|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
vimesey writes: Your usual unintelligent attempt at condescension. ______________________________________________
vimesey writes: You might find yourself thinking a little. Yeah, THAT's not condescending. Vim, We already tangled about Hillary before. Did you actually read my posts Message 76 and Message 678? All of them? If so, I don't know what more I could add to make a difference to you. I assembled the facts, . . . Hillary is a mass-murderer, (unconvicted) war criminal. Per Message 76, every politician that voted for the authorization to invade Iraq deserves to be tried in an international court of law. None among them deserve to be elected president of the US.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
dronestar writes:
Percy, Moose: we need that "jeer" button back.You make it sound like there is a mob outside my office demanding I tell them where I hid the embezzled money. Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
Yeah, THAT's not condescending. Consider yourself schooled.
Hillary is a mass-murderer To establish that, you would have to establish that she actually murdered more than one person herself, or procured their murder. You have not.
(unconvicted) war criminal One word, at least, you have got right. In order to establish more, you are going to need to establish more than that she supported a war, howevever unjustified that war was, or has proven to have been. That much is clear from the UN Court's decisions. Supporting a war isn't enough. A war criminal needs both to have known about war crimes taking place during a war, and to have ordered them or endorsed them. I have seen no conclusive evidence from you that these evidential requirements have been met.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
3751 words, of which only a third were your own.
Percy writes: You have a bunch of reasons why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be president - they're better discussed than misrepresented. Okay. Go ahead, discuss them. I only had one point, and that was that war crimes *does* have a definition, and you're not using it. You ignored that point and have since indicated you're not backing away from your allegation. Before your points about Hillary Clinton can be discussed I think you have to stop misrepresenting them as war crimes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
One word, at least, you have got right. In order to establish more, you are going to need to establish more than that she supported a war, howevever unjustified that war was, or has proven to have been. That much is clear from the UN Court's decisions. There is a key difference, they weren't trying him for Crimes against peace. This is what dronester is arguing is the case for Hillary by voting for an war that was illegal.
quote: So a potential Nuremburg standard here is that if you conspire to initiate a war of aggression, you adopt responsibility for the accumulated evil of the whole criminal enterprise that consequentially follows. I would argue that morally this is a legitimate position to take. From a legal perspective, just about everybody recognizes it is basically impossible to prosecute someone without some element of what amounts to a kangaroo court (in the sense that just about everybody with the power in the planet wanted the Nazis prosecuted at the time. Didn't the Soviet's get hit with it over Finland too?). From a moral perspective, there is a case that Hillary conspired to start a war of aggression. It's not that big a leap. It's strange that this is not an utterly toxic issue for the Dem voters. I mean it was last time she made a run for it wasn't it? Her speech at the time went something like this: Saddam is horrid. It is undisputed that he has WMD. The danger of unilaterally attacking him are that it may give other nations boldness to start getting aggressive such as Russia or China and it may mean Saddam uses the WMD which he definitely obviously has. We should do what the UN says. Unless they are wrong. In this case they are wrong. We shouldn't use force unilaterally against Iraq. But we should vote to use force unilaterally against Iraq because that will show the UN that the American people are Ein Volk, which they get super impressed about. Also this will scare Saddam into giving up his WMD which he totally has. But the UN is important and we should try and get their votes and if the President takes my authority to use force as authority to use force I will have certain aspects of this speech to remind people that I would call him a poopy head if he did that. So everybody should vote Yes. Especially Dems. For the Troops. 9/11 Honestly, that isn't as an egregious a paraphrase as you might think, though its a little harsh. Still, really? Here's Sanders' speech: Saddam is a bad guy. But Iraq isn't a threat to us. Poverty is. Can we deal with this now please? The stock market is in trouble. Can we deal with this? We should vote no because there have been no estimates drawn for the cost in life this is expected to result in, both military and civilian. No because it sets a precedent in international dealings that could bite is in the ass. No because analysts say this action would make the war on terrorism more difficult or outright impossible. No, because we're broke. No because, how the hell do we prevent a complete clusterfuck in a region primed for one? From a debate standpoint, its a clear win for Bernie for the Dems at least, right? I am really trying to figure out Hilary's appeal. Whether or not she's *Evil*, I don't see why she is beating Sanders who is running a considerably less slick but more realistic Obama type run. Are people worried about a president who can't get stuff done because of obstruction? It's the only thinking I've got.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Mod writes: I am really trying to figure out Hilary's appeal. Whether or not she's *Evil*, I don't see why she is beating Sanders who is running a considerably less slick but more realistic Obama type run. There are a whole bunch of reasons; the Clinton political machine has been around a long time and is well organized and has a diverse political background as a Governor of Arkansas and twice elected President and as a Senator from New York and Secretary of State as well as both being Yale lawyers. Sanders is a Senator from New Hampshire, a state many folk couldn't find on a map; kinda like being the caretaker at the Inns of Court and City Yeomanry Museum. Plus he's a SOCIALIST. Plus he is a JEW. Plus he is OLD. and he is also an OLD SOCIALIST JEW. And he works on Rosh Hashanah and he is an OLD SOCIALIST JEW and they are all COMMIES.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There are a whole bunch of reasons; the Clinton political machine has been around a long time and is well organized and has a diverse political background as a Governor of Arkansas and twice elected President and as a Senator from New York and Secretary of State as well as both being Yale lawyers. No, I get the ludicrous political machine argument, I just ... it doesn't seem like it should be enough these days...like there's something else I'm missing.
Sanders is a Senator from New Hampshire, a state many folk couldn't find on a map; kinda like being the caretaker at the Inns of Court and City Yeomanry Museum. Plus he's a SOCIALIST. Plus he is a JEW. Plus he is OLD. and he is also an OLD SOCIALIST JEW. And he works on Rosh Hashanah and he is an OLD SOCIALIST JEW and they are all COMMIES. Oh. Right. Yeah, that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Fair points - although the degree of complicity in the decision would need to be established, and I don't know that there is any precedent for holding accountable a member of a democratic legislature who voted to endorse the decision of the executive.
I have been having difficulty, though, in tracking down current jurisprudence on crimes against peace. I'm not convinced that the Nuremberg approach remains current. If it does remain current, I'm having to scratch my head very hard as to why Seselj wasn't prosecuted for crimes against peace at The Hague. On the basis of what was said at Nuremberg, he would surely have been bang to rights.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
Fair points - although the degree of complicity in the decision would need to be established, and I don't know that there is any precedent for holding accountable a member of a democratic legislature who voted to endorse the decision of the executive. Perhaps getting into splitting hairs, but I don't think the vote was in support of the Bush administration decision to attack Iraq. The vote was to authorize the Bush administration to attack Iraq, IF a proper justification existed. It turns out that the justification was a lie. But launching the war rests on the Bush administration. Still, Hillary and others did place way too much trust in the decision making of the Bush administration. Kudos to Bernie for not having that trust. IIRC, the George H. W. Bush position was that it would be stupid to invade Iraq and get involved in an urban war.
quote: Source quote: Source It would seem that George the first was controlling Dick Cheney then, rather than the more recent Cheney controlling of George the later. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
The other thing to distinguish, is what precisely constitutes launching a war of aggression - (in contrast to launching a war of non-aggression ?)
Again, I'll need to do some research on that.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
It might be splitting hairs - I'm not sure. I'll need a read of a casebook on international law (when I get some time). Google's not cutting the mustard on defining the parameters, when it comes to crimes against peace.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Fair points - although the degree of complicity in the decision would need to be established True. In deferrence to fairness, 'my' fair points were largely cribbed direct from dronester. I just skipped most of the evidence part.
I don't know that there is any precedent for holding accountable a member of a democratic legislature who voted to endorse the decision of the executive. I don't think that distributing the responsibility to the legislature would work as a shield if USA were at Nuremberg, and the speech she gave could be spun pretty bad in retrospect if you are building such a case.
I have been having difficulty, though, in tracking down current jurisprudence on crimes against peace. I'm not convinced that the Nuremberg approach remains current. I think the consensus is that it worked only because there was global will that it would. This is to what I referred when I said
quote: It's regarded as defined too broad and/or vague for trying someone for such a serious crime.
If it does remain current, I'm having to scratch my head very hard as to why Seselj wasn't prosecuted for crimes against peace at The Hague. It's not in the interests of China, the UK, the USA or Russia to cooperate in creating the legal framework to make it stick because....they have plans or have taken part in plans that would be undermined...
The other thing to distinguish, is what precisely constitutes launching a war of aggression In simple and somewhat inaccurate terms: A war that does not have UN sanction, is not self-defense, and is not part of a border dispute.If any doubt whatsoever exists, the UN makes the decision as to what it sanctions. It's that last bit that causes the biggest problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Perhaps getting into splitting hairs, but I don't think the vote was in support of the Bush administration decision to attack Iraq. The vote was to authorize the Bush administration to attack Iraq, IF a proper justification existed. No. The authorization was conditional on whether or not George Bush determined diplomacy would not solve the threat that Iraq posed to the USA and/or terrorists. 9/11 I don't think any further *justification* was required. Just the decider. Summary of H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - GovTrack.us
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
In deferrence to fairness, 'my' fair points were largely cribbed direct from dronester. I just skipped most of the evidence part. I'd disagree with that somewhat. What you've done is presented things in a more thoughtful, accurate and nuanced way, and we're debating what is a more complex issue than dronester maintains, when trying sanctimoniously to ram his point of view down people's throats. As I've said to him before, there are many things on which he, I and others on here agree, but his constant condescension becomes counter-productive. I'll come back substantively on your points later, when I have more time. Cheers Edited by vimesey, : Bad grammar Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I don't think many here would consider the US Afghanistan and Iraq invasions as anything but stupid but I'm not sure they rise to the level needed to create a Nuremberg scenario.
BUT, there is absolutely no doubt that the US (and other Nations) have behaved in exactly the same manner as Japan, Germany and Italy did in the decades before and through WWII. A don't think there is any doubt a Nuremberg scenario could be justified against the US and probably almost every other sovereign nation. I'd go so far as to claim (and I believe it easily supported) that the only organization that has been more effective at territorial expansion by conquest and genocide than the US has been Christianity.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024