The 2016 United States Presidential Election

As Mod seemed to accept my claim, Message 140 and Message 170, I suspect you either: never read my posts in full, are being willfully obtuse, or simply being dishonest.Back to my question: Let's try using the golden rule:IF a foreign politician voted to murder your children and parents based on lies, a crime of aggression, would YOU think that person would make a credible potential president?It's a simple question that I'm quite confident you'll continue to avoid answering.Edited by dronestar, : clarity

Mod seemed to get my claim. Perhaps you can try reading my posts in full.Or possibly you are being willfully obtuse or dishonest?

It burns.
_________________________Anyways, a pity that your stunted pea-brain intellectual capacity isn't as logical and advanced as Mod's.My sincere apologies Jar.

Look up "crime of aggression." Or read Mod's posts, Message 140 and Message 170, they can be understood by the simple-minded.Errm, well, at least you can try.

Wow, you already read both of Mod's posts? Pretty impressive ringo.

Okay, my apologies, and thank you for correcting me Ramoss. I will use a different photo in the future.I am curious, . . . to prevent myself from making a similar error in the future, can you tell me how you identified this photo? {I am going to do a PM with directions back to this message. The method I used is a Google image search. You can drag and drop any image into such a search and, among other things, the results will list many webpages that include the image. For the image in question, it was clear that it was indeed the 1982 Lebanese massacre. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Answering question.

(Topic is war criminals, so Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply.)____ *Chuckle* The most charitable excuse I can give you is that you have poor reading comprehension skills: ____ Then it is difficult for me to believe you are not an idiot. In addition to Mod writing; "there is a case that Hillary conspired to start a war of aggression," I posted:

quote:

---

Those who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq did so despite the fact that it violated international legal conventions which the US government is legally bound to uphold. The resolution constituted a clear violation of the United Nations Charter that, like other ratified international treaties, should be treated as supreme law, according to Article VI of the US Constitution. According to articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.

​

This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing violations of UN Security Council resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Kuwait, but the Security Council did not do so for any subsequent lesser Iraqi violations. The only other exception for the use of force authorized by the charter is in self-defense against armed attack, which even the Bush administration admitted had not taken place.http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war

---

I also posted . . .

quote:

---

Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General, expressed the belief that the war in Iraq was an "illegal act that contravened the U.N. charter."
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia

---

____You can find many LEGAL opinions on the web condemning the invasion as illegal: ____The UN allows two exceptions for the invasion of a sovereign nation:
1.Self-Defense
2.A definite decision on the part of the Security CouncilNeither of these provisions applies to the illegal invasion of Iraq. Blair/BushJr/Hillary gave up trying to get a Security Council resolution because they knew they were lying. But they did easily sell obvious lies of weapons-of-mass-destruction to a highly gullible and 'pro-war-crimes' public, . . . then simply invaded Iraq. A crime of aggression. A war of aggression. A war crime. Take your pick of terms for "the legal argument."A high percentage of amerikans approved. Just like the German public approved when Germany invaded Poland based on lies. Makes me wonder if Hitler was running for president today, would you also write that he was a merely flawed candidate?
____Regarding my simple and direct questions requiring a mere yes or no response: As history shows, when a participant is unwilling to answer a simple and direct yes/no question, it is because one doesn’t want to incriminate themself. Obviously.Again, I get it. You are deeply ashamed because you supported an alleged/unconvicted war-criminal. Thus, I am confident your mortification will force you to obfuscate and play the game of pedantry: "the legal argument."Pfft. The fact remains, the candidate that YOU support, according to The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, is responsible for:
4,500 Americans killed (far larger number permanently wounded)
up to a million innocent Iraqi civilians murdered
trillionS of dollars of US taxpayers' money wasted
anti-American extremism in reaction to the invasion and occupation which has spread and DIRECTLY produced the group ISIL.Kudos NWR, . . . kudos.

Yes ringo, I have nothing to say. All my posts that I repeatedly urged you to read, are in fact, . . . blank posts. Edited by dronestar, :

It’s always entertaining when somebody repeatedly defends Hitler, Hillary.1. The resolution that Hillary enthusiastically supported and cheered others to join her was:

quote:

---

H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
Yea D Clinton, Hillary

---

Just threatening a sovereign nation is a Crime Against Peace:

quote:

---

A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing".[1] This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace. It can also refer to the core international crimes set out in Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression) which adopted crimes negotiated previously in the Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind. Crime of aggression - Wikipedia

---

Hillary ENTHUSIASTICALLY supported the attack:

quote:

---

In 2002, Senator Clinton voted in favor of the authorization to use force in Iraq. In addition to this vote, Senator Clinton gave a 20 minute speech in which she stated that Saddaam Hussein was rebuilding his WMD stockpile, pursuing nuclear weapons, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists. She stated that left unchecked, he would continue to do this and would likely destabilize the middle east which would affect American security. SLOT GACOR HARI INI GAMPANG MENANG 2022

---

Hillary certainly had NO REGRET about authorizing the attack afterwards:

quote:

---

in December of 2003, Senator Clinton spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations the day after Saddaam Hussein was captured and noted that she supported giving President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq and that she felt this was the right vote. By April of 2004, Senator Clinton was stating that while she did not regret giving the President the authority to use force, she did feel that the administration was not prepared for the aftermath and that he cut off attempts by inspectors. SLOT GACOR HARI INI GAMPANG MENANG 2022

---

It was only until Hillary thought about running for office did she start changing her tune:
1. 2. After no weapons of mass destruction were found, Hillary continued to enthusiastically FUND the murder of dark-skinned women and children for years, until suddenly she felt it was not a good idea to FUND murdering dark-skinned women and children while running for office.3.Results of the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq that Hillary supported (until she decided she will run for office):
up to a MILLION innocent Iraqi civilians murdered, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN. (If I use an incorrectly labeled photograph, then I guess those deaths didn’t really happen.)
4,500 Americans killed (far larger number permanently wounded)
trillionS of dollars of US taxpayers' money wasted
anti-American extremism in reaction to the invasion and occupation which has spread and DIRECTLY produced the group ISIL.4.Use of an incorrectly labeled photo?Considering that Hillary’s actions caused the countless dark-skinned murder of women and children in Iraq, Lebanon, Honduras, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan, Syria, Israel, and Yemen (not one comment from my recent post Message 257 huh?), and considering that the US is the worlds largest supplier of small weapons of mass destruction (that Hillary has supported, Message 257), I find all the indignant BS about me using a mere incorrectly labeled photo, yet giving Hillary’s lifetime of criminal actions a pass, specifically disgusting (but from war-crime supporters, typical).Hyroglyphx had it absolutely right about your glaring hypocrisy: As Stein said:

quote:

---

The best way to solve the immigration crisis is to stop causing it with disastrous trade & military policies that turn people into refugees.

​

Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) October 31, 2016

---

Way to keep defending Hitler, Hillary. Kudos nwr, . . . kudos.Edited by Admin, : Fix links.