Is Obama guilty of war crimes?

[là bạn điên]

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. .

leader of Yemen in on what exactly

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.

It really is not difficult to find out. Just read a reputable journal like The Economist and you will be kept well enough informed.

Also, I don't fully buy into the legitimacy of Yemen, feels sketchy to me.

Huh? Its a democratic sovereign state with a multiparty system and regular elections but it doesn't 'feel right'? WTF?

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

Sorry what exactly was your point again?

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.

Very lousy planning both in the Iraq war and the Afghan war. No point in ousting the Taleban only to let them back in again.

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.

And it was all resolved oh so quickly. Putin just 'stepped in' and a weak 'don;t do it again' agreement was reached. Also the UK had just voted NOT to go to war for the very reason that I mentioned. Too many MPs thought that Assad was the lesser of two evils.

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

Nor would I but the people of Syria are faced with one or the other. They don't have the luxury of choosing neither. Faced with that choice I would go with the fascists. they seem to be less killy and don't shove religion down your throat. Indeed the Baathists seem to be very religion averse.

[Blake the Heretic]

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. .

leader of Yemen in on what exactly

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.

It really is not difficult to find out. Just read a reputable journal like The Economist and you will be kept well enough informed.

Also, I don't fully buy into the legitimacy of Yemen, feels sketchy to me.

Huh? Its a democratic sovereign state with a multiparty system and regular elections but it doesn't 'feel right'? WTF?

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

Sorry what exactly was your point again?

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.

Very lousy planning both in the Iraq war and the Afghan war. No point in ousting the Taleban only to let them back in again.

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.

And it was all resolved oh so quickly. Putin just 'stepped in' and a weak 'don;t do it again' agreement was reached. Also the UK had just voted NOT to go to war for the very reason that I mentioned. Too many MPs thought that Assad was the lesser of two evils.

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

Nor would I but the people of Syria are faced with one or the other. They don't have the luxury of choosing neither. Faced with that choice I would go with the fascists. they seem to be less killy and don't shove religion down your throat. Indeed the Baathists seem to be very religion averse.

The Yemen government and the drone strikes...you don't remember the very last thing you said to me? 0.o

The economist? Why would I go to an economic journal to find out information on foreign policy. I mean I guess it does effect the market in ways, but you'd think we'd have a journal dedicated to military drills/operations/and actions?

Not the government, the drone strikes. It feels shady. I get the sense that there is more to the story, just like Iraq turned out to be a shady war.

I don't perceive the Talaban as some great threat. I think we can defend ourselves well enough. We've not been attacked since 9/11 and surely we can learn our lesson from it to avoid further incidents. War doesn't really solve anything...if you haven't noticed each war we have just leaves us with more problems that it solves. World War II lead us to nuclear weapons and the Cold War, and our War in Iraq and Afghanistan has left us with a series of people in the Middle East who don't like us all too much.

I think after a long history of bloodshed, the world could at least start making an effort towards peace instead of going straight to bombs and military action.

Yes because forcing Syria to get rid of its Chemical weapons is such a terrible way of stopping Syria from using chemical weapons -.-'

That sucks for them. It's a three-sided war, and the people aren't doing too well.

[Manowar]

America is like an empire and we all know what happened to the Roman empire. America needs to concern itself with American problems and I am guessing there would be a lot less terrorism is the U.S.

manowar

[là bạn điên]

The Yemen government and the drone strikes...you don't remember the very last thing you said to me? 0.o

Of course he was 'in on it'. he requested US aid.

The economist? Why would I go to an economic journal to find out information on foreign policy. I mean I guess it does effect the market in ways, but you'd think we'd have a journal dedicated to military drills/operations/and actions?

(Facepalms) The economist covers worldwide politics.

Not the government, the drone strikes. It feels shady. I get the sense that there is more to the story, just like Iraq turned out to be a shady war.

right your secret spidey sense trumps anything else. I'm convinced.

I don't perceive the Talaban as some great threat.

Possibly because teven if they do retake afganistan they are unlikley to attack the USA again.

I think we can defend ourselves well enough. We've not been attacked since 9/11 and surely we can learn our lesson from it to avoid further incidents.

What lesson is that?

War doesn't really solve anything...if you haven't noticed each war we have just leaves us with more problems that it solves. World War II lead us to nuclear weapons and the Cold War, a/quote]

Yes that World war II. We should have just let Hitler to dominate Europe and Japan to enslave Asia. Much better for everyone. The cold war stayed cold and no nuclear weapons, post WW2 were ever used.
[quote]
And our War in Iraq and Afghanistan has left us with a series of people in the Middle East who don't like us all too much.

So how come you were attacked by Al Qaida BEFORE the invasion of Iraq and Afganistan?CVlinton didn't have an aggressive policy vis a v the middle east.

I think after a long history of bloodshed, the world could at least start making an effort towards peace instead of going straight to bombs and military action.

Yes why not stat a talking shop where all nations could discuss things. We could call it the 'United Nations' or somesuch.

Yes because forcing Syria to get rid of its Chemical weapons is such a terrible way of stopping Syria from using chemical weapons -.-'

What is your point here?

That sucks for them. It's a three-sided war, and the people aren't doing too well.

Well that is at least true.

[Blake the Heretic]

The Yemen government and the drone strikes...you don't remember the very last thing you said to me? 0.o

Of course he was 'in on it'. he requested US aid.

The economist? Why would I go to an economic journal to find out information on foreign policy. I mean I guess it does effect the market in ways, but you'd think we'd have a journal dedicated to military drills/operations/and actions?

(Facepalms) The economist covers worldwide politics.

Not the government, the drone strikes. It feels shady. I get the sense that there is more to the story, just like Iraq turned out to be a shady war.

right your secret spidey sense trumps anything else. I'm convinced.

I don't perceive the Talaban as some great threat.

Possibly because teven if they do retake afganistan they are unlikley to attack the USA again.

I think we can defend ourselves well enough. We've not been attacked since 9/11 and surely we can learn our lesson from it to avoid further incidents.

What lesson is that?

War doesn't really solve anything...if you haven't noticed each war we have just leaves us with more problems that it solves. World War II lead us to nuclear weapons and the Cold War, a/quote]

Yes that World war II. We should have just let Hitler to dominate Europe and Japan to enslave Asia. Much better for everyone. The cold war stayed cold and no nuclear weapons, post WW2 were ever used.
[quote]
And our War in Iraq and Afghanistan has left us with a series of people in the Middle East who don't like us all too much.

So how come you were attacked by Al Qaida BEFORE the invasion of Iraq and Afganistan?CVlinton didn't have an aggressive policy vis a v the middle east.

I think after a long history of bloodshed, the world could at least start making an effort towards peace instead of going straight to bombs and military action.

Yes why not stat a talking shop where all nations could discuss things. We could call it the 'United Nations' or somesuch.

Yes because forcing Syria to get rid of its Chemical weapons is such a terrible way of stopping Syria from using chemical weapons -.-'

What is your point here?

That sucks for them. It's a three-sided war, and the people aren't doing too well.

Well that is at least true.

Do not give me crap for thinking a journal/magazine/news source named 'The Economist' was about economics. it literally says 'Economic' right in its name -.-' I'm not familiar with this particular political information source.

Never said you had to accept it off my magic spidey sense, I was just saying that to me personally I get a negative impression.

What lesson? Well how about 'Take Threats Seriously' or does no one else remember how lack of preparedness and unwillingness to address a potential threat is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place?

I knew Clinton had the opportunity to kill either Bin Laden or Hussein when he was still in office ( I can't remember which of the two specifically it was ) I know nothing of Al Quada attacking during his administration though.

Nice, sarcasm.

My point was there was a diplomatic solution in Syria, but Obama wanted there to be war.

Well we agree on a whopping 1 thing lol

[là bạn điên]

Do not give me crap for thinking a journal/magazine/news source named 'The Economist' was about economics. it literally says 'Economic' right in its name -.-' I'm not familiar with this particular political information source.

It is the third highest selling political magazine in the USA.

Never said you had to accept it off my magic spidey sense, I was just saying that to me personally I get a negative impression.

You don't read much or research at all on the matter so what is your impression based on?

What lesson? Well how about 'Take Threats Seriously' or does no one else remember how lack of preparedness and unwillingness to address a potential threat is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place?

There are hundreds of potential threats daily

I knew Clinton had the opportunity to kill either Bin Laden or Hussein when he was still in office ( I can't remember which of the two specifically it was ) I know nothing of Al Quada attacking during his administration though

.

Why don't you know these things? You are very opinionated and yet don;t seem to bother about reading stuff up.

AQ attacked the USA in Bush's first year, well before he enacted any strongMiddle Eastern Policy. The Invasions were a result of that. Radicals seem to imply that the 9/11 attacks were a result of the USA attacking Afghanistan.

Nice, sarcasm.

Glad it makes you happy

My point was there was a diplomatic solution in Syria, but Obama wanted there to be war.

There has been no diplomatic solution. Syria is in a bloody civil war with hundreds of thousands dead, the vast majority of whom were killed by conventional means. This killing is still going on. All that has been removed was a vastly smaller number of deaths from poison gas. If that is a 'solution' to the war then you have some strange ideas.

[Minimalist]

I knew Clinton had the opportunity to kill either Bin Laden or Hussein when he was still in office

I heard Clinton speak at a luncheon in Westbury, NY. He discussed that "opportunity." The intelligence was that he was located in one of two compounds but that both contained unknown numbers of civilians and the risk of massive civilian casualties was too high.

Of course, that was before 9-11. Sadly, now, I think we would fire anyway and not give a shit how many innocents had to die in the process.

We have fallen a long way off our moral high horse.

[FractalEternalWheel]

http://www.reddit.com/r/thanksobama

[Blake the Heretic]

Do not give me crap for thinking a journal/magazine/news source named 'The Economist' was about economics. it literally says 'Economic' right in its name -.-' I'm not familiar with this particular political information source.

It is the third highest selling political magazine in the USA.

Never said you had to accept it off my magic spidey sense, I was just saying that to me personally I get a negative impression.

You don't read much or research at all on the matter so what is your impression based on?

What lesson? Well how about 'Take Threats Seriously' or does no one else remember how lack of preparedness and unwillingness to address a potential threat is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place?

There are hundreds of potential threats daily

I knew Clinton had the opportunity to kill either Bin Laden or Hussein when he was still in office ( I can't remember which of the two specifically it was ) I know nothing of Al Quada attacking during his administration though

.

Why don't you know these things? You are very opinionated and yet don;t seem to bother about reading stuff up.

AQ attacked the USA in Bush's first year, well before he enacted any strongMiddle Eastern Policy. The Invasions were a result of that. Radicals seem to imply that the 9/11 attacks were a result of the USA attacking Afghanistan.

Nice, sarcasm.

Glad it makes you happy

My point was there was a diplomatic solution in Syria, but Obama wanted there to be war.

There has been no diplomatic solution. Syria is in a bloody civil war with hundreds of thousands dead, the vast majority of whom were killed by conventional means. This killing is still going on. All that has been removed was a vastly smaller number of deaths from poison gas. If that is a 'solution' to the war then you have some strange ideas.

Highest selling usually goes hand in hand with corporate influence into content. Besides since when did popular demand dictate accuracy of information? If quality was determined by popularity Miley Cyrus and One Direction would be heralded as the greatest musicians in history.

Actually I read into the matter daily, and at this point I've read at least several hundred articles ( and I mean read, not glance at the headline ) on this particular matter.

Clearly we're doing a better defensive job then, and if we set the priority from offense to defense we might be able to get somewhere. Besides, we'er not in a good economic position to be doing this kind of warfare, it's breaking the country just as much as anything else we do.

I don't know much about Clinton because I was 5 maybe 6 years old when he was in office. Most children don't follow politics. I know he played Sax and was responsible for NAFTA that's about it. Oh and he got a BJ in the oval office.

No, 9/11 happened because of our previous war involvements in the area, combined with unwillingness by our government to take their threat seriously.

Yes, there is still Civil War. Allow to to rephrase since clearly I have to be 100% specific for you: Obama wasn't interested in a diplomatic solution for the nations who were considering intervening war style, however, Putin found one that kept America out of a war they couldn't afford right now. Better?

---

I knew Clinton had the opportunity to kill either Bin Laden or Hussein when he was still in office

I heard Clinton speak at a luncheon in Westbury, NY. He discussed that "opportunity." The intelligence was that he was located in one of two compounds but that both contained unknown numbers of civilians and the risk of massive civilian casualties was too high.

Of course, that was before 9-11. Sadly, now, I think we would fire anyway and not give a shit how many innocents had to die in the process.

We have fallen a long way off our moral high horse.

Wasn't war at one point a last resort for America? I remember from history in both World Wars we waited as long as we could before getting involved. I think we were isolationists at the time. Still, war shouldn't be the go-to for politics it should be the 'last resort'

[Mudhammam]

If Bush was not held accountable for war crimes, why should Obama?

Yes, presidents should be held accountable for war crimes, but we live in a country where they are not.

It is a high crime under the US Constitution to not uphold treaties (these are equivalent to US federal laws) and among those we have a commitment to prosecuting war crimes, such as torture, which waterboarding is clearly defined to be under different treaties we have signed. So every President who ignores the criminality of his (or her) predecessor is actually committing a criminal act in-of-itself.