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
X3 He was still being a generally oppressive dictator but I don't belive he was committing any specific war crimes (he was still being watched pretty closely after he gassed the Kurds during the '90s (I think it was the '90s)) and harbouring terrorists is unlikely unless they were terrorist attacking Iran. He certainly had no connection to 9/11 as was implied.
![]()
Then explain how Saddam's invasion of Kuwait wasn't judged as one? Even though even Russian signed off on him being forcibly removed?
On a level I suspect it's inertia at this point, nobody wants to declare anything a crime against peace because that puts the country declared that way on the same level of Hitler, and that's a bit much. If it had been done from the start it would work, but now, a country being the only one apart from th Nazis to be done for crimes against peace, that's to big a statement.
edited 18th May '16 8:06:40 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![]()
In terms of absolute numbers, one of them is absolutely worse; even if a thousand people died of cancer because of Sanders' bad judgement, that's about 0.1% of the people who died as a result of Clinton (and the majority of congress's) bad judgement and/or malice.
Either way, the UN told the US to send inspectors again and wait to see what they found at the resolution preceding the invasion of Iraq. When the US produced its "evidence" of Iraq stockpiling chemical weapons, the UN didn't sign off on the invasion, and, theoretically, that's what a war of aggression is defined as. It's not really used for the reasons you stated, but I don't think the fact that only Nazi Germany was ever held accountable for it absolves the US of its crime.
edited 18th May '16 8:09:26 PM by CaptainCapsase
X3 What the US did is more likely to be considered an act of aggression, which is still a breach of international law and something nationals can be and are punished for, but it's not as severe as a crime against peace.
A crime against peace would likely (based of history and what little written definition there is) be defined as a sustained campaign, so if Iraq hadn't gone tits up and the US had used Iraq as a base for for forcibly changing every regime in the region to be friendly you'd have an argument for a crime against peace, but things never got that far.
What the US did was wrong, it was an act of aggression and a violation of international law, but it wasn't a crime against peace, that's a whole other ballpark
edited 18th May '16 8:16:41 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 never said it was; I said crime against humanity, and that definition covers any unsanctioned war.
Either way, dying from a gunshot wound (or more likely in this case shrapnel) is slow and agonizing in most cases, and not remotely quick. Not what I'd call a quick and painless death.
edited 18th May '16 8:28:57 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
How much damage Trump could do is relatively limited due to the nature of the American presidency and the relative stability of the country in the current day. It'd be unpleasant, but he's not going to destroy America, any more than he's going to make it great again.
I imagine it would go about as well as George W. Bush. Which is to say quite bad.
edited 18th May '16 8:47:04 PM by CaptainCapsase
I miss Starship Maximus. Or Starship Maximum. Or whatever the hell his name was.
Honestly, FOX did a good job of moderating the Michigan debate. Granted, the GOP didn't have a presumptive nominee at that point...
Damn, didn't expect him to go there. Looks like I owe Potato Rocks a coke.
edited 18th May '16 8:51:49 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.
He's trying to distance himself from it, but he hasn't disavowed it.
Trump repeatedly refused to answer the question, saying that once he answers it, “that’s all people want to talk about.” So no, he did not give a straight answer to whether Obama’s a legitimate president.
edited 18th May '16 9:19:13 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.Evidently, not running for president anymore does wonders for your sanity. Maybe the effect of being called a truant did also help.
Also, about that 1994 crime bill, if memory serves Hillary did endorse its passage and in far more enthusiastic terms than Sanders did, who did support it with reservations about its effects on incarceration rates.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

IIRC, wasn't he still in the process of committing war crimes as well as harboring terrorists?
Leviticus 19:34