Putin: War Criminal; Trump alliance

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

To get this it's own topic:

Shortstark,

Ah, you're a fan of Putin and his shirtless magisty.  This explains so much.  How is invading a sovereign nation annexing a huge chunk of that nation then fostering and arming a seperatist force in another part of that previously invaded nation not a war crime (particularly when those seperatist use the arms Russia has given them to shoot down a civilian airliner that happens to be flying to Malaysia)?

[Boris the Blade]

Don't forget he also violates human rights in his own country.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

Don't forget he also violates human rights in his own country.

Oh, he does.  I was using ShortStark's standard.

[Weeping Sore]

And assassinates political enemies like Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko. Also poisoning out-of-favor foreign candidates like Viktor Yushchenko. I hope Hillary has someone tasting her food...

 

Litvinenko, you'll remember,  was poisoned with polonium 210, most likely for publishing this book...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

And assassinates political enemies like Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko. Also poisoning out-of-favor foreign candidates like Viktor Yushchenko. I hope Hillary has someone tasting her food...

I mean we all love Putin's manly lazer nipples but some things aren't proper.

[baxus]

Waiting for "Bush: War Criminal", "Bill Clinton: War Criminal" threads...

After all, most of OP description fits them as well. Other than the "missiles used to take down an airliner" thing, of course.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

baxus,

Bush and Clinton have poisoned people?

[baxus]

That's not mentioned in the OP, is it?

[Weeping Sore]

Serbs generally see Clinton-era U.S. and NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia as aggression or war crimes, whereas in the West we were given the frame of stopping ethnic cleansing by evil Serbs. I'm sure it's no accident that Serbia was seen as the post-Yugoslav ethnic group most friendly to Russia, whose "containment" is NATO's raison d'etre.

I've seen "Bush" and "War Crimes" connected plenty of time with good reason. A war of choice itself is the fundamental war crime.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

Serbs generally see Clinton-era U.S. and NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia as aggression or war crimes, whereas in the West we were given the frame of stopping ethnic cleansing by evil Serbs. I'm sure it's no accident that Serbia was seen as the post-Yugoslav ethnic group most friendly to Russia, whose "containment" is NATO's raison d'etre.

I've seen "Bush" and "War Crimes" connected plenty of time with good reason. A war of choice itself is the fundamental war crime.

If the only defense of Putin is "hypocrisy" you're admitting he's a war criminal.

[baxus]

@Weeping Sore

Serbia is definitely the most Russia-friendly country in the Balkans. Personally, I don't see the reason for that, historical or otherwise. The whole pro-Russian sentiment in the general population never ceases to amaze me given how often Russia left Serbia high and dry to further its interests or when it simply couldn't have been bothered to help.

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Russia looks after their own best interests the same way USA look after their own. Both have shown various degrees of disregard for international law in the process, yet Putin is labeled a war criminal and US presidents aren't.

Poisoning political opponents is by all means a despicable act, but it does not make one a war criminal. So far, that's the only difference between Putin and his US counterparts.

[baxus]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If the only defense of Putin is "hypocrisy" you're admitting he's a war criminal.

I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I'm just saying that if he is, then there is a solid case against a few US presidents, too.

The worst part is we'll never see any of them stand trial and answer for their actions.

[Boris the Blade]

5 minutes ago, baxus said:

@Weeping Sore

Serbia is definitely the most Russia-friendly country in the Balkans. Personally, I don't see the reason for that, historical or otherwise. The whole pro-Russian sentiment in the general population never ceases to amaze me given how often Russia left Serbia high and dry to further its interests or when it simply couldn't have been bothered to help.

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Russia looks after their own best interests the same way USA look after their own. Both have shown various degrees of disregard for international law in the process, yet Putin is labeled a war criminal and US presidents aren't.

Poisoning political opponents is by all means a despicable act, but it does not make one a war criminal. So far, that's the only difference between Putin and his US counterparts.

Nah the other differences are Putins dictatorial rule and human rights violations. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Poisoning makes you a murderer.

[baxus]

Just now, Daniel Plainview said:

Nah the other differences are Putins dictatorial rule and human rights violations. 

Neither of which makes him a war criminal.  

[DanteGabriel]

12 minutes ago, baxus said:

@Weeping Sore

@Ser Scot A Ellison

Poisoning political opponents is by all means a despicable act, but it does not make one a war criminal. So far, that's the only difference between Putin and his US counterparts.

Ugh, can't clear the name tags on a phone client.

Other differences from Putin: sham elections, bloody and brutal suppression of internal dissent, destruction of independent media, persecution of LGBTQ persons, and stealing Robert Kraft's ring. These seem fairly meaningful. Not that American Presidents have been blameless in these, but ye gods there is a vast difference.

I do agree some US Presidents, most notably George W Bush, have committed international war crimes. And that US foreign policy in general leads to war crimes and violation international law.

[Wall Flower]

17 minutes ago, baxus said:

I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I'm just saying that if he is, then there is a solid case against a few US presidents, too.

The worst part is we'll never see any of them stand trial and answer for their actions.

Obviously, you are going to have a very different view from my memories of events playing out on the nightly news in far away Australia. However, I do recall Bill Clinton being under intense pressure to intervene in the catastrophic situation unfolding in Bosnia, especially after Srebrenica (if we want to reference actual war crimes and crimes against humanity) and the shelling of Sarajevo. If anything, people in the 'West' felt he had held back and allowed the UN forces to fail with disastrous results. I recall the Clinton administration facing similar criticism over the terrible events in Rwanda. Perhaps those experiences hardened Hillary's support for a more interventionist foreign policy.

[baxus]

15 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Other differences from Putin: sham elections, bloody and brutal suppression of internal dissent, destruction of independent media, persecution of LGBTQ persons, and stealing Robert Kraft's ring. These seem fairly meaningful. Not that American Presidents have been blameless in these, but ye gods there is a vast difference.

I once again feel the need to point out that those things, as horrible as they are, make Putin a dictator, not a war criminal.

He's not a good guy, by any stretch of imagination. Unfortunately, there are some who are not that different from him who avoid such scrutiny. THAT is the real problem in my book.

[Weeping Sore]

@baxus

The 2nd war in Chechnya makes Putin a war criminal.

Here's Putin's op-ed in the NYT about why it was necessary to start the 2nd war. Maybe a lot depends on whether you believe Litvinenko's claim that the Moscow apartment bombings were carried out by the FSB (formerly KGB) and blamed on the Chechens to create support for a second war.

[baxus]

1 minute ago, Wall Flower said:

Obviously, you are going to have a very different view from my memories of events playing out on the nightly news in far away Australia. However, I do recall Bill Clinton being under intense pressure to intervene in the catastrophic situation unfolding in Bosnia, especially after Srebrenica (if we want to reference actual war crimes and crimes against humanity) and the shelling of Sarajevo. If anything, people in the 'West' felt he had held back and allowed the UN forces to fail with disastrous results. I recall the Clinton administration facing similar criticism over the terrible events in Rwanda. Perhaps those experiences hardened Hillary's support for a more interventionist foreign policy.

Intervention in Bosnia was conducted with UN mandate, which is a proper way of handling such things. War crimes happened, it was a huge clusterfuck from all sides involved, someone needed to step in and put an end to it, regardless of who likes it and who doesn't.

I was talking more about NATO intervention in Kosovo. A group of countries decided to bomb the shit out of a country without getting an ok from UN, effectively took a part of its territory and gave it to the "government" made up of terrorist leaders.