Though everything in this short post is true I’m putting this in BBQ cause I respect the SD. In short
Clinton: War criminal (voted for Iraq war, culpability for Libya debacle)
Obama : War criminal (Libya debacle)
Murderer (literally conspiricy to murder for ordering the assasination of American citizens including an innocent 16 year old. Also the authorization of bombing of funerals, weddings and first responders -double tap-drone attacks)
Maybe Trump won’t have the stomach for killing people. It’s not for everyone.
I’m sure other posters will be along in a little while to dig into the meat of your posts, but I thought I’d point out that war crimes are pretty much always committed against people on the other side of a conflict.
You mean it’s impossible to commit a war crime against someone you arn’t at war with? You may have a good point on the Libya thing there. I think the voting for the Iraq conflict may have more legs. Others have been convicted or at least put on trial for similar gestures.
I’m not trying anyone. And yes, as the presidential runner-up she’s special. And you make a good point about Pence in regards to Trump. As I’ve said, Trump never signed a paper killing people. Maybe he won’t have the stomach for it. Could you??
“Mr. President, I need authorization to blow up this village, there are high profile targets there. We estimate ONLY 10 babies will be slaughtered.”
Of course, the other question is why you don’t consider Bush and Cheney war criminals. They actually did go to war.
The resolution specified several escalating steps before war which they cheerfully ignored.
It’s a valid point - if you’re claiming that Clinton and Obama are war criminals by the criteria you described, it’s fair to mention that the same criteria could also apply to dozens if not hundreds of others.
Now, if your TRUE point is that maybe things will get more peaceful because the new president-elect may not be willing or able to use the American military in ways the current (and past?) administration has, then… I dunno. Trump has certainly *talked *about retaliatory bombings against the families of terrorists, and he didn’t exclude babies, but we don’t really know what he’ll do because he’s never held any kind of public office or military position before.
Trump has openly advocated for war crimes, such as torture (even if it doesn’t work), something worse than waterboarding (it’s a surprise I guess), and killing civilian family members of terrorists. He’s also implied, IIRC, that America should basically carpet bomb ISIS held cities.
Who was the last president who wasn’t a war criminal? I think it was Chomsky who’s known for saying every post-WWII president could be prosecuted by the Nuremberg principles, if we were consistent. Some of them might be a stretch, but I haven’t gone through every one in detail. If giving large quantities of weapons or money to a regime that’s massacring a population is a war crime then I could see that checking out.
Has any democratic legislature ever faced mass war crime charges? For Iraq, I could see charging Bush, Cheney, several cabinet positions (I’m to understand some avoid certain countries for fear of arrest), but Congress? I think most of them could claim ignorance of the intelligence and the nature of the threat. Or, like Hillary did, say they were only giving a tool to the Bush admin to use if Hussein didn’t comply with UN resolutions. Iraq complied, but Bush went ahead anyway.
I bring it up cause…as others have said…Trump is a guy who one day was on a reality show and now will have generals shoving maps in his face and saying “If we send in 100 guys we can expect minimal civilian losses and casualties!”
Yes… something like that might happen, but the negative response would be swift and considerable the first time an American city or an American diplomatic outpost is attacked and Trump is too befuddled to militarily respond. One of those generals will reach retirement age and likely be glad to make the final chapters of his memoirs about the astonishing incompetence of the last president he served under. There must be at least one such general who was involved in the mission to get Bin Laden and who has a relatively positive view about Obama and/or Clinton, and would view Trump in sharply negative contrast.
He’s also a guy who won the nomination by saying he’d go after the families of terrorists. That wondered why the US isn’t using it’s atomic weapons. That says he’ll expand the law so waterboarding becomes “legal” and that he’ll take any general that refuses such illegal orders to court.
He’s only “not a war criminal” due to lack of opportunity and he’s not picking cabinet members with lily white hands and love in their hearts.
And here’s a peach where he keeps going on about how the intervention in Libya would have been much better if it also included taking half their oil: Why does nobody know about Trump’s vlog?
Voting to go to war cannot ever remotely be a war crime, as it would prevent democracy from functioning. Going to war is not what a war crime is. Furthermore, attacking your military adversaries who are trying to kill you has never once been considered murder.
This is just a pathetic attempt to get our goats. That’s how much you “respect” the SDMB. You wanted to get your jollies watching everyone get angry. If you wanted a real discussion, you’d have posted somewhere where it could possibly happen, not trying to tempt people into attacking you.
You just so desperately need someone else to blame for what happened. Probably with your help.