The 2016 United States Presidential Election

(Topic is war criminals, so Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply.)____ *Chuckle* The most charitable excuse I can give you is that you have poor reading comprehension skills: ____ Then it is difficult for me to believe you are not an idiot. In addition to Mod writing; "there is a case that Hillary conspired to start a war of aggression," I posted:

quote:

---

Those who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq did so despite the fact that it violated international legal conventions which the US government is legally bound to uphold. The resolution constituted a clear violation of the United Nations Charter that, like other ratified international treaties, should be treated as supreme law, according to Article VI of the US Constitution. According to articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.

​

This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing violations of UN Security Council resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Kuwait, but the Security Council did not do so for any subsequent lesser Iraqi violations. The only other exception for the use of force authorized by the charter is in self-defense against armed attack, which even the Bush administration admitted had not taken place.http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war

---

I also posted . . .

quote:

---

Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, expressed the belief that the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter."
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia

---

____You can find many LEGAL opinions on the web condemning the invasion as illegal: ____The UN allows two exceptions for the invasion of a sovereign nation:
1.Self-Defense
2.A definite decision on the part of the Security CouncilNeither of these provisions applies to the illegal invasion of Iraq. Blair/BushJr/Hillary gave up trying to get a Security Council resolution because they knew they were lying. But they did easily sell obvious lies of weapons-of-mass-destruction to a highly gullible and 'pro-war-crimes' public, . . . then simply invaded Iraq. A crime of aggression. A war of aggression. A war crime. Take your pick of terms for "the legal argument."A high percentage of amerikans approved. Just like the German public approved when Germany invaded Poland based on lies. Makes me wonder if Hitler was running for president today, would you also write that he was a merely flawed candidate?
____Regarding my simple and direct questions requiring a mere yes or no response: As history shows, when a participant is unwilling to answer a simple and direct yes/no question, it is because one doesn’t want to incriminate themself. Obviously.Again, I get it. You are deeply ashamed because you supported an alleged/unconvicted war-criminal. Thus, I am confident your mortification will force you to obfuscate and play the game of pedantry: "the legal argument."Pfft. The fact remains, the candidate that YOU support, according to The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, is responsible for:
4,500 Americans killed (far larger number permanently wounded)
up to a million innocent Iraqi civilians murdered
trillionS of dollars of US taxpayers' money wasted
anti-American extremism in reaction to the invasion and occupation which has spread and DIRECTLY produced the group ISIL.Kudos NWR, . . . kudos.

Yes ringo, I have nothing to say. All my posts that I repeatedly urged you to read, are in fact, . . . blank posts. Edited by dronestar, :

Irrelevant. Clinton did not invade. Clinton did not order an invasion.But thanks for your efforts to foist Trump on us. On the basis of the arguments that you are using, I guess we can hold you legally responsible for every bad decision that Trump makes.I will not further respond to your posts in this thread.

Google image search.

So you concede you don't know how to correctly vet a photo, but you've been using it over and over falsely.Learning how to properly identify evidence BEFORE using it is a really valuable skill if you wish to be taken as credible.JB

You know what? Dronestar and I share almost nothing in common... And I disagree with just about most of what he says. But guess what? At least he and RAZD have some self-respect, dignity to stand by their laurels, and some genuine conviction. And that goes along way in terms of demanding my respect for them despite some political differences.Likewise, Bernie Sanders was in my opinion hopelessly naive about his socialist tendencies... But I respect the man, nevertheless. And I sensed genuine compassion in him, not based merely on his words, but a very clearly defined record of consistency that has spanned several decades. But the Queen of Flip Flop, Secretary Clinton??? A woman who would say or do anything as a political expediency? She would slit your grandmother's throat if she thought she could gain something by it.The political assassination of Bernie Sanders was despicable and disgusting. This is what your darling Hillary Clinton and the bulk of the Democratic party is. She is an abysmal, degenerate sociopath who is would say or do anything to hold power. And that is truly a remarkable thing to say given Trump's megalomanical tendencies. But even his thirst for power cannot rival that of Hillary's.You, sir, embody the duplicitous and ugly nature that is found within the Democratic Party. If ANY Republican candidate has done the things that she's done, you'd be morally outraged... But because it's your darling, you'll happily turn a blind eye while still asserting that you have the moral high ground.Since I've been here, you've been a strong opponent to Bush's war machine in the interest of monetary gain. And that's commendable! But you fail to see Hillary's connection in all of it... which she wanted to extend further and further.Her tentacles are all over Libya.... and Syria.... and if elected, do you not understand that we'd be at war with Russia, Iran, North Korea, and possibly China? Do you really not get that? Or are you so busy getting your bunk information from MSNBC, CNN, or any other outlet that's feeding you utter nonsense instead of looking at credible facts?The best they had on Trump was that he commented on grabbing a chick's pussy (WHOA! STOP THE PRESSES! WHAT A SCANDAL!!) and he wants to vet the Syrian refugees that SHE FUCKING CREATED!?Hillary Clinton and the bulk of the Democratic Party are a brood of vipers who sold their soul... and so did you if you continue to willfully deny reality.

You should know by now that American Christians have no conviction and prefer American Jesus over historical Jesus.

To be fair, I've never seen dronestar use a photo as evidence of anything. They're only there to provoke some kind of guilty emotional response; so really the source is not so important. A photo of someone torturing a puppy somewhere in China would have the same relevance to the validity of his arguments.

You must be talking about a different Hillary Clinton. The one that I know about has been reasonably consistent throughout her public career. That never happened.I call bullshit on your entire post. I'm not a Democrat. I despise the party. If any candidate of any party had done the things that Clinton is falsely accused of doing, I would be outraged.You should stop listening to the right wing propaganda machine. Or, at least, do some fact checking. I was never a fan of Hillary. I have wished, all along, that we had a better candidate. I voted for Sanders in the primary. Her connection to it is minor and insignificant. Nevertheless, I was not a fan of Hillary. I did consider her too hasty to favor war, and that was one of the reasons that I was never a fan.What I object to, is the deliberate lies being told about her. The nation is not served well when people vote on the basis of lies. And both you and dronestar have been spreading lies about Hillary. That's your guess. It is a possibility, and a concern. It is one of the reasons that I would have preferred a better candidate. But it is no excuse for spreading lies about her. I don't watch either of those. Actually, I don't watch TV news at all. If that's the only problem that you see with Trump, then you are completely blind with respect to policy questions.

I blame the election result on Sanders for having pushed Clinton too far to the left.Ralph Nader was responsible for GWB. Now, Sanders is responsible for Trump.These mother fuckers who ruin things with their regressive agendas need to crawl into the ground and die.

Rrrrrrriiiiiiiight.... So Debbie Wasserman just stepped down for no reason? Because she's innocent, right? Oh, because it was those pesky Russian hackers. Evidently not given a treasure trove of improprieties on her part, the Clinton Foundation, and her cronies in the DNC. Which so-called lies in particular so we can address them? There's so many credited to her that we'd have to parcel through them. Oh, no, there's plenty wrong with that guy. I was referencing political dirt... That's almost a joke compared to what Hillary Clinton has in terms of scandals.

Or you could, ya know, blame Hillary Clinton for being such a piece of shit... She did this to herself. And the DNC did it to itself. The RNC had about a decade of similar underhanded scandals that took a long time to move passed. Now the Democrats have lost the presidency, the House, and the Senate. Absolutely catastrophic... Even somebody like myself who leans more to the right than most at EvC knows that is dangerous because it gives them carte blanche to pass insane laws. There's a reason they call it checks and balances... but now it's way too imbalanced. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

One more reply.It occurs to me that maybe you and dronestar don't fully understand what Clinton voted for.What she voted for:

• was not a declaration of war;
• was not an authorization to go to war.

It was merely a resolution of support for the president. It carries the same legal weight as expressing an opinion here at evcforum. That is to say, it carries no legal weight at all. Bush could have gone to war without such a resolution. He could have gone to war if the vote on the resolution had been opposed. The chances are that a strongly opposed vote would have caused Bush to reconsider, but it would not even require that.As for her role in Syria as secretary of state: she had no ability to commit any troops. She could only make recommendations to the president. Any decision to commit troops would have been the president's.

Now that the election is over there's little point in conducting a negative campaign against the losing candidate, especially one directed at people who voted for her only because of the horror inspired by her opponent. I do agree with one of the points that it makes little sense to draw conclusions from considerations that carry little weight, such as politicians acting like politicians.In a couple months Trump will be president, and that seems a more relevant topic. Wall Street seems to like him. Will he build "the wall"? What will be his policy with Russia? With Israel?--Percy

"The Wall" is a serious subject down here, particularly as implemented so far. As it now exists down here in South Texas it sometimes passes through peoples property dividing land that is under use and even puts some homes on the Mexican side of the wall. It cuts off access to the river that once was simply another part of life. It's not just along a "border" but a real wall that disrupts life more for our citizens than it seems to discourage illegal immigration.