Is Obama guilty of war crimes?

[Blake the Heretic]

I'm starting to get the feeling that I've made a slight hiccup in my argument stance....backtracking in 3...2...1 ( And yes this is me admitting I've made a mistake here )

Going back to the issue I know beyond a limited highschool exposure.

The whole 'War on Terror' is a joke. It's a perpetual war where the bad guy changes every so often, and we never actually win. The goal of it is to expand the powers of the government and intrude ourselves both internationally and into the lives of our own citizens. It has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe.

If they wanted to keep us safe from threat of death we'd have a much higher priority set on mental health care in the United States since most shootings and even bombings in this country are performed by people with serious mental disorders and not Jihadists.

This all started as a terror fueled over reaction to something that happens way more often in other countries around the world. America has pretty good track record with avoiding attacks by other countries, or at least not being the target of them. We have Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I don't personally know of any others ( If there are others please offer them to the discussion )

We killed Hussein and Bin Laden, but for some reason we still need to be in their country. What are we going to do? Stay there for all of time? They'll keep replacing the head every time we cut it off and like the hydra each slice brings extra heads to the mix so we're really just making things worse.

This notion that we somehow have the right to force our way into other countries and slaughter civilians over something that happened a decade ago is laughable at best.

We've killed more of their innocent civillians than they killed, probably multiple times over even.

We're drone striking third world countries that I'm not even sure why we're messing with them. When did we get involved with Yemen, and how many more countries are we going to force our way into?

We're killing terrorists in other countries because the governments there are either unwilling or unable, or both, to deal with the terrorists themselves. Islamic terrorists have declared a Jihad on the United States, and since 911 our country has no reason not to believe that they wouldn't try another attack on our soil. So it's better to kill the terrorists over there than it is to have to deal with them here.

That's just dumb.

Killing them like it was a hunting expedition has done nothing, but grow our list of enemies...what the hell happened to diplomacy?

[là bạn điên]

I'm starting to get the feeling that I've made a slight hiccup in my argument stance....backtracking in 3...2...1 ( And yes this is me admitting I've made a mistake here )

Kudos given for admitting a mistake

Going back to the issue I know beyond a limited highschool exposure.

The whole 'War on Terror' is a joke. It's a perpetual war where the bad guy changes every so often, and we never actually win. The goal of it is to expand the powers of the government and intrude ourselves both internationally and into the lives of our own citizens. It has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe.

Perhaps. there is no doubt that the government does use it to expand its powers but I would challenge the idea that it is not to keep people safe. Terror is a big issue. the bad guy does change from time to time but they are usually ideologically allied.

If they wanted to keep us safe from threat of death we'd have a much higher priority set on mental health care in the United States since most shootings and even bombings in this country are performed by people with serious mental disorders and not Jihadists.

Shootings certainly. of course the real issue is the easy availability of guns. In the UK we don;t have high school shootings because no kid can actually get hold of weapons.

Indeed I am from a fairly rough part of central London and ceratinly know where to buy drugs and stolen goods but I have no idea where I could buy a firearm. I could probably find out eventually but it would almost certainly take me a few weeks. there is no chance a suburban high school kid would even know where to start.

This all started as a terror fueled over reaction to something that happens way more often in other countries around the world. America has pretty good track record with avoiding attacks by other countries, or at least not being the target of them. We have Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I don't personally know of any others ( If there are others please offer them to the discussion )

THe USA has its assets abroad attacked more than mainland USA itself mainly because it is difficult to actually attack the USA. The USA has endured a number of terrorist attacks since the 1990's however

We killed Hussein and Bin Laden, but for some reason we still need to be in their country. What are we going to do? Stay there for all of time? They'll keep replacing the head every time we cut it off and like the hydra each slice brings extra heads to the mix so we're really just making things worse.

You are not occupying Bin Laden's country probably because it is a US ally. The USA has already withdrawn its occupation of Iraq. Only adbvosir troops are still stationed there

This notion that we somehow have the right to force our way into other countries and slaughter civilians over something that happened a decade ago is laughable at best.

I see no evidence that you intend to slaughter civilians. You are there because bad guys insist that THEY have the right to kill whomseover they please

We've killed more of their innocent civillians than they killed, probably multiple times over even.

Who is 'they'.

We're drone striking third world countries that I'm not even sure why we're messing with them. When did we get involved with Yemen, and how many more countries are we going to force our way into?

You seem to be very opinionated for someone who doesn;t know why the USA is involved in Yemen.

[Blake the Heretic]

I'm starting to get the feeling that I've made a slight hiccup in my argument stance....backtracking in 3...2...1 ( And yes this is me admitting I've made a mistake here )

Kudos given for admitting a mistake

Going back to the issue I know beyond a limited highschool exposure.

The whole 'War on Terror' is a joke. It's a perpetual war where the bad guy changes every so often, and we never actually win. The goal of it is to expand the powers of the government and intrude ourselves both internationally and into the lives of our own citizens. It has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe.

Perhaps. there is no doubt that the government does use it to expand its powers but I would challenge the idea that it is not to keep people safe. Terror is a big issue. the bad guy does change from time to time but they are usually ideologically allied.

If they wanted to keep us safe from threat of death we'd have a much higher priority set on mental health care in the United States since most shootings and even bombings in this country are performed by people with serious mental disorders and not Jihadists.

Shootings certainly. of course the real issue is the easy availability of guns. In the UK we don;t have high school shootings because no kid can actually get hold of weapons.

Indeed I am from a fairly rough part of central London and ceratinly know where to buy drugs and stolen goods but I have no idea where I could buy a firearm. I could probably find out eventually but it would almost certainly take me a few weeks. there is no chance a suburban high school kid would even know where to start.

This all started as a terror fueled over reaction to something that happens way more often in other countries around the world. America has pretty good track record with avoiding attacks by other countries, or at least not being the target of them. We have Pearl Harbor and 9/11. I don't personally know of any others ( If there are others please offer them to the discussion )

THe USA has its assets abroad attacked more than mainland USA itself mainly because it is difficult to actually attack the USA. The USA has endured a number of terrorist attacks since the 1990's however

We killed Hussein and Bin Laden, but for some reason we still need to be in their country. What are we going to do? Stay there for all of time? They'll keep replacing the head every time we cut it off and like the hydra each slice brings extra heads to the mix so we're really just making things worse.

You are not occupying Bin Laden's country probably because it is a US ally. The USA has already withdrawn its occupation of Iraq. Only adbvosir troops are still stationed there

This notion that we somehow have the right to force our way into other countries and slaughter civilians over something that happened a decade ago is laughable at best.

I see no evidence that you intend to slaughter civilians. You are there because bad guys insist that THEY have the right to kill whomseover they please

We've killed more of their innocent civillians than they killed, probably multiple times over even.

Who is 'they'.

We're drone striking third world countries that I'm not even sure why we're messing with them. When did we get involved with Yemen, and how many more countries are we going to force our way into?

You seem to be very opinionated for someone who doesn;t know why the USA is involved in Yemen.

Thank you

It's a fiction. I showed the FBI report earlier I believe. It's still there if you wish to look at it. It clearly indicated that terrorist attacks happen most frequently in Iraq and Afghanistan the rest of the world only occasionally has to deal with such occurrences.

I wouldn't trust this government enough to let them get rid of guns completely, we'd be a fascist regime by the following year, and corporate heads would be our overlords.

I'm speaking homeland here. I figured our embassies got attacked here and there. When you run a campaign of slaughter everyone who is suspected of being a terrorist you wind up to your neck in people who want your country destroyed.

I'm aware we left Iraq, I was being lazy in that statement, we're still in Afghanistan and we almost went to war in Syria.

We've killed soooo many civilians 0.0 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ ( this is just Iraq and it's over 100,000 ) We lost what? 2-3 thousand people, and that somehow justifies killing 100,000? That's bad math.

They is Muslims/Palestinians, or as the government calls all of them ( in a very discriminatory manner ) terrorists.

If the government would disclose that information I'd be happy to make an informed judgement call, but every time Obama is asked about Drones he refuses to even comment. Do you happen to know what we're doing in Yemen?

[Violet]

GC, If we stop fucking with the rest of the world, there may be less hostility towards the USA. I mean, do you really think bombing people is going to create LESS terrorists?

Some people might well take such attention-grabbing as the reason they want you dead.

[A Theist]

We're killing terrorists in other countries because the governments there are either unwilling or unable, or both, to deal with the terrorists themselves. Islamic terrorists have declared a Jihad on the United States, and since 911 our country has no reason not to believe that they wouldn't try another attack on our soil. So it's better to kill the terrorists over there than it is to have to deal with them here.

That's just dumb.

Killing them like it was a hunting expedition has done nothing, but grow our list of enemies...what the hell happened to diplomacy?

Diplomacy with terrorists?.....That's just dumb.

[Blake the Heretic]

That's just dumb.

Killing them like it was a hunting expedition has done nothing, but grow our list of enemies...what the hell happened to diplomacy?

Diplomacy with terrorists?.....That's just dumb.

Diplomacy with everyone. It kept us out of war in Syria. Maybe if we focused more on settling tensions in the Middle East instead of contributing to them we'd find a resolve to this pointless endeavor.

[là bạn điên]

To Blake the Heretic

The USA is in Yemen at the invitation of the democratically elected government in order to aid them against terrorists from al qaida who are attempting to destablise the democratic process and install a theocracy throughout the Muslim world. There is nothing illegal under any imternationally accepted definition about what they are doing.

Secondly YOU did not kill 100,000 civilians. Civilians killed by the USA in Iraq are about 7,000 mostly in the invasion phase. The rest of the civilians have been killed by iraqis themselves in sectarian conflict.

Thirdly Bin Laden is was not an Afghan. Hhe was Saudi Arabian .

As for diplomacy. The USA is foremost in seeking diplomatic solutions but diplomacy is useless unless backed by force. Frankly I think that the allies were looking for an excuse NOT to intervene in Syria because they realized that they were probably on the wrong side and repulsive as the Baathist regime might be the democratic opposition is almost non existent and the real opposition are Al Qaida supported salafists.Personally I would rather live under fascists than islamists

To A Theist

Diplomacy with terrorists is not dumb. It goes on all the time. In Northern Ireland the UK government engaged in diplomacy with terrorists to end 'the troubles', The Spanish did the same with ETA and the French with the FLN.

[A Theist]

To A Theist

Diplomacy with terrorists is not dumb. It goes on all the time. In Northern Ireland the UK government engaged in diplomacy with terrorists to end 'the troubles', The Spanish did the same with ETA and the French with the FLN.

I see diplomacy differently. When we barter, make agreements, and build alliances with actual governments (excluding terrorist regimes) that's what I consider diplomacy. When we make deals with terrorists that's capitulation. In the case of the IRA, the FLN, and the ETA, those groups were committing acts for liberation from Great Britain, France, and Spain. In the case of terror groups like Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic terror networks, their goals are far more lofty. They eventually want to bring the world under the domination of an Islamic theocracy. There is no bartering with these guys and they'll accept no compromising of their religion. Everyone must be brought to subjection. They are not tolerant of any non muslim existing in the Middle East, in fact, they're not tolerant of any non muslim. Look at the persecution of the Christians and other non muslims over there. Islamic terrorists are dedicated to the total annihilation of Israel from the Middle East for no other reason that they're Jews, more tolerant of diversity, friendly to the West, and simply because they're non muslim. They're also dedicated to toppling other Islamic governments in the Middle East who are friendly with the West. There will never be a Kumbayah moment with radical Islamic terrorists. It's not in their belief system to be compromising.

[là bạn điên]

I see diplomacy differently. When we barter, make agreements, and build alliances with actual governments (excluding terrorist regimes) that's what I consider diplomacy.

'
Then its your own private definition especially if you outlaw dealing with 'terrorist regimes' whatever they are

When we make deals with terrorists that's capitulation. In the case of the IRA, the FLN, and the ETA, those groups were committing acts for liberation from Great Britain, France, and Spain.

They were all still terrorists in democratic states who specifically targetted civilians in atrocities

In the case of terror groups like Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic terror networks, their goals are far more lofty. They eventually want to bring the world under the domination of an Islamic theocracy.

Cartainly they want to bring the Muslim world into a single theocracy (and retake Spain)

There is no bartering with these guys and they'll accept no compromising of their religion. Everyone must be brought to subjection. They are not tolerant of any non muslim existing in the Middle East, in fact, they're not tolerant of any non muslim. Look at the persecution of the Christians and other non muslims over there. Islamic terrorists are dedicated to the total annihilation of Israel from the Middle East for no other reason that they're Jews, more tolerant of diversity, friendly to the West, and simply because they're non muslim. They're also dedicated to toppling other Islamic governments in the Middle East who are friendly with the West. There will never be a Kumbayah moment with radical Islamic terrorists. It's not in their belief system to be compromising.

You are mostly correct. They are an utterly evil force but they don;t really care much about israel who ,currently, is providing medical aid to Islamist rebels since they consider Syria far more of a threat. Their only real interest in the West is to provoke Western action in the Middle east which they beleive will help their Cause.

[Blake the Heretic]

The USA is in Yemen at the invitation of the democratically elected government in order to aid them against terrorists from al qaida who are attempting to destablise the democratic process and install a theocracy throughout the Muslim world. There is nothing illegal under any imternationally accepted definition about what they are doing.

Secondly YOU did not kill 100,000 civilians. Civilians killed by the USA in Iraq are about 7,000 mostly in the invasion phase. The rest of the civilians have been killed by iraqis themselves in sectarian conflict.

Thirdly Bin Laden is was not an Afghan. Hhe was Saudi Arabian .

As for diplomacy. The USA is foremost in seeking diplomatic solutions but diplomacy is useless unless backed by force. Frankly I think that the allies were looking for an excuse NOT to intervene in Syria because they realized that they were probably on the wrong side and repulsive as the Baathist regime might be the democratic opposition is almost non existent and the real opposition are Al Qaida supported salafists.Personally I would rather live under fascists than islamists

I've heard that the leader in Yemen was in on it, but I'm also aware of the civllian casualties involved in the drone strikes there. Again, I'd prefer to be made aware when we're doing military stuff in other countries, not have to find out and be surprised thinking we were backing out of wars not keeping them going. Also, I don't fully buy into the legitimacy of Yemen, feels sketchy to me.

Even 7,000 is more than what we lost. My point still stands on this one.

He was still what sent us into Afghanistan, and he's dead. This was supposed to be a 'get Bin Laden' deal, and even after he's dead there seems to be no sign of a wrap-up.

You won't convince me of this. I still remember Obama's declaration of war on Syria. The guy couldn't even have let himself be bothered to wait for the U.N. to finish its investigation into what happened. He was all about that war, until Putin stepped in.

Oh and I'd rather not live under facists or islamic extremists.