US Elections 2016: Why we can't have nice things

[BloodRider]

40 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I like how basic humanity always comes out in discussions with liberals. Before US intervention, Syria was a peaceful, decent country, that had internal problems of course but what country doesn't? And then, after US intervention, Syria is now a wasteland, a destroyed country that's going to need decades to heal from this war. But retroactively it was all lawful, as it always is with US interventions, right? It's always the other countries that pay the price, right? Some other people, someone else's sons and daughters, but not yours, so it's all okay? You go ballistic over allegations that someone (Russians!) hacked some emails, but launching a military campaign that can be 'legalized' only retroactively is not a big deal, right?

And by the way, no, I'm not Russian. But thank God I'm not a liberal hypocrite voting for Hillary out of "humanitarian" and "intellectual" reasons. Not saying that you specifically are, but a lot of argumentation in this discussion is appalling and a clear reminder why the rest of the world is more and more fed up with US exceptionalism.

You must be Russian or Russia adjacent, because either you legitimately do not know about Putin repeatedly and deliberately  targeting hospitals and medical convoys in the middle of a cease fire.  Or you have been told that it doesn't amount to a heinous war crime because Putin did it.  Either way, you are a Neo-Com.

[Altherion]

13 minutes ago, StepStark said:

So please forgive me for calling Hillary Clinton and the rest of Obama's administration war criminals, instead of waiting for some legal action against them that will sadly never come. To every moral person, they are war criminals for what they've done with the region. Now go on and vote for her. As moral and competent as she is, she'll try to set a no fly zone over Syria. She said it yesterday. Let's see how "insignificant" that's going to be.

They're not war criminals for exactly the same reasons that Wells Fargo and other banks committing blatant, widespread fraud are never actually found guilty of fraud and have their executives sent to prison: they had a hand in writing the law and they have influence with the people who are supposed to be enforcing it. That said, I agree with you in principle: what the Obama administration (including Clinton) and our NATO allies did to Libya is atrocious.

However, there is no way Clinton will get a no fly zone over Syria. She may indeed try, but if she has any intelligence at all, she won't try very hard. That was a trick that could only be played once and we wasted it on Libya. From now on, Russia and/or China will veto everything that even vaguely resembles the Libyan resolution and since Russia is already operating in Syria, trying to impose a no fly zone without UN approval is tantamount to a declaration of WWIII.

[StepStark]

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

step stark:

 

First, privyet?

Second, I actually do agree that several US administrations have clearly been guilty of war crimes. 

Third, I agree that what is being suggested re:Russia trying to influence US elections is ironic, given that few if any nations in history have done as much more often than the States.

Having said all that, you're off on several points here. 

1) Russian bombings are not rendered legal strictly by virtue of not compromising sovereignty. Sovereignty is one of several factors which can constitute legality; Guernica would almost certainly be a war crime by modern standards, but would pass the only test you seem to think applies. Given the zealous nature with which you seem to be pointing the finger (again, with some justification) America's way, your blinkered defense here leads me to suspect that you have a vested interest in defending Russia, Syria or both. Am I correct?

2) Dulles type 'intervention' in other elections can be considered illegal. When it went so far as inciting armed rebellion it can even constitute a war crime. But that does not mean all (potentially criminal) interferences in foreign elections actually constitute 'war crimes', and you seem to conflate them here. 

3) Having agreed that several US administrations have been guilty of war crimes, the Obama administration is an interesting one upon which to focus. Mandate was given by the UN with regards to ISIS, so the case would have to be made with regards to how targeting ISIS was carried out.

I'm not even saying that Obama is innocent, nor do I buy the internal rubric many Americans use re: compared with _______, ie base assumption that 'norm' is legal, therefore illegal must be abnormal. US foreign policy's 'normal' may very well be illegal. 

But his case is much harder to make than many. Extending that case to his SecState is not nearly as clear as you seem to be assuming. It can possibly be done, but not just by assertion as you're doing. 

If you wait a bit, she'll IMO almost certainly cross that line as President, so that would be where I'd focus my attention if I were you. (Trump may do less or much, much worse, but the fact that he's on record as promoting war crimes before he even gets there, I think we can safely assume he's a bad bet.)

As far as her emails, I am not sufficiently informed to venture an opinion on whether or not there was a crime, but I did pick up on the fact that you are using circular logic...you closed the circle by citing that the presence of an investigation was proof of a crime. You started by saying the nature of the investigation proved corruption. Do you see the logical flaws present here? 

Again, though, your positions seem so directed and blinkered, even where I agree with them,to that they seemed to me to represent a support of an adversarial stance rather than an inherently critical one. So much so that I actually wondered if Anti-Targ introduced Russia as a stalking horse to see if that's where your critical perspective would suddenly not apply, and Lo and behold, you leap to Russia's defense with specious reasoning and a sudden lack of zeal with regards international justice, so I am forced to ask if you have any particular loyalty to Russia or possibly Syria? I apologize if I'm wrong, but my alarm bells are sounding.

Your being Russian wouldn't necessarily discredit your positions, btw. But it would certainly call into question your defending Russia...and wondering which way your real standards apply...in the way you attack US policy or in the way you defend Russia's. You cannot, IMO, do both from a legitimate starting position.

I'm not Russian but you can freely treat me as one. There is this constant racist idea that when Americans defend their country's foreign policy it's objective, but when other countries defend theirs then it's biased and discredited. I'm honestly disgusted by such standards. I'm not saying you advocate them, but just in case, treat me as a Russian from now on.

If you read one of my previous posts, I clearly said that Russia can be guilty of a particular war crime if the war crime in question is proven. But Russia can not be guilty of crime against peace. USA and its coalition definitely is guilty of that in Syria, and elsewhere around the world. So if you see, I was talking specifically of the crime against peace, which is a fundamental war crime. Actually, it is a war crime that enables all the other war crimes. I never said anything about particular war crimes like hits on civilians, because, as I also said, the situation on the ground at the moment doesn't allow a reliable investigation. That goes for all sides. Any action against non-combatant population and civilian targets is a war crime, regardless of which side committed it. I hope we can agree on that at least. We'll see which among current accusations and allegations will prove false and which will prove right, but I hope you'll understand why I don't trust the Western media and their reports.

As for the specific responsibility, Hillary herself is bragging in this campaign about her diplomatic success in bringing everyone into attacking Libya. She either knew it was based on a lie, or she didn't care. Either way, she's guilty. Especially if we remember how she celebrated Qaddafi's death. And honestly, that act alone would be enough to despise her. We came, we saw, he died. That's what she said, with fists in the air. Any human being that celebrates another person's violent death in such a way is deeply amoral and yes evil. Unless she can prove that Qaddafi was the new Hitler. And she can't.

And you're wrong about emails too. I'm just asking a simple question: did she destroy public documents, or didn't she? Honestly speaking I don't even know if there is a law against destroying public documents in USA. But I guess there is. If there isn't, then Hillary is really not guilty whatever she's done with those emails. But then you'd have to declare such a law as soon as possible. But if there is such a law, and she did erase those emails, then she is guilty. I don't care about this server or that server. That's just a distraction. Anybody can see that. I'm asking a simple question: did she erase public documents or not? So what failed logic of mine are you talking about, please?

[Boris the Blade]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

They're not war criminals for exactly the same reasons that Wells Fargo and other banks committing blatant, widespread fraud are never actually found guilty of fraud and have their executives sent to prison: they had a hand in writing the law and they have influence with the people who are supposed to be enforcing it. That said, I agree with you in principle: what the Obama administration (including Clinton) and our NATO allies did to Libya is atrocious.

However, there is no way Clinton will get a no fly zone over Syria. She may indeed try, but if she has any intelligence at all, she won't try very hard. That was a trick that could only be played once and we wasted it on Libya. From now on, Russia and/or China will veto everything that even vaguely resembles the Libyan resolution and since Russia is already operating in Syria, trying to impose a no fly zone without UN approval is tantamount to a declaration of WWIII.

Aren't you supporting Trump the danger to civil rights? rapist and sexual predator? the one who calls to commit war crimes? the one who wants to kill civilian families and torture people and ban an entire demographic from entering the country even if they are civilians? 

[StepStark]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

They're not war criminals for exactly the same reasons that Wells Fargo and other banks committing blatant, widespread fraud are never actually found guilty of fraud and have their executives sent to prison: they had a hand in writing the law and they have influence with the people who are supposed to be enforcing it. That said, I agree with you in principle: what the Obama administration (including Clinton) and our NATO allies did to Libya is atrocious.

However, there is no way Clinton will get a no fly zone over Syria. She may indeed try, but if she has any intelligence at all, she won't try very hard. That was a trick that could only be played once and we wasted it on Libya. From now on, Russia and/or China will veto everything that even vaguely resembles the Libyan resolution and since Russia is already operating in Syria, trying to impose a no fly zone without UN approval is tantamount to a declaration of WWIII.

Thanks and yes that is what I meant. Of course, unfortunately they will never answer for their crimes, but they are criminals. And by the way, it certainly extends to Medvedev, who was a Russian president at the time and agreed with the aggression on Libya. Possibly even Putin, who was the prime minister of Russia back then, though from what I know he was opposing it from the beginning.

As for a no fly zone over Syria, she was stupid enough to speak about it yesterday, so I wouldn't rely on her intelligence to save the planet from WWIII. If she gets elected, humanity's only chance will be that her orders are ignored.

[Boris the Blade]

Just now, StepStark said:

And what would you know of moral in the first place? Just read everything you wrote to me and you'll see who's behaving immorally in this discussion.

You do realize that swearing and being pissed off have no impact on morality correct? 

When you justify Russia's actions and then whine about the USA's actions, you are beyond being hypocritical. 

Even more so when you ignore that not only is Putin a war criminal, but he is supporting one that is in Syria and one that is also a violator of human rights, which Putin is as well, but that doesn't matter to you now does it? 

[StepStark]

4 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

You do realize that swearing and being pissed off have no impact on morality correct? 

When you justify Russia's actions and then whine about the USA's actions, you are beyond being hypocritical. 

Even more so when you ignore that not only is Putin a war criminal, but he is supporting one that is in Syria and one that is also a violator of human rights, which Putin is as well, but that doesn't matter to you now does it? 

And you know all that from the media, right? The same media that informed you that Russians hacked those servers, right? And that Assange is working for them? And that Snowden was a Russian agent all along? Oh, and that Saddam had WMD? And that all those countries USA attacked over the years always had convenient human rights incidents just when USA needed them to justify aggression?

And all that without any piece of concrete, undoubted evidence, right? They say so, and Hillary and her palls confirm it, so it must be true! Who need evidence when you have them??? LOL!!!

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just as a suggestion, perhaps the Syrian Civil War and International Law discussion can be moved to another thread.

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

Aren't you supporting Trump the danger to civil rights? rapist and sexual predator? the one who calls to commit war crimes? the one who wants to kill civilian families and torture people and ban an entire demographic from entering the country even if they are civilians? 

No. As I've said multiple times in this thread and previous iterations, I dislike both Trump and Clinton and I am not voting at all in this election. Trump appears more and more to genuinely be a buffoon rather than simply pretending to be one and yes, he has several unsavory positions. However, if you read Podesta's emails, you'll see that Clinton really does have a public position and a private one and her private position is that she is a neoliberal whose dream is "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders" and who fully believes in the revolving door between industry and government.

Please note that I am not saying that they're the same. They're both bad, but they're bad for entirely different reasons and it is not obvious which one of them is worse. I believe that Trump is much less predictable (i.e. he could in theory be worse), but, on average, Clinton is the more dangerous of the two. However, I am not sufficiently confident in this belief to support either of them. I come off as pro-Trump on this board simply because I don't like it when people demonize him and ignore Clinton's flaws and there's a whole lot of that going on in these parts.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

I hate to dive into this toxic topic but why is it that Bill Clinton is now a rapist according to Trump and his supporters but Trump himself who has been accused of rape too isn't? 

[StepStark]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

4) edit: my last point; the fact that the US has interfered in other state's elections does not legitimize Russia doing it to the States now. Nor can you actually expect Americans to not be bothered by it happening now. The idea that a state surrenders it's rights to object to wrongs when it commits those wrongs would pretty much make international law a gum wrapper. (Some would say it is anyways, but I digress.)

If Russia is interfering in US elections, it is;

*probably illegal.

* rightfully condemnable.

*strongly indicative that they have a preference. 

*still ironic.

* dangerous.

I wouldn't expect Americans not to be bothered by it, but you seriously underestimate how sick the world is of US official and unofficial interventions if you don't think the rest of the world would largely like that.

As for legitimacy, try to imagine a hypothetical situation. Persons A and B are running for POTUS. A is a spoiled, entitled and corrupted elitist, but is a media darling and because of that huge chunks of American voters don't see how wrong A is as a choice and that A is going to start a global nuclear war. B is a spoiled, entitled and corrupted celebrity, but not part of the elite or the establishment, maybe precisely because he was always too rude and scandalous for them. The media expose those sides of B to no end, while the faults and crimes of A are seldom spoken about, if at all. Obsessed with and drugged by the media for decades, those chunks of American voters are ready to vote for A just so that B doesn't win because he'a awful and arrogant and curses and whatnot. And A's win means global nuclear war. So in order to prevent that, some foreign country interferes by unofficially helping B to win. Now, in that hypothetical situation, what would you say, is the third foreign country's actions legitimized?

[Stannis is the man....nis]

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

I wouldn't expect Americans not to be bothered by it, but you seriously underestimate how sick the world is of US official and unofficial interventions if you don't think the rest of the world would largely like that.

As for legitimacy, try to imagine a hypothetical situation. Persons A and B are running for POTUS. A is a spoiled, entitled and corrupted elitist, but is a media darling and because of that huge chunks of American voters don't see how wrong A is as a choice and that A is going to start a global nuclear war. B is a spoiled, entitled and corrupted celebrity, but not part of the elite or the establishment, maybe precisely because he was always too rude and scandalous for them. The media expose those sides of B to no end, while the faults and crimes of A are seldom spoken about, if at all. Obsessed with and drugged by the media for decades, those chunks of American voters are ready to vote for A just so that B doesn't win because he'a awful and arrogant and curses and whatnot. And A's win means global nuclear war. So in order to prevent that, some foreign country interferes by unofficially helping B to win. Now, in that hypothetical situation, what would you say, is the third foreign country's actions legitimized?

Those terms just as easily describe Trump 

[DanteGabriel]

Maybe this is worthwhile reading again, folks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Time to refrain from the personal insults, folks.

Remember, attacking someone's idea with supported critique is fine.

Tossing observations about posters themselves is unacceptable.

Suspensions will follow if it continues, and that goes for all participants in this thread.

[/MOD]

[Stannis is the man....nis]

Also Hillary is the one who will cause a nuclear war? Do you not realize Trump asked only months ago during a briefing "why not nuke em"?

[Stubby]

Also, this discussion needs to get back on topic.

[Boris the Blade]

32 minutes ago, StepStark said:

And you know all that from the media, right? The same media that informed you that Russians hacked those servers, right? And that Assange is working for them? And that Snowden was a Russian agent all along? Oh, and that Saddam had WMD? And that all those countries USA attacked over the years always had convenient human rights incidents just when USA needed them to justify aggression?

And all that without any piece of concrete, undoubted evidence, right? They say so, and Hillary and her palls confirm it, so it must be true! Who need evidence when you have them??? LOL!!!

And let me guess, you think that the source you get your shitty info from is not biased at all right haha? 

Let me guess, you either believe everything WikiLeaks says, RT says, or you follow some shitty blog online that is run by a totally "objejctive" person eh? 

Honestly though, if you believe everything that Assange says and think he is some revolutionary savior and gives a fuck about anyone but himself, you're totally out of touch. He is an opportunist and there is a reason he doesn't look into how shitty Trump is. He sees a lot of himself in Trump, a privileged white boy misogynistic sexual predator looking to only benefit himself. I would go as far as calling Assange a racist as well since he only cares about people of color when it ups the media attention he can get. I mean if he really cared about dead Arabs and Muslims, well he would certainly take issue with what Trump has said and proposes, from the ban to the killing of civilian families to torture, but he doesn't. And if he was worried about the corrupt elite, well he would also take issue with Trump and dig deeper into his past and tax returns. But he doesn't.

 Oh my god, It's totally inconceivable that Russia may have done it, oh wait, only the US is a corrupt government with war criminals. No one else is, especially Russia or Putin even though there is evidence to show how corrupt and shitty he is and how he violates human rights in his own country and how he commits and has committed war crimes in the past as well.



 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

19 minutes ago, StepStark said:

And A's win means global nuclear war.

Isn't that too much hyperbole? How is Trump being in charge of the nuclear codes a better idea to you than Hillary?

ETA: For reference :https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicly-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.5shsiuogr

[Boris the Blade]

2 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Also Hillary is the one who will cause a nuclear war? Do you not realize Trump asked only months ago during a briefing "why not nuke em"?

Nah, he continues to ignore that tidbit of info that has been brought up the past few times and ignores just how unhinged Trump is and how Trump can't even control himself not to go on a twitter tirade when someone criticizes him let alone having the codes to nuclear weapons and how Trump's racism feeds his horrible calls to commit war crimes through targeting civilian families and torture. 

[Darzin]

It's "known" in alt right circles that Hillary we will start a war with Russia the evidence being... Syria. But anyone who thinks the the US will start a nuclear war over Syria has a few screws loose or has a huge ax to grind.