Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Capsase, that's not actually an answer and you know it. If you want to go around claiming Clinton is a criminal (and again, voting for an invasion is not actually a crime) then you're gonna get some pushback for some actual proof beyond she made a vote when she was a Senator.
Which, again, she has admitted to being a mistake.
![]()
Like I said, under this logic we could lock Sanders up for gross negligence and disregard for human life given his willingness to support the construction of an unsafe storage facility and his refusal to even inspect the site of it. We never would, because that would be stupid, but following your train of logic we could.
My train of logic considers being party to a war that was illegal* even under George Bush's claimed Casus Belli and which resulted in around a million deaths, about 100,000 of which can be directly attributed to the actions of the US military during the invasion, as a crime of a different magnitude than what Sanders did.
* Or rather it would be if the United States wasn't on the UN security council; under the UN Charter any declaration of war that is not sanctioned by the UN is by definition illegal. That the security council is responsible for enforcing that is the only reason the US didn't face any consequences for the war.
edited 18th May '16 6:32:05 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Ambar: We're at an impasse, so let's get in our last words and drop this; given that war was declared against Iraq in violation of the UN charter, it was illegal in spite of Bush's claimed Casus Belli. It doesn't matter whether they bought the claims about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction; every one of the congresspeople who voted in favor of war is party to a crime against humanity. It doesn't matter what their intentions were, given the sheer number of people who died because of their actions; some things simply cannot be forgiven, and for me, this is one of them.
![]()
Right now it is, but the latter half of the 21st century is looking quite grim, and as far as the US goes, its currently trending down in stability according to the fragile state index, though it's still in the third most stable category. (stable)
edited 18th May '16 6:45:31 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Ambar: You do realize that a lot of tropers present would not really object to throwing Congress as a whole in jail, right?
@Captain Capsase: Personally, for Iraq specifically, my only objection to the war was that it was forced through by a campaign of lies and threats while we were already in a war elsewhere and we wrecked our military readiness doing so. There's reasonable doubt that anyone in Congress knew that Saddam was not stockpiling illegal WMDs, and hey, the President said it so it must be true.
I would have approved of a properly-organized and planned invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein based on his many crimes against humanity - I've repeatedly said before that stopping such crimes is an entirely legitimate casus belli and an excuse for overthrowing a nation's government. (I would not require UN approval for this, because the UN has no authority over five specific nations, one of which is the US - blame Stalin and the atomic bomb for that.)
edited 18th May '16 6:48:11 PM by Ramidel
What is that map even supposed to mean? You didn't even explain how it pertains to the future of the US, which is on the more stable list anyway which suggest that yeah, we're actually in a relatively good spot. There's little to explain that map and the numbers.
![]()
Aside of practicality, they'd have to prove a crime was indeed committed.
edited 18th May '16 6:47:55 PM by AceofSpades
http://library.fundforpeace.org/library/fragilestatesindex-2015.pdf
(that's the detailed report)
Sorry, I assumed you'd be able to navigate the site relatively easily; that's the detailed explanation of why particular countries are ranked as they are, and details about how things are changing over time. The US is trending slightly downwards, along with the rest of the west. In fact, most of the world is trending downwards atm, with a few exceptions. There's a long way to go before the US slides down into the next category. Under no circumstances do I consider it acceptable for a nation to unilaterally declare war in our modern world.
@Ramidel: I did mention the caveat of the US being exempt from needing the UN's approval by virtue of being on the security council, which I personally disagree with. If it was any other nation who'd done that, they'd be heavily sanctioned and diplomatically isolated. Rather like what happened to Russia after they annexing Crimea.
edited 18th May '16 6:54:36 PM by CaptainCapsase
The detailed report has a full explanation of each country's ranking. In the US case, stability is trending downwards. One indicator of which is the rise of demagogues. Which is to say Donald Trump.
As far as why I said the latter half of the 21st century is looking grim...
Well, climate change alone is reason enough to say that; we are not doing nearly enough now to avert catastrophe. Add to that the fact that we're poised to be heading into a major economic transition midway through the 21st century (automation and artificial intelligence), and the fact that we'll be hitting peak oil in the 2050s at current consumption trends...
edited 18th May '16 7:00:43 PM by CaptainCapsase
Bollocks. Yes a war of aggression is illegal under the UN rules, do you know how many times the UN has managed to agree on what counts as a war of aggression on a scale that people should be convicted of war crimes for waging it? Once. World War 2, that's literally the only time that provision of the UN charter has lead to criminal charges, the US being on the security council means that there weren't sanctions, condemnation or possibly even a UN lead pushback but even then it wouldn't have been tried under the UN charter for waging a war of aggression, because nobody has been tried under that since the Nazis.
Nobody gets convicted for crimes against peace, not North Korea, not Saddam, not Argantina, nobody.
Edit: To further clarify, countries do get done for acts of aggression (which can include invasions and attacks) but in international law that's not the same as a war of aggression, a war of aggression/crime against peace is a super special thing that we've only been able to agree on as having occurred with WW 2.
It's considered a bit of a shit mood to overthrow someone for crimes against humanity after the fact. You do it when they're committing the crimes, you don't let them commit the crimes because you don't care then years later go "actually we'd like to overthrow you, so we're gonna do that now". Saddam would have had to have been committing fresh crimes for the US to have a legal leg to stand on.
Oh and the UN does have the right to tell the P5 what to do, outside of very special provisions (as used during the Suez crisis) it physically can't without that country okaying it, but it still has the legal right to.
edited 18th May '16 7:50:38 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I'd just like to see some proof that every congressperson should have somehow suspected the information they had was false.