly the thing it declared independence from Lolz
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You should use your direct line to the Vatican, man. I heard the Pope is a cool bro. He can hook you up. I got that title for having the opinion that the institution of the Catholic church really likes to abuse children. I do not have a direct line to the vatican.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:yes, the Third Reich, famous fascist power that totally wasn't defeated by largest armed military coalition of capitalist and authoritarian communist powers in the history of the human race, both of whom immediately collapsed into shitthrowing and slapfighting known as the Cold War. George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism. His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy. The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar Also IBM and the Holocaust. Certain parts of American society did very well out of Nazi germany
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
America provided satellite imagery to Saddam Hussein in order for him to use chemical weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm completely unsurprised by this. Let me guess, Bush I, or Bill? In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose. U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture. "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy. According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story. In contrast to today’s wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein’s widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted. In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons’ use — even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions. It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States’ knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Please tell me why Gaddafi getting killed is something to be sad about. because the fallout is a hosed country: Four Years After Gaddafi, Libya Is a Failed State Weapons are pouring out of Africa's most oil-rich country while extremist fighters tumble in. Nearly four years after NATO-backed rebels toppled the former Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, the North Africa country has plunged into chaotic unrest. The failure of last year’s election to achieve political unity in Libya was most evident when Fajr Libya, or “Libya Dawn” — a diverse coalition of armed groups that includes an array of Islamist militias — rejected the election’s outcome and seized control of Tripoli. The internationally recognized government relocated to Tobruk, situated in eastern Libya along the Mediterranean coast near the Egyptian border, while Libya Dawn set up a rival government, known as the new General National Congress, in the capital. As forces aligned with the Tobruk government have fought Libya Dawn, the conflict has gradually become internationalized. Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have launched air strikes targeting Libya Dawn, while Turkey, Qatar, and Sudan are believed to have provided the Islamist-dominated coalition with varying degrees of support. The emergence of Daesh (the so-called “Islamic State”) in strategically vital areas of Libya has further complicated the conflict in Africa’s most oil-rich country and raised security concerns in nearby states. http://fpif.org/four-years-after-gaddafi-libya-is-a-failed-state/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The anti-Qaddafi insurgency was already well underway by the time the U.S. intervened to keep it from getting destroyed. Casting the Libya situation as entirely Clinton's fault is pretty disingenuous. No, it's America's fault.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Libya was richer than South Africa, which does not have oil riches, and has a massive underclass of black africans.Majorian posted:I, too, have never heard of South Africa. In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped. http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/5408740
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Iraq under Saddam (prior to the first gulf war and subsequent sanctions) was also a good place to live, secular, allowed women to get educated and had a solid middle class.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Right... yes so the American led NATO bombing of Libya was just a co-incidence and had nothing to do with the overthrow of Ghadaffi and subsequent destruction of the country. Just like the overthrow of Saddam and destruction of Iraq was a co-incidence and not actually the fault of America and it's allies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Got some evidence to back that up? South Africa Population 52.98 million (2013) Gross domestic product 350.6 billion USD (2013) Life expectancy 56.10 years 2012 Libya Population 6.202 million (2013) Gross domestic product 74.2 billion USD (2013) Life expectancy 75.18 years (2012)  Higher Per Capita GDP and much better Life Expectancy And as you can see per capita GDP has taken a nose-dive recently in libya...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:So by your logic (ie: per capita GDP is the valid metric), Qatar is the richest country in the world. is life expectancy an important metric? Also:  The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic used to rank countries by level of “human development” and separate “very high human development”, “high human development”, “medium human development”, and “low human development” countries. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life. Public Health Care in Libya prior to NATO’s “Humanitarian Intervention” was the best in Africa. “Health care is [was] available to all citizens free of charge by the public sector. The country boasts the highest literacy and educational enrolment rates in North Africa. The Government is [was] substantially increasing the development budget for health services…. (WHO Libya Country Brief ) Confirmed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), undernourishment was less than 5 %, with a daily per capita calorie intake of 3144 calories. (FAO caloric intake figures indicate availability rather than consumption). The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free public health care, free education, as confirmed by WHO and UNESCO data. According to the World Health Organization (WHO): Life expectancy at birth was 72.3 years (2009), among the highest in the developing World. Under 5 mortality rate per 1000 live births declined from 71 in 1991 to 14 in 2009
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Kristov posted:Ahhh, there the tankies go veering completely off topic then. You have inadvertently added to the topic though. So, to add to the reasons people hate Clinton with such fervor. she is American imperialism personified, she is the establishment candidate, she is deeply involved in most of the egregious international actions of the US over the last 8 years - Her husband oversaw sanctions in Iraq which killed 500,000 children and 'was a price worth paying'. She has absolutely zero issues with the way America conducts itself in the world today, and frankly most Americans have very little idea about the real impact their country has had overseas.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Kristov posted:Eeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I think the people about to get slaughtered in Benghazi might have a disagreement with you on that. Benghazi happened after Ghaddafi had been killed and Libya 'liberated'
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Libyans are people too. yes, and they had a well functioning country before NATO flew thousands of sorties and bombed the gently caress out of it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He's not talking about that Benghazi incident. when Americans refer to Benghazi they usually are referring to that incident.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
The situation is much worse in Libya now than it was under Ghaddafi, maybe he should have been allowed to defeat the islamist rebels on his own terms rather than having NATO destroy the country. America has no problems with human rights violations or genocide when conducted by them or by allies, this is why any claims of 'humanitarian intervention' do not ring true because we all know it is selective and based on what is deemed best for America's geo-political position and aims. e/ the rebels in libya would never have won without NATO intervention destryoing the infrastructure of the country.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
why is it okay for America to mass murder people in countries it intervenes in, and Ghaddafi not to in order to protect his own state?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Kristov posted:Nah, you were just mad and lashing out a bit. Happens. It's really hard to make wishing for ethnic cleansing upon a population into a joke/punchline though. It may be hypothetically be possible to pull it off without looking like a piece of poo poo, but it was a joke about America getting a taste of it's own medicine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
We can come up with a very long list of people in places that would have a disagreement with American foreign policy decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Becaaaaaause...it's never okay to do that, no matter who does it? RIGHT which is the point about Hilary, she is happy for America to mass murder people around the world at it's discretion when the situation warrants it. She is married to a man to whom the deaths of 500,000 children are a price worth paying - she is okay with this. She has been involved in the bombing and destruction of one country, is happy to authorise more bombing and destruction, supports illegal drone wars and the list goes on. This is the crux of the issue with Hilary for a lot of foreigners, she is totally okay with Mass Murder for the needs of the USA.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
And you guys are cool with that because America are the good guys.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Kristov posted:....what? Right let me explain, you said: Kristov posted:Eeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I think the people about to get slaughtered in Benghazi might have a disagreement with you on that. Okay. I am saying America has slaughtered lots and lots of people in pursuit of it's foreign policy goals, all over the world, for a very long time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
what the gently caress is a tankie? is it a bronie but for thomas the tank engine? e/ also All Pro, have you ever been outside the USA? Maybe to South America or Europe or Africa? JFairfax fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's kind of how it goes when you're running a superpower. There are no options likely to win the American presidency who will be any less of a warmonger than Clinton, and if you believe Trump would be, you're extremely dumb. This is the point, you guys like being a superpower and a lot of people around the world object to the fact that you've self proclaimed your ability to do so. Clinton embodies this, you asked why people dislike Hilary, I've given you a big reason. Funnily enough, during the primary campaign Trump was making noises that could lead one to believe that he might pursue a slightly more conciliatory policy - like it or not, co-operating with Russia and China might actually be beneficial. However, I don't trust Trump as far as I can spit, and then once he won the primary he made that speech about America's military being the smallest it's been since 1940 or whatever. Also Trump would cause race wars in the USA that's for sure. The guy is a fascist, straight up. Anyway, you asked why people dislike Hilary, we've given you some reasons. Problem is it's so tied up with what America is internationally you don't like hearing it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How does she embody this? Why is she the one who's most responsible, or most visible in this? Why not Bush, Cheney, or Trump? erm, in the context of this election - obviously. She's the one who embodies the American military, industrial congressional complex in this election, Bush, Cheney are not standing in this election. Trump embodies a lot of things, but as far as politics go he is an outsider, and an opportunist, a racist, a fool, a misogynist, but his CV is all business and TV - he has not been deeply involved in American politics the way Hilary has, that's just a fact. I think he would be absolutely awful for America. And yeah, sure there are people who embody the awfulness of the American empire more than Hilary, Rumsfeld would be one, but he's not standing in this election.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Weird that lots of Generals have endorsed Trump, then. You think they'd endorse the embodiment of the military industrial complex. Well the generals are also misogynists, and that endorsement reminded me of the the Reichswehreid of the early 1930s. Hilary was literally US secretary of state and has been involved in US military action, also remember her husband will still be getting all those high level briefings from the CIA that ex-presidents do. She's involved in the US military in a way that Trump simply hasn't been. Not to say he wouldn't be equally as militaristic, I think his ego would like to see him wield such destructive power.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:When you say this it really does seem like your issue isn't with Hillary so much as with America and/or imperialism. yes, and that's because she has built her career at the highest levels of American political society and has been on board with that imperialism every step of her career and despite her positive noises on the campaign trail about healthcare and the mass incarceration in the USA, she is still someone who believes that America has a right to act militarily wherever it sees fit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Those of us from countries who have had very successful female heads of state before America even existed put less importance on the fact that she is a woman. Yes it will be good and important for America to elect a woman, but there are very real issues with her as a candidate. It is her good fortune to be going up against someone as awful as Trump. Well actually, possibly her misfortune because none of the other republican candidates would be doing as well as he is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Hahah yeah. Sometimes you get the feeling that Americans feel that whenever they do something first, it's the first time it's been done anywhere. I mean it's important that America has a political class that is representative of the country, but that should still not distract from critical analysis of their actions in power.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Clinton has stood idly by when Saudi Arabia and Bahrain clamp down on protests, kill their own citizens, treat women as second class citizens. American involvement in Libya was categorically not for humanitarian reasons. And if it was then it was an abject failure.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Also Americans are not very good at gallows humour.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:I can guarantee everyone fellating Qaddafi right now would be castigating Clinton for standing idly by while he turned anti aircraft guns on protesters and slaughtered thousands of his own citizens. She's the embodiment of US Imperialism, cozying up to dictators to keep that oil flowing! the problem is it's not as simple as Dictator = Bad. Yes they are bad, but the alternative is often worse, and in the cases of Ghaddafi and Saddam, they were basically gangster strong men (think Chicago politicians) who provided good public services to keep the public from getting too keen on rebellion, and that resulted in stable countries with good qualities of life. They were not political or religious fanatics. The US backed dictators on the other hand were far worse, compare Iran under the US backed Shah from 1953 to 1979 Vs Iraq where the US support of Saddam was much more business focused and transactional. I.E. his rise to power was not the result of a CIA / MI5 coup. I've met people who have lived under dictators, and whilst it's not ideal I bet you pretty much every Iraqi would rather go back to Saddam than what they have now - same with Libya. JFairfax fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Is it? We'll never know. Ghaddafi would probably have been able to put down the uprising, I mean they were a pretty ragtag bunch with not a huge amount of weaponry. But there's not much point getting into alt. history, what's done is done. My point of view for dictators is that they should be overthrown, but not at the cost of total destruction of civil infrastructure and civil society. The best outcomes for overthrowing dictators are usually when the educated population overthrows the leader and the infrastructure of the country is left in place - look at the overthrow of Ceausescu in Romania, Franco in Spain or Salazar in Portugal for good examples.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The "overthrow" of Franco was basically him dying and his successor not being a total poo poo. quite, I am not sure how much the Spanish would have appreciated having Madrid levelled in an attempt to get rid of him NATO style before he died.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
General Franco was a loyal friend and ally of the United States. And yes that's my point, sometimes it is best just to let the dictators expire naturally rather than to violently overthrow them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:42 |
|
|
And the other point is that there are plenty of dictatorships that the US has supported, continues to support and will support in the future. US opposition to a dictator at any given moment is decided by what best serves the needs of the people calling the shots at that particular time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 21:20
|
|