Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

Thanks Mod.

Nobody here is defending the invasion of Iraq or Hillary Clinton's complicity in it. What is being questioned is your claim that her complicity was a "confirmed, 100%" war crime.

Message 118(And Percy wonders why . . . )

There is nothing in Message 118 to indicate a "confirmed, 100%" war crime - because it is not a confirmed war crime. Quit while you're behind.

*Blinks*Uhh, yeah, you're right Ringo, there's nothing in post 118 to indicate a "confirmed, 100%" war crime." You sure are sharp as a tack!Good job Ringo.

Thanks for dropping that silly claim.

I assume there's some sense to be made from this, but I'm a little foggy. I think you might be thinking of stuff like 'crimes against humanity' and 'war crimes'. Leaving those aside for a minute if it was an invasion of a sovereign state without the consent of the UN when not in self defence (pre-emptive is ruled out in this case) then it was a war of aggression and a crime against peace.

Hi, Dronestar. It wasn't a false-dilemma fallacy, you artless, lily-livered minnow*. I said "you have bigger fish to fry," not "leave Hillary alone, because she's not a war criminal." To clarify, my complaint is that your obsession with Hillary Clinton's alleged war crimes is out of proportion to the concern it raises about our future.I'm willing to bet that, whatever atrocities Hillary Clinton may perpetrate upon taking office, Trump or Cruz would almost certainly perpetrate that and more. I therefore think you should spread your vitriol more proportionately across all likely human-rights violators, in an earnest effort to condemn war crimes. Your habit of passionately monologuing about Hillary makes it sound like the axe you wish to grind is rather more specific than the broad topic of "war crimes" (that is to say, you sound more like a Hillary-hater than a war crime-hater). *Seriously, try the Shakespearean insulter: your facepalm/chuckle/eyeroll repertoire is getting a bit stale.

Actually all of the above. The US certainly has been involved in many Wars of Aggression, in Florida under Andrew Jackson when it was a Spanish State, in Hawaii even after we had guaranteed the continuation of the Sovereign Monarchy there, against Mexico, against Columbia to create Panama for the canal, against Iran to overthrow the duly elected President and install the Shah, many times in Nicaragua (look up William Walker as a private possibly non-governmental example), in the Dominican Republic to seize banks and secure debts owed to the US, again and again and again and again in Honduras and Nicaragua, in Guatemala (in 1921 to overthrow the government that wanted to Tax United Fruit Company), in the Congo in 1960 and South Vietnam three years later and Brazil the very next year, and Chile in 1973.But there is also the Genocide against the Native Americans and the long time second class sanctions against blacks and Latinos and other groups. We sent gunships to Japan and China to force trade agreements.The US has been really really effective in such practices.

Rudolph Hess was only found guilty of doing this once and got a life sentence. And he didn't see the war through to the end before surrendering and was probably in some way mentally ill.The point is, if Hillary is to be thought of as being guilty of the exact same crime (though more mitigation, less aggravating circumstances etc), is she really President material?

In the US? Eminently qualified.AbE:Please let me expand on that.Il Donald comes across as a grade school playground bully. Nasty individual but they usually wilt when anyone actually stands up to them.Hilary though is the real thing, quiet, brilliant, patient with a long, long memory and world wide connections, one that does not need bluster or even a frown, or have to raise her voice or threaten.She would make Don Corleone think twice.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Hey Blue Jay, you fobbing toad-spotted strumpet!* (m'eh, I think I prefer writing my own material) You couldn't be more wrong.First: If I was only a Hillary Hater, I would harp on the countless other things she's done that are not war crimes, but actions that make her unfit for presidency. I think you have written I've been pretty focused on just the war crimes she committed.Listed in Message 76:

quote:

---

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

---

Thusly: I've listed some of Hillary's war crimes in Message 76.Second: I've harped on EVERY US president who was/is a war criminal. My first debate on the forum was against Rrhain about Bill Clinton and his war crimes. Look it up. You should remember my epic fights with CrashFrog about Obama crimes (Percy let us get away with murder). Recently, I trounced Jimmy Carter about his crimes. I've never let a chance to show my utter disdain for arch-war criminal Bush Jr. to go without comment. And ask CatholicScientist how many times he asked me about US presidents being war criminals. Sadly, on this forum I must look like a one trick pony. It is easy for me to understand other's particpant's disdain for my posts. Christ, some days I can barely stand me!However, it IS about war criminals. And Hillary is the only war criminal in the race for president. War crimes are the SUPREME crime. A comparison of what Trump or Cruz MAY do is such a horrible insult to all the people who have suffered, and are suffering in the world because of war criminals, like Hillary. It burns me that people would prefer to elect a war criminal than put her on trial. It must also burn others in the world who have been on war criminal's other side of the sword's blade. I fight a little, maybe a lot, for those people who don't have the voices. As a world traveler, I see them close up, talk to them, and sometimes even befriend them. I am embarrassed about what they probably really think of americans.Thirdly: I know it seems to americans that I am obsessive with the war crimes name-calling. But that is because americans are incredibly apathetic to others suffering . . .Americans might answer the question about how many american soldier deaths in Iraq, but not how many Iraqis. Americans might answer the question about how many american soldier deaths in Viet Nam, but not how many Vietnamese. How many americans have a clue to how many native-americans were murdered?Another example: it was the illegal and immoral Iraqi invasion that has created the ISIL terrorist world and the world immigration problem. America bombs them there, the people who don't want to join ISIL tries to leave their country, then Europe and America turns them back to the hell hole america created. WTF?Look up the history of Latin America and what prompts their immigration to the US (same reason).Lastly, it burns me to read when Hillary voters scorn Trump and Cruz. Not because Trump and Cruz don't deserve it, but the sheer hypocrisy of the voters supporting a candidate that in many areas is much worse. Again, Hillary murdered up to million Iraqis, how many have Trump or Cruz murdered?I wrote before, voting for the lesser of evils only means evil wins in the end. On your death bed, do you want to look back and know that you willfully made the world a worse place? Not a rhetoric question. As I age, it's something I think about often. If you have children, I would guess you think about it too.Okay, I'm done, let the jeers fly, good night, have a good weekend.Edited by dronestar, : added "to go without comment." Kinda means the opposite without. : (

No one can be a War Criminal who has not be charged by a duly constituted and recognized court.Sorry but that is the fact.Joseph Stalin was not a War Criminal.Mao Tse Tung was not a War Criminal.Hilary Clinton is not a War Criminal.Sorry if reality interferes with your fantasies but them's the facts.

An awful lot of perfectly reasonable points of view get buried at EvC under a mountain of nitpicking pedantry about terminology.

That someone is innocent, until proven guilty in a validly constituted Court of law is one of the principal cornerstones of the rule of law - not nitpicking pedantry about terminology.