Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[PhantomWolf]

The Iraq war was a war of aggression

No, it wasn't. War of Aggression has a specific definition under International Law, and Iraq was not one, even if you disagree with the reasons behind it occurring.

she - alongside others - voted for it, ie participated in a common plan to accomplish the initiation of a war of aggression.

Except that this is also incorrect. She and the others in congress voted to allow force to be used is Saddam failed to comply with the Inspectors, something that was allowed to be done under the UN Resolution. Even if you claim that Bush and his cabinet knew that the information they had was false, and planned to start a war without cause of Self Defense, then the fact is that those voting in congress were still abiding by the UN Rules and Resolutions. They could only have conspired had they known that the information they were given was false and had voted to go to war regardless of Saddam's actions. Your claim fails.

Incredible. Did I mention carpet bombing? Serious military response means what it means, namely a serious response accomplished by military means, ie an armed attack of some sorts and not necessarily carpet bombing.

It is clear from the context of the speech that the military measures she refers to in the context of hacking is to get the military capable of engaging in cyber warfare, not physical warfare.

 

[Childlike Empress]

She forgot to blame Putin.

You really couldn't make this stuff up. Apparently she somehow got caught at her plane after the "speech" and the pre$$titute noticed as well that she forgot to blame Putin and asked her about it, after which she then *cough* belatedly delivered *cough cough*:

 

[Childlike Empress]

Damned vast right-wing conspiracy!eleventy

 

[Belz...]

Of course it is, how dare you even ask?

*cough cough*

From today:


She forgot to blame Putin.

****! I cough often, too. Maybe I have a secret health problem.

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/OlTCQ5K.jpg[/qimg]

It will be so hilarious to see you not address this in eight years.

 

[Childlike Empress]

****! I cough often, too. Maybe I have a secret health problem.

Well, I guess there's no button in reach of your hands with more terrible consequences for the public than the "post" button, so that's a bit less relevant I'd say. But quick recovery I wish!

 

[tyr_13]

I can think of no stronger endorsement of Hillary than pointing out the nature and quality of the enemies she attracts.

 

[Childlike Empress]

It will be so hilarious to see you not address this in eight years.

Because you know she isn't ill, and the videos from today I posted are just another coincidence with timely arrival, right? Isn't that a bit, uhmm, faith-based? Well, we'll see.

 

[applecorped]

I can think of no stronger endorsement of Hillary than pointing out the nature and quality of the enemies she attracts.

That bodes well for Trump then.

 

[caveman1917]

No, it wasn't. War of Aggression has a specific definition under International Law, and Iraq was not one, even if you disagree with the reasons behind it occurring.

It was neither in self-defense nor sanctioned by the UN security council. Perhaps you have a different definition?

Except that this is also incorrect. She and the others in congress voted to allow force to be used is Saddam failed to comply with the Inspectors, something that was allowed to be done under the UN Resolution.

There was no UN resolution allowing this. In fact, it was made explicit that the final UN resolution on Iraq before the war did not allow for the use of force.

Even if you claim that Bush and his cabinet knew that the information they had was false, and planned to start a war without cause of Self Defense, then the fact is that those voting in congress were still abiding by the UN Rules and Resolutions. They could only have conspired had they known that the information they were given was false and had voted to go to war regardless of Saddam's actions.

She participated in a common plan for the initiation of a war of aggression, it is not necessary that this plan takes the form of a conspiracy.

Your claim fails.

Your argument fails. We have

1. A claim that a war of aggression has a specific definition under international law which is different from a war which is neither in self-defense nor sanctioned by the security council. You did not provide this definition.

2. An appeal to a purported UN resolution which you claim sanctioned the initiation of military force against Iraq. You did not provide this UN resolution nor quoted the section which allows military force.

3. A claim that because her part in participating in a common plan for initiating a war of aggression did not take the form of a conspiracy therefor she followed UN rules and resolutions. Yet there is clearly no requirement for such plans to take the form of a conspiracy.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That bodes well for Trump then.

Here's someone who thinks that the fact that Karl "we're an Empire now and we create our own reality" Rove pretty strongly went after Her Entitledness in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago means that the deep state is now so embarrassed by the "performance" that they decided to drop her.

 

[caveman1917]

Karl "we're an Empire now and we create our own reality" Rove

It was an empire which created its own "reality" long before Karl Rove came out and said it.

 

[caveman1917]

I can think of no stronger endorsement of Hillary than pointing out the nature and quality of the enemies she attracts.

I can think of no stronger grounds for rejecting Hillary than pointing out the nature and quality of the defenders she attracts.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Your argument fails. We have

1. A claim that a war of aggression has a specific definition under international law which is different from a war which is neither in self-defense nor sanctioned by the security council. You did not provide this definition.

2. An appeal to a purported UN resolution which you claim sanctioned the initiation of military force against Iraq. You did not provide this UN resolution nor quoted the section which allows military force.

3. A claim that because her part in participating in a common plan for initiating a war of aggression did not take the form of a conspiracy therefor she followed UN rules and resolutions. Yet there is clearly no requirement for such plans to take the form of a conspiracy.

The classic term for the argument is "pantomime debunking".

It was an empire which created its own "reality" long before Karl Rove came out and said it.

Indeed. Today I learned about an episode in its heroic history I hadn't known before.

 

[Dog Town]

I can think of no stronger grounds for rejecting Hillary than pointing out the nature and quality of the defenders she attracts.

While I see no choice, but to vote for her! I firmly agree that they are annoying!
Completely void of reason, when it comes to her foibles!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Except that this is also incorrect. She and the others in congress voted to allow force to be used is Saddam failed to comply with the Inspectors, something that was allowed to be done under the UN Resolution.

There was no UN resolution allowing this. In fact, it was made explicit that the final UN resolution on Iraq before the war did not allow for the use of force.

So you argue against a second hand quote which may or not be what Clinton said and you don't provide anything to back up your assertions either.

I take it fact checking is not your forte.

 

[caveman1917]

Indeed. Today I learned about an episode in its heroic history I hadn't known before.

Interesting. Thanks, I didn't know about that one.

 

[caveman1917]

So you argue against a second hand quote which may or not be what Clinton said

I have already watched through 10 minutes of her speech in which the newspaper linked to claimed she said those words. I'm not intending to watch any more of it. If I want to watch right-wing loonies spouting a bunch of drivel, there are plenty of such politicians right here in Belgium I can listen to. Although I might have to go to the extra-parliamentary right here, even the most right-wing party in parliament (Vlaams Blok) doesn't go so far as to use rhetoric of the sort of how we are the "greatest nation on the planet" and that "everyone in the world is in awe with how exceptional we are" and stuff like that.

and you don't provide anything to back up your assertions either.

How exactly would you like me to back up an assertion that there does not exist a UN resolution which sanctioned the use of force against Iraq? Shall I use the next 50 pages or so of the thread to copy paste each and every UN resolution ever passed? Burden of proof is an alien concept to you, I presume?

I take it fact checking is not your forte.

I don't care what you "take".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have already watched through 10 minutes of her speech in which the newspaper linked to claimed she said those words. I'm not intending to watch any more of it. If I want to watch right-wing loonies spouting a bunch of drivel, there are plenty of such politicians right here in Belgium I can listen to. Although I might have to go to the extra-parliamentary right here, even the most right-wing party in parliament (Vlaams Blok) doesn't go so far as to use rhetoric of the sort of how we are the "greatest nation on the planet" and that "everyone in the world is in awe with how exceptional we are" and stuff like that.



How exactly would you like me to back up an assertion that there does not exist a UN resolution which sanctioned the use of force against Iraq? Shall I use the next 50 pages or so of the thread to copy paste each and every UN resolution ever passed?



I don't care what you "take".

Excuse me, I don't see a single link there to supporting evidence.

All you need is the UN document on the agreement and it will show the sanctions to be used against Saddam for failure to comply.

And as for your memory of what you heard Clinton say, we know she said she voted to give Bush the authority to act if Saddam did not comply. What's missing is the part where she supposedly said in the same breath in these exact words, "something that was allowed to be done under the UN Resolution."

 

[caveman1917]

Excuse me, I don't see a single link there to supporting evidence.

All you need is the UN document on the agreement and it will show the sanctions to be used against Saddam for failure to comply.

There is no such UN resolution which sanctions the use of military force against Saddam for failure to comply. It is up to people who claim that such a resolution exists to provide evidence of its existence, not the other way around.

And as for your memory of what you heard Clinton say, we know she said she voted to give Bush the authority to act if Saddam did not comply.

Yes, which was neither in self-defense nor sanctioned by the security council. By voting to give the authority for it she participated in a common plan for the initiation of a war of aggression.

What's missing is the part where she supposedly said in the same breath in these exact words, "something that was allowed to be done under the UN Resolution."

Who cares what she said or what you suppose she said?