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.
For the record, I have NEVER defended the Iraq War or the way Hillary (Joe, Dianne, John, Harry, et al.) voted on that resolution, and I'm not about to start doing it now. (Hillary herself has admitted she was wrong and apologized for it, as we all know.) I'm not qualified to hazard any guesses about exactly what these lawmakers knew or didn't know or what they did or didn't believe when they cast those votes, so I can't speak to that. I'd like to believe they cast those votes in good faith, but I don't have any actual information to support or refute that. And either way, I'm not sure that voting for that resolution rises to meet the definition of "war crimes" that I posted above. If you feel it does, please feel free to explain why.
As for the other items (Honduras, Yemen, Saudi Arabia), I'll need more information on exactly what Hillary did in each case that you feel fits the definition of "war crime," based on the definition I posted above (or any other definition you may wish to posit, if you disagree with that one for some reason).
In case it's not clear, I'd like to know exactly what actions Hillary took in any or all of those cases that, in your view, constituted violations of "the international laws, treaties, customs, and practices governing military conflict between belligerent states or parties."
Thank you for answering my questions. I am really trying to understand your point of view here, and I need more information in order to do so.
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).
P.S. It looks like you edited this while I was replying. I'll take a look at the sources you posted. Thanks.
Imo, it's not really fair to call someone a "war criminal" over and over again unless you are willing to provide some detailed justification (beyond the names of countries where you feel she has misbehaved. But you obvious have a different take on that!
Despite the lack of information you have provided, this exchange has been very instructive for me. Thanks again. :-)
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.
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.
For the record, I have NEVER defended the Iraq War or the way Hillary (Joe, Dianne, John, Harry, et al.) voted on that resolution, and I'm not about to start doing it now. (Hillary herself has admitted she was wrong and apologized for it, as we all know.) I'm not qualified to hazard any guesses about exactly what these lawmakers knew or didn't know or what they did or didn't believe when they cast those votes, so I can't speak to that. I'd like to believe they cast those votes in good faith, but I don't have any actual information to support or refute that. And either way, I'm not sure that voting for that resolution rises to meet the definition of "war crimes" that I posted above. If you feel it does, please feel free to explain why.
As for the other items (Honduras, Yemen, Saudi Arabia), I'll need more information on exactly what Hillary did in each case that you feel fits the definition of "war crime," based on the definition I posted above (or any other definition you may wish to posit, if you disagree with that one for some reason).
In case it's not clear, I'd like to know exactly what actions Hillary took in any or all of those cases that, in your view, constituted violations of "the international laws, treaties, customs, and practices governing military conflict between belligerent states or parties."
Thank you for answering my questions. I am really trying to understand your point of view here, and I need more information in order to do so.
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).
P.S. It looks like you edited this while I was replying. I'll take a look at the sources you posted. Thanks.
Imo, it's not really fair to call someone a "war criminal" over and over again unless you are willing to provide some detailed justification (beyond the names of countries where you feel she has misbehaved. But you obvious have a different take on that!
Despite the lack of information you have provided, this exchange has been very instructive for me. Thanks again. :-)
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