I've noticed you use the term "war crimes" a lot. That term actually can mean a lot of things, as I've learned from researching it, and I'd be very interested to know your definition and exactly what actions you are referring to when you accuse HRC of "war crimes."
I know she's done a lot of things you don't agree with, and she's done things I don't agree with as well. But you or I disagreeing with an action doesn't automatically make it a "war crime."
I've been researching this out of a desire to understand the whole issue better, and I've found it to be an extremely complex area of law that would take me years to fully understand. Here's one definition that I think sums it up about as well as can be done in a few words:
"Acts that violate the international laws, treaties, customs, and practices governing military conflict between belligerent states or parties." SourceDoes this sound like an accurate and reasonable definition to you? If not, I'd really like to know what definition you are using when you accuse of HRC of "war
( ... )
First, Hillary had nothing to do PERSONALLY with the Iraq War. Yes, she voted for the resolution formally known as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" just like 297 members of the House of Representatives (including 82 Democrats) and 76 other Senators (28 of whom were Democrats). If that vote makes her a war criminal, she has a lot of company. 58% of the Democratic senators voted in favor of it, including Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, and Harry Reid, just to name some of the most prominent names on that list. (All of this is from Wikipedia, btw--not the most perfect source of info, I know, but they have an article that lays out the details on the resolution and who voted in favor of it in a way that I find very clear and helpful). Do you feel these people and the rest of the Senators and Congresspersons who voted for the war are all war criminals? Just wondering
( ... )
Oh, okay, so you're not interested in backing up any of your accusations with facts. That actually doesn't surprise me, lol!
I know there is "plenty of information" available online, but since you obviously have some very strong opinions on this, I thought you might have some specifics you could share.
The only reason I have pursued this is because I consider accusing someone of "war crimes" to be an extremely serious thing, and I would not consider calling someone a "war criminal" myself unless I had very specific reasons for it and was prepared to outline EXACTLY what they had done that justified such an accusation. I'm frankly surprised that you have declined to do that, or to share the definitions of terms ("war criminal" and "war crimes") that you use very freely and frequently (or even tell me if you have a problem with the definition I shared
( ... )
Yes, you did provide that, AFTER I posted my remarks. Oops! In fairness to both of us, I'm pretty sure we were both posting at the same time.
When I saw the additions to your post, I should probably have gone back and revised mine, but I didn't. I was getting ready to go somewhere at the time, and would have had to keep another person waiting which they would not have been happy about. I settled for acknowledging your additions in a p.s. instead. If that was the wrong choice, I apologize.
I have skimmed the articles you posted, but before I can reply appropriately, I need to go back and read all of them more thoroughly, and then mull things over. It will probably be tomorrow before I'm able to do all that and post a detailed response. There are a great many very complex issues involved in all of those different and complicated situations, and I don't like to respond to complex and complicated issues off the cuff. It's just not my style. :)
Glad to hear you're not being snarky. It's not always easy to tell on the internet!
And believe me, I do understand the dangers of "American exceptionalism." Even the sound of those syllables makes me feel uncomfortable. But I know the idea is not going anywhere anytime soon, and I really don't know what to do about it.
(The comment has been removed)
I know she's done a lot of things you don't agree with, and she's done things I don't agree with as well. But you or I disagreeing with an action doesn't automatically make it a "war crime."
I've been researching this out of a desire to understand the whole issue better, and I've found it to be an extremely complex area of law that would take me years to fully understand. Here's one definition that I think sums it up about as well as can be done in a few words:
"Acts that violate the international laws, treaties, customs, and practices governing military conflict between belligerent states or parties." SourceDoes this sound like an accurate and reasonable definition to you? If not, I'd really like to know what definition you are using when you accuse of HRC of "war ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
First, Hillary had nothing to do PERSONALLY with the Iraq War. Yes, she voted for the resolution formally known as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" just like 297 members of the House of Representatives (including 82 Democrats) and 76 other Senators (28 of whom were Democrats). If that vote makes her a war criminal, she has a lot of company. 58% of the Democratic senators voted in favor of it, including Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, and Harry Reid, just to name some of the most prominent names on that list. (All of this is from Wikipedia, btw--not the most perfect source of info, I know, but they have an article that lays out the details on the resolution and who voted in favor of it in a way that I find very clear and helpful). Do you feel these people and the rest of the Senators and Congresspersons who voted for the war are all war criminals? Just wondering ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I know there is "plenty of information" available online, but since you obviously have some very strong opinions on this, I thought you might have some specifics you could share.
The only reason I have pursued this is because I consider accusing someone of "war crimes" to be an extremely serious thing, and I would not consider calling someone a "war criminal" myself unless I had very specific reasons for it and was prepared to outline EXACTLY what they had done that justified such an accusation. I'm frankly surprised that you have declined to do that, or to share the definitions of terms ("war criminal" and "war crimes") that you use very freely and frequently (or even tell me if you have a problem with the definition I shared ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
When I saw the additions to your post, I should probably have gone back and revised mine, but I didn't. I was getting ready to go somewhere at the time, and would have had to keep another person waiting which they would not have been happy about. I settled for acknowledging your additions in a p.s. instead. If that was the wrong choice, I apologize.
I have skimmed the articles you posted, but before I can reply appropriately, I need to go back and read all of them more thoroughly, and then mull things over. It will probably be tomorrow before I'm able to do all that and post a detailed response. There are a great many very complex issues involved in all of those different and complicated situations, and I don't like to respond to complex and complicated issues off the cuff. It's just not my style. :)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And believe me, I do understand the dangers of "American exceptionalism." Even the sound of those syllables makes me feel uncomfortable. But I know the idea is not going anywhere anytime soon, and I really don't know what to do about it.
Reply
Leave a comment