Jump to content


We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Hillary Clinton


  • Please log in to reply
546 replies to this topic

#51 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,196 posts

Posted 10 June 2016 - 02:08 PM

Not really. You need to take a closer look at the UN charter.

I thought I was familiar. Seems you are confident that I'm mistaken. Please provide anything within the UN charter which advocates/approves or defends the legality of the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq.
 

In some senses of the word the Russian intervention in Syria is legal. However aiding Assad who is quite clearly a war criminal brings to question that "legal" status in some ways. Then there's the quite clear case of the Russian interventions in Georgia and the Ukraine being illegal in the case of the Ukraine in at least two and probably more ways. As for no fly zones there are a number of ways of enforcing them or not. Note that she has specifically called for "deconflicting" this with regards to Russian operations. So it seams you are a bit off in saying she's calling for shooting down Russian planes.

The above is quite puzzling. If in "some senses" of the word it's legal then there must be some senses which it is not. Which senses/cases are those? Who exactly clarified that Assad is a war criminal? It definitely wasn't the UN. In fact in the French Comunique which was signed by several nations (US included) in 2013 made no mention of his so called war crimes or his need for immediate resignation. Furthermore, I believe it was Lavrov himself who stated that "if the US insists on Assad's removal than the US should scratch off it's signature from the document signed in 2013.

Again you mention of a "clear case" of illegal Russian intervention in Georgia... What case? illegal how? Russia was not the aggressor, Gergia was. It was Georgia who started the conflict by breaking the treaty and invading South Ossetia and done so while everyone had their back turned enjoying the opening ceremony of olympics games in China. Just to remind you, it was Georgia that broke the treaty which she was a signatory in by invading South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers were killed in the process. Interestingly enough, Russia after destroying the Georgian military was advancing unopposed on the main highway to the capital Tbilisi, when she simply turned around and went back home. Those are not the characteristics of an aggressive nation or of one bent on conquest. There wasn't even talk of sanctions after the fact.

https://euobserver.com/foreign/28747

So I ask again what did Russia do that was illegal?

Russia is not in Ukraine if she was there would be no denying it.

http://www.unz.com/a...ighters-locals/

What has Russia done in Ukraine that's illegal?
Ukraine was the work of Vicky Nuland (she's not Russian).

Ofcourse Hillary Clinton called for Russia to "de-escalate" operations in Syria. That's because Russia began bombing US "moderate" allies which turned out to be not so moderate. It was in fact Hillary who wanted to arm these rebels (terrorists) in Syria prior to Obama (something I look forward to Trump bringing up in their debate). Syria is/was a sovereign state. Who gave the US permission to bomb it? It wasn't the UN (whom Russia got approval from) and certainly not Assad (the internationally recognized leader of Syria) whom Russia also got permission from btw. How can Hillary call for a no fly zone in a nation which the US is operating in without anyone's permission? This "no fly zone" advocated by Hillary and company was done so when Russia was already actively involved in Syria. Please help me understand the "numerous ways" in which she would have enforced this no fly zone without starting WWIII. This is actually the very same point which was correctly raised by senator Rand Paul when he addressed Marco Rubio's (another brilliant NeoCon) same comment in the republican debate.

I look forward to you directly addressing and answering these questions/points and please without the vagueness which some of us have grown accustomed to coming from your corner. ;)


Edited by Sloniksp, 11 June 2016 - 09:42 AM.

The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#52 KodiakBeer

KodiakBeer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts
  • LocationThe Arid Zone

Posted 10 June 2016 - 02:25 PM

Please provide anything within the UN charter which advocates/approves or defends the legality of the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq.

 

 

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized the invasion of Iraq.  This followed over 30 censures from the UNSC on repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement by Iraq.


A Kodiak Bear Mauling (shameless plug): http://www.amazon.co...tmm_pap_title_0


#53 WW2HistoryGal

WW2HistoryGal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • LocationNebraska

Posted 10 June 2016 - 02:35 PM

Now this makes me downright mad.

 

https://www.facebook...55/?pnref=story

 

Apparently Google rigged the system so that certain searches for Hilary Clinton would not turn up on Google right away. I highly recommend watching this.


  • Buten42 likes this

Author of Nebraska POW Camps: World War II Prisoners of War in the Heartland / Available from The History Press and Amazon.com

My World War 2 Reviews Blog: Best of World War 2


#54 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,196 posts

Posted 10 June 2016 - 02:56 PM

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized the invasion of Iraq. This followed over 30 censures from the UNSC on repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement by Iraq.

I don't want to get too far off topic here but the resolution was passed ONLY by US allies based on the notion that Saddam had WMDs which we all now know he never possessed. The UN Security Council did not approve. China, France and Russia vetoed the resolution for lack of evidence forcing the US to circumvent the decision.

"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal." - Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General

The entire campaign was based on a lie and virtually all involved lost their jobs once elections came. Tony Blair included.

https://www.theguard...ep/16/iraq.iraq

Another war Hillary Clinton voted for.

Edited by Sloniksp, 10 June 2016 - 03:07 PM.

The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#55 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,196 posts

Posted 10 June 2016 - 03:02 PM

Now this makes me downright mad.

https://www.facebook...55/?pnref=story

Apparently Google rigged the system so that certain searches for Hilary Clinton would not turn up on Google right away. I highly recommend watching this.


I feel your pain....
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#56 KodiakBeer

KodiakBeer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts
  • LocationThe Arid Zone

Posted 10 June 2016 - 03:06 PM

I don't want to get too far off topic here but the resolution was passed ONLY by US allies based on the notion that Saddam had WMDs which we all now know he never possessed.

 

 

It was passed by the UN Security Council and is based on over 30 violations of the ceasefire agreement, most having nothing or only peripheral involvement with WMDs.   Much of it is/was based on Iraq refusing to allow inspections or misleading inspectors.  Others were material violations such as drones and missiles found which had greater range than the ceasefire allowed.   In hindsight it appears that Saddam was playing a fool's game, trying to pretend he still had WMDs to keep Iran on edge, but assured by Russia that they could block any US/UN invasion for not complying.

 

That's the simple truth.  The US was still at war with Iraq.  It was only a ceasefire, not a surrender.  So, when we invaded it was a resumption of hostilities, not a new war.  One can debate the wisdom of that, but the legality is unquestioned. 


A Kodiak Bear Mauling (shameless plug): http://www.amazon.co...tmm_pap_title_0


#57 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,196 posts

Posted 10 June 2016 - 03:25 PM

It was passed by the UN Security Council and is based on over 30 violations of the ceasefire agreement, most having nothing or only peripheral involvement with WMDs. Much of it is/was based on Iraq refusing to allow inspections or misleading inspectors. Others were material violations such as drones and missiles found which had greater range than the ceasefire allowed. In hindsight it appears that Saddam was playing a fool's game, trying to pretend he still had WMDs to keep Iran on edge, but assured by Russia that they could block any US/UN invasion for not complying.

That's the simple truth. The US was still at war with Iraq. It was only a ceasefire, not a surrender. So, when we invaded it was a resumption of hostilities, not a new war. One can debate the wisdom of that, but the legality is unquestioned.

The war in Iraq was sold to the American people, US politicians and the world based on Iraq's possession of WMDs, chemical weapons (a small vial which Collen Powel now infamously held in his hand at the UN claiming that "this much" could kill everyone in the room) and direct links to Al Qaida which posed a direct threat to US and its allies national security. No one would have ever approved an invasion based on cease fire violations (against whom btw?) and weapons inspectors.

The Bush administration fabricated the above (confirmed by US itelligence operatives who distanced themselves from such info) which many in the US have already stated they would NOT have voted in such a manner had they known then what they know now..

No WMDs, no chemical/biological weapons and certainly no Al Qaida links.

If the UN Secretary General says the war was illegal, I'd say he's on to something.

Edited by Sloniksp, 10 June 2016 - 03:32 PM.

The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#58 KodiakBeer

KodiakBeer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,291 posts
  • LocationThe Arid Zone

Posted 10 June 2016 - 03:44 PM

The war in Iraq was sold to the American people, US politicians and the world based on Iraq's possession of WMDs, chemical weapons (a small vial which Collen Powel now infamously held in his hand at the UN claiming that "this much" could kill everyone in the room) and direct links to Al Qaida which posed a direct threat to US and its allies national security. No one would have ever approved an invasion based on cease fire violations (against whom btw?) and weapons inspectors.

 

 

Completely different subject.  How the resumption of hostilities was made politically palatable has nothing to do with the legality of UN resolution authorizing use of force.  You can pull up the resolution and read it yourself.  There is no smoking gun pointing out possession of WMDs, only references to breaches of the agreement, which are unquestioned and well documented.


A Kodiak Bear Mauling (shameless plug): http://www.amazon.co...tmm_pap_title_0


#59 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,196 posts

Posted 11 June 2016 - 09:31 AM

Completely different subject. How the resumption of hostilities was made politically palatable has nothing to do with the legality of UN resolution authorizing use of force. You can pull up the resolution and read it yourself. There is no smoking gun pointing out possession of WMDs, only references to breaches of the agreement, which are unquestioned and well documented.

Hello again Kodiak,

IIRC, resolution 1441 was essentially Saddam's last chance to comply with his disarmament obligations. Of course this was easily passed with both permanent and non permanent members in agreement of Saddam's obligations. This was an indictment on which a case was to be built proving or disproving breaches of previous resolutions not and authorization for war.

1441 essentially stated that Saddam was in material breach of a previous resolution concerning not only possession of WMDs but also the construction of them as well as the purchase/import of armaments. Also, Compensating Kuwait or in this case lack there off for invading in 1990.

Complaints began to mount against Saddam with Bush officially addressing them in 02' at the general assembly. Human rights violations, production and use of WMDs, and terror links were among the complaints. It did not end there. Links to terror groups were mentioned along with allegations that Saddam used funds from the Oil and Food program to acquire weapons rather than feed his people. Finally, violating inspections and the disposal of the WMDs.

After finally returning to Iraq, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei lead a team from the IAEA to investigate the allegations. Visting suspected sites, no evidence aside from 15-20 122mm chemical rockets (which were destroyed under the UNMOVIC supervision) was ever gathered. Inspectors also ran into a few AL-Samoud and Al-Fatah missiles both of which were in violation but were also partially destroyed. It was discovered that no WMDs production was taking place and there were no stockpiles of any kind. As a result, a debate ensued concerning whether or not Iraq (with the absence of WMDs and acceptance of inspectors) violated resolution 1441 and whether an invasion was justified. Thinking law was on their side and believing that it is up to the council itself and not the individual members to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced, China, France and Russia (all permanent members of the UN Security Council) said no to war and vetoed for lack of sufficient evidence. We know now that it wasnt enough as some members did not agree.

Whats amazing is the Iraq Survey Group (commissioned by the Bush administration) tasked with determining whether or not WMDs existed in Iraq stated the following: "... there are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions", ISG attributed this to Baghdad's desire to have the sanctions lifted and the fear of force used against it should WMDs be discovered.

This was all kept quiet from the general public and the lies continued. The US did not secure UN's support, instead; created its own alliance and unilaterally enforced resolution 1441 under false pretenses. These very same false pretenses were used to convince many in the US, of the need to oust Saddam. Those that did their homework voted "no", Hillary did not do her homework.

Edited by Sloniksp, 11 June 2016 - 09:50 PM.

The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#60 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,827 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 11 June 2016 - 11:30 AM

Now this makes me downright mad.

 

https://www.facebook...55/?pnref=story

 

Apparently Google rigged the system so that certain searches for Hilary Clinton would not turn up on Google right away. I highly recommend watching this.

What should make you even madder...Sourcefed is manipulating you to skew the results in their favor.
 

A thought provoking rebuttal to the Sourcefed video.

https://medium.com/@...8ca1#.a5xy0emji



#61 Poppy

Poppy

    grasshopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,301 posts
  • LocationShambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3KP0

Posted 12 June 2016 - 12:12 AM

The mound of evidence against the hill looks like a death knell for the corrupt and creepy clintons.

Hope the change that bama promised will actually occur under trump. That is asking a lot, but the times should be a'changin'.

If google/fb wants clinton - i want trump.

google and fb have shown their stripes.


XX


#62 Kai-Petri

Kai-Petri

    Kenraali

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,601 posts
  • LocationKotka,Finland

User's Awards

2   

Posted 12 June 2016 - 05:40 PM

Why Hillary? Nobody suspecting trump is a failure. Even the top republicans sre finding it hard to co-operate with him.


Posted Image

#63 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 13 June 2016 - 02:02 PM

There is no proof that Assad is a war criminal : he is the legal head of state of Syria and what he is doing in his country is not the business of anyone in the US .

Wrong.  There is considerable evidence that Assad is a war criminal.  He may not have been convicted of it yet but that's a different matter.  For your information the conventions of war pertain to those involved in civil wars as  well as those involved in wars against other nations.

 

Besides, objectively Assad is an ally of the West :he is fighting against ISIS which is the enemy of the West and anyone who is indirectly/directly supporting ISIS is the enemy of the West .If he is a Western citizen, he is a traitor .

Another absurd rant.  Not worth dissecting.

 

Hillary calls for a non fly zone , to prevent Russian and Syrian aircraft to attack ISIS, that means that she is a traitor of the West . 

Except of course that she has done no such thing.
 



#64 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 13 June 2016 - 02:25 PM

I thought I was familiar. Seems you are confident that I'm mistaken. Please provide anything within the UN charter which advocates/approves or defends the legality of the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq.

Others have given you one answer but it's also covered under Chapter VII article 51 see:

http://www.un.org/en...-vii/index.html

 

 

....

The above is quite puzzling. If in "some senses" of the word it's legal then there must be some senses which it is not. Which senses/cases are those?

Being an accomplice to a crime is a crime is it not?  It's quite clear that Assad has engaged in warcrimes it's less clear that the Russians have engaged directly in the same but they have certainlyl aided Asssad in the same.

Who exactly clarified that Assad is a war criminal?

Anyone who has read and understands the recent history of Syria would have no doubt that Assad is a war criminal, true he hasn't been convicted yet but  his actions speak for themselves.
 

 

....

Just to remind you, it was Georgia that broke the treaty which she was a signatory in by invading South Ossetia. Russian peacekeepers were killed in the process. Interestingly enough, Russia after destroying the Georgian military was advancing unopposed on the main highway to the capital Tbilisi, when she simply turned around and went back home. Those are not the characteristics of an aggressive nation or of one bent on conquest. ...
 

And Georgia wasn't provoked at all?  Except of course that Russia did take over part of Georgia, that counts as a conquest doesn't it?   They didn't exactly go home either did they as they are still in Georgia and expanding form what I've read.

 

....
Russia is not in Ukraine if she was there would be no denying it.
 

Russia is clearly in the Ukraine that it hasn't stopped Putin from denying it is irrelevant.  Look at the facts  man!  The Crimea was part of the Ukraine now it's occupied by Russia.  The "opposing forces" in Eastern Ukraine are clearly composed of a significant number of Russians and supplied by the same.  Simply denying it like Putin is doing is simply lying.



#65 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 13 June 2016 - 02:35 PM

The war in Iraq was sold to the American people, US politicians and the world based on Iraq's possession of WMDs, chemical weapons (a small vial which Collen Powel now infamously held in his hand at the UN claiming that "this much" could kill everyone in the room) and direct links to Al Qaida which posed a direct threat to US and its allies national security. No one would have ever approved an invasion based on cease fire violations (against whom btw?) and weapons inspectors.

The Bush administration fabricated the above (confirmed by US itelligence operatives who distanced themselves from such info) which many in the US have already stated they would NOT have voted in such a manner had they known then what they know now..

No WMDs, no chemical/biological weapons and certainly no Al Qaida links.

If the UN Secretary General says the war was illegal, I'd say he's on to something.

Well there were WMDs and Sadam intentionally gave the impression that he had more capability in that area than he had.  Furthermore Iraq had a history of making and using them and had much of the production capability intact.  The intel reports were distorted to imply that it was more certain than it was but clearly your statement i.e.:

 

No WMDs, no chemical/biological weapons and certainly no Al Qaida links.

Is wrong with regards to WMDs.  It's also wrong with respect to Al Qaida links.  True those links were very limited but they were there.

 

As for the UN Secretary, I'd agree he's on something but not with respect to his legal pronouncement.



#66 Poppy

Poppy

    grasshopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,301 posts
  • LocationShambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3KP0

Posted 13 June 2016 - 11:04 PM

The topic is hillary.

Recent events will swing the vote to trump in my humble opinion.

hill had a lot of the LGBT crowd originally. ..That sharia has been shown to be anti women, gay, other religion or even tolerant-

Trump by a landslide.

isis realize that actions against women/gay/other religion will prevent/provoke US voters from voting for the weak and apologist left, thereby bringing the 72 virgins (a mix of boys and animals) to their glory. Let's give it to them.

Guns and war enabled people here to have such widely varying opinions. ..Now some (left) free people complain about the society that allowed their success or perversion or even the right to speak out- only to discover there are no freedoms offered to women/gay/religion/politics when subscribing to sharia.

The left has to explain how sharia will jive with women/gay/trans/other religion/politics.

It doesn't...so time to jump on the republican bandwagon...it hurts, to admit, but better than sharia- right?


XX


#67 KJ Jr

KJ Jr

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,439 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 13 June 2016 - 11:30 PM

Poppy, seems like your trying to talk your way into it :)
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Einstein
 

 

#68 Poppy

Poppy

    grasshopper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,301 posts
  • LocationShambhala http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv9DwzU3KP0

Posted 14 June 2016 - 12:13 AM

When it comes to brass tacks... As a younger fella- voted left... More of a -get off my lawn- type now. True story- couple weeks ago, (i take pride in my bushes/trees/lawn) there were kidlets throwing a basketball/ riding tricycles / roughhousing. They could do all that in front of their house...but nooo...they had to go where its nice and green/clean. Had a piss tank of a neighbor 6-7 years back. He drunkenly wiped out into my immaculate hedge. It was a disaster. Took years for that hole to regrow... So, these brats were causing me grief. It was a hot evening, so was fully justified in turning the sprinkler on... These kids are like cats. I don't smack them, but they can tell i don't want 'em around. Freakin' trip over the little devils all the time...just want to be aloone. OMG, im isis. just realized that.

XX


#69 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,196 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 02:36 AM

Others have given you one answer but it's also covered under Chapter VII article 51 see:
http://www.un.org/en...-vii/index.html

I think we are dangerously close to getting spanked by the mods. Let's throw Hillary into the mix so at least she is mentioned ;)

If you notice, you link continuously claims "The UN Security Council".... The US is NOT the council but part of it. The council did NOT support military intervention in Iraq. The decision to do so was unilateraly enforced by the Bush administration....

Being an accomplice to a crime is a crime is it not? It's quite clear that Assad has engaged in warcrimes it's less clear that the Russians have engaged directly in the same but they have certainlyl aided Asssad in the same.

This is the definition of a vague response.

Being an accomplice to what war crimes?
What war crimes has Assad "clearly" committed?
Since your throwing the Russians into the mix now, what war crimes have the Russians committed?

It was Hillary Clinton who voiced support in supplying the "moderate" rebels who turned out to be not so moderate.

Why is Hillary not held responsible for arming Jihadi extremists?

Anyone who has read and understands the recent history of Syria would have no doubt that Assad is a war criminal, true he hasn't been convicted yet but his actions speak for themselves.

Convicted?!? :D He hasn't even been indicted!

Again pls provide sources for such an accusation?

You have also failed to address my question as to who gave permission/allowed the US to bomb Syria (a sovereign state). That in itself is a war crime.


And Georgia wasn't provoked at all? Except of course that Russia did take over part of Georgia, that counts as a conquest doesn't it? They didn't exactly go home either did they as they are still in Georgia and expanding form what I've read

Provoked what? How? What part of Georgia did Russia take? Again pls provide your sources. I would be very much interested in which part of Georgia Russia has occupied and (according to what you have read) expanding.

Russia is clearly in the Ukraine that it hasn't stopped Putin from denying it is irrelevant. Look at the facts man! The Crimea was part of the Ukraine now it's occupied by Russia. The "opposing forces" in Eastern Ukraine are clearly composed of a significant number of Russians and supplied by the same. Simply denying it like Putin is doing is simply lying.

The opposing forces are comprised of significant Russian forces you say??? Could you tell the difference between a Russia and a Ukrainian if they were standing side by side? I can't and I'm Russian. Where are you getting your info from?!? Fox News?


Please provide your sources. I have provided mine. They state that more than 80% are local Ukrainians and the sources came from a anti Russian blogger from Ukraine!

There are no regular Russian army troops in Ukraine. You have clearly not bothered to watch the video which I have presented in which a Russian war correspondent grills the Russian Secretary of State for not sending in the Russian military to help eastern Ukraine battle the fascists who have come to power there and again supported by Hillary Clinton and others in the admin....

I don't understand why it's difficult for you to comprehend the fact that Crimea isn't part of Ukraine anymore because it chose to secede. It has tried to unite with Russia on multiple occasions since the collapse of the Soviet Union but it was Russia that has refused them. The inhabitants of the peninsula DID NOT want to remain part of Ukraine, especially after the president who they over whelmingly voted for was over thrown. In fact even the majority of the Tatars chose to unite because the quality of life is better.

As for Russian presence there, it's more legal than US presence in Guantanamo.

Had Clinton been president when this all unfolded we may not even be having this conversation ;)

I don't want to high jack this thread. Let's continue this discussion elsewhere? I am very interested in your response to several of my questions and look forward to constructive debate. I'll start another thread ;)

Edited by Sloniksp, 15 June 2016 - 02:40 AM.

The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#70 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,196 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 02:45 AM

Why Hillary? Nobody suspecting trump is a failure. Even the top republicans sre finding it hard to co-operate with him.


Top Republicans are voting for Hillary because Trump is a threat to their existence. Hillary on the other hand is virtually an extension of their foreign policy (speaking of NeoCond only Ofcourse).
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#71 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 15 June 2016 - 12:31 PM

...
If you notice, you link continuously claims "The UN Security Council".... The US is NOT the council but part of it. The council did NOT support military intervention in Iraq. The decision to do so was unilateraly enforced by the Bush administration....

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  The first sentence of Article 51 is :"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs"

 

 

....
Being an accomplice to what war crimes?
What war crimes has Assad "clearly" committed?
Since your throwing the Russians into the mix now, what war crimes have the Russians committed?

What war crimes has Assad committed?  Do you read the news at all (other than Russian propaganda)?  The use of chemical weapons, deliberate attacks on civilian populations, mistreatment of POWs are a few.  Russian actions have certainly enable the continuation of those, it's an open question as to whether or not they have actively participated in them.

 

It was Hillary Clinton who voiced support in supplying the "moderate" rebels who turned out to be not so moderate.

Why is Hillary not held responsible for arming Jihadi extremists?
 

Certainly I've seen nothing to indicate that Clinton is without flaws.  Indeed I was hoping she wouldn't be the Democratic candidate because of the flaws she has clearly demonstrated.  The above though is not necessarily her fault.  Arming moderates is a reasonable action  IMO, however identifying them is a non trivial exercise and it's not even clear that falls under her responsibilities.

 

 

...

You have also failed to address my question as to who gave permission/allowed the US to bomb Syria (a sovereign state). That in itself is a war crime.

The US didn't need permission nor was it a war crime.  Daesh was and is attacking the US.  The failure of Syria to control them in their territories means that the US is free to do so in self defense.  No war crime there and I doubt Assad was unhappy about it either.

 

Provoked what? How? What part of Georgia did Russia take? Again pls provide your sources. I would be very much interested in which part of Georgia Russia has occupied and (according to what you have read) expanding.

Seriosly??? South Ossetia. 

I'm through for now.



#72 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 05:53 PM

I think we are dangerously close to getting spanked by the mods. Let's throw Hillary into the mix so at least she is mentioned ;)
 

 I prefer making  miscreants run around the building till I get tired.


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#73 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:12 PM

Poppy I'm afraid you are misreading American polling in this election and I take no joy in saying so.

 

4 weeks ago it might  have been possible except for Trump himself. He is giving this election away to a ethically challenged and morally flexible political hack. Only seemingly remaining issue is whether he will manage to give away the House and Senate as well. Everything coming out of his mouth (and tweets) these days seems to play only to a ever shrinking base of voters. Remember how he promised to 'destroy' Hillary and her very real scandals? I do but all I hear each day is how he has to defend one outrageous statement after another.

 

Trump couldn't do more harm to both the Republican Party and the Stop Hillary movement than if this was his goal from the beginning.

 

Barring an indictment from the FBI we are in for a Obama Pale Ale Presidency. 


  • Poppy likes this

Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#74 Sloniksp

Sloniksp

    Ставка

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,196 posts

Posted 20 June 2016 - 04:32 AM

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The first sentence of Article 51 is :"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs"

In what seems like act an act of desperation, you point out a clause in the charter referencing to "self defense" in a futile attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq?!?

Really? Yet I'm the one being obtuse?! :rofl:

What war crimes has Assad committed? Do you read the news at all (other than Russian propaganda)? The use of chemical weapons, deliberate attacks on civilian populations, mistreatment of POWs are a few. Russian actions have certainly enable the continuation of those, it's an open question as to whether or not they have actively participated in them.

Your are too much Lwd. Russian propaganda you say? I don't believe I have referenced a single Russian source on the matter. How does that work exactly?

There has been NO use of chemical weapons in Syria by Assad. In fact the false flag story was initially exposed by Turkish journalists, who claimed that it was Turkey that smuggled in the Saryn gas by the Jihadis. Chemical weapons myth has been debunked and is old news. Not sure why you keep bringing it up and continuously blame Assad.

Deliberate attack on civilians? I would love to see a source on this (not from US mainstream). Even then how does one prove a deliberate attack on civilians when a civil war is on ongoing with the terrorists using human shields? Why would Assad do this?

Mistreatment of POWs? What POWs? Since when are terrorist wearing civilian clothes become POWs? Are the detainees in Guantanamo POWs? Are they not being mistreated?

Certainly I've seen nothing to indicate that Clinton is without flaws. Indeed I was hoping she wouldn't be the Democratic candidate because of the flaws she has clearly demonstrated. The above though is not necessarily her fault. Arming moderates is a reasonable action IMO, however identifying them is a non trivial exercise and it's not even clear that falls under her responsibilities.

You haven't seen anything because you aren't looking very hard, certainly not passed US sources which have been anything but reliable since at least sept. 11th 2001.

Again, what moderate opposition? The only moderates left fighting in Syria (aside from the govt. forces), are the Kurds. All other groups switched sides after amnesty was offered.

What makes them moderate? They are certainly not secular to say the least. Russia has asked the US to point them out and to convince them to split from Daesh and Al Nusra in and around Aleppo as to not become victims of Russian and Syrian air strikes. For whatever reason ,the US was unable to do either. As a result, they are now on the receiving end of a ferocious bombing campaign.


The US didn't need permission nor was it a war crime. Daesh was and is attacking the US. The failure of Syria to control them in their territories means that the US is free to do so in self defense. No war crime there and I doubt Assad was unhappy about it either.

Of Course not! Only other countries must obey such laws certainly they do not apply to the US. :rolleyes: The failure of Syrian govt. to control the jihadis was in large part due to the enormous assistance which they were and are receiving (financially and militarily) from the Gulf States, Turkey and the US in yet another attemp to over throw a government. Unfortunately for them, once Russia decided enough was enough and came to Syrias aid (only after an invitation), did things began to turn around for Syria and her inhabitants.

Daesh has not attacked the US, I'm afraid you just made that up. Even if you consider the Orlando tragedy an ISIS attack (which it wasn't) the US has been bombing Syria way before that ever occurred.

Seriously??? South Ossetia.
I'm through for now.

You think South Ossetia is Russian?

I think it's quite clear that when speaking of GeoPolitics, me and you are polar opposites and theres nothing wrong with that. I just think it's unfortunate that you brush off anything and everyone who criticizes current US foreign policy as "Russian propaganda" while just as quickly accepting everything in the US mainstream media as fact. I assure you nothing could be further from the truth and the US just as the rest of the world is not perfect.

Judging by your responses in multiple threads, in which you have sided and defended virtually everyone and every movement against Russia (fascists in Kiev, Jihadis in the ME and the Georgian war off 08') it has become clear that you are not objective and consider Russia at fault or an aggressor every time. You even accused Russia of provoking a war with Georgia! That is just as obsurd as blaming the US for Pearl Harbor by stating that America provoked Japan by introducing its oil embargo.

It's not entirely your fault I suppose, you are after all are just repeating the White House nerrative which in turn is passed down the the media outlets. Unfortunately, propaganda exists in every country and the US is of no exception. As former Secretary of State, Hillary has made IMO, very poor decisions and many people in those parts of the world are suffering greatly because of them. The blame moves up the chain of command and she certainly gives orders not takes them (speaking of foreign policy of course). She has voted "yes" for every US military intervention around the world ever since she has gained a seat in the Senate. I do not see US foreign policy moving away from its current imperialist direction with her as POTUS.

Just for the record, I only engage in these kinds of debates with you purely for entertainment purposes. You are of course entitled to your opinions and I do not intend to convert you. Just curious to see where you stand and how you got there and perhaps shed some light on your conclusions by showing you the "other" side of the coin. I will state, however; that IMO such Cold War views are outdated my friend and if you are truly interested in what's going on in the world, you should diversify your search.

Cheers

Edited by Sloniksp, 20 June 2016 - 05:16 AM.

The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

#75 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,445 posts

Posted 06 July 2016 - 04:33 PM

Well 8 days ago Bill has a private meeting with the head of the Justice department, 4 days ago Clinton campaign hints Lynch 'may stay on' in a Hillary administration,  3 days ago she gets interviewed by FBI, yesterday she gets cleared of any charges.

 

Who woulda thunk it.


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users