If Hillary is elected, it would make my life if she cheats just to get back at Bill
@Ted Mosby is a jerk, god I hope that's her plan. Way funnier than actually trying to become president.
@Ted Mosby is a jerk, it would need to happen in the same chair, too.
@Ted Mosby is a jerk, wearing the same dress as Monica, but she'll be giving a bj to a hot young intern
@Ted Mosby is a jerk, who tf is eating her out?
@Laser Shark Robot, I need a hundered million dollars, in advance, and I need to be bricked across the skull when the jobs done. Alright boys, I'm going in....
@Ted Mosby is a jerk, be even better if she cheats with Monica Lewinsky.
A senator nominee mentioned Hillary was honest in a press release, and literally the crowd loled. On the other hand, Donald Trump son recently compared human beings to skittles.
Idk which is worse TBH.
@Mhael, I do like skittles...
@Mhael, He used an analogy. People are so sensitive.
@Zootopia, it's not that people are so sensitive, it's that he used a really really dumb analogy, that's totally unrepresentative of the real situation, it over simplifies the reality such that the bigoted opinions of his ilk seem much more justified.
@Mhael, Speaking of immigrants coming into the country, he said something to the extend of this: If there was a bowl full of skittles, and 5 of them were poisoned; would you grab a handful and eat them? I think that's a pretty good analogy. One method of ensuring you dont get poisoned is to not eat any skittles, or test each skittle chemically before ingesting it.
@Mhael, people are like skittles because they taste delicious
@Zootopia, the analogy is totally off because
A) a bowl of skittles has, what?150 skittles? So the odds of you dying is 3/150 which is quite high, but the number of terrorists recorded from refugees according to actual statistics is less than 1 in 30,000.
B) If you don't eat the skittles nothing happens to them, they just stay there. If you don't accept refugees they end up dying by the thousands, you can't honestly say that you can compare a human's life to a skittle.....
@Mhael, if the skittle thing is about the bowl of skittles with the few dangerous ones, then I actually do think that that metaphor is pretty good
@lakewood20, except the vetting process for Syrian refugees takes 18-24 months. The metaphor only works if you have two years to test the skittles.
Also if you don't eat the skittles nothing happens. If you don't accept refugees you have let people die. There is no justification. If you oppose refugees then you are responsible for the deaths of others
@Zootopia, it's actually more like 3 in every 78,000, which we do check extensively
@Zootopia, Except for its closer to 50 bowls of skittles with a few dangerous ones. And on top of that, candy aren't people. If you don't eat the candy, it isn't going to starve or get killed, but hey these people are. I personally haven't made up my mind as to how much we need to help out these refugees, but it's a pretty crappy analogy regardless.
@Mhael, you're right in that the analogy is overly simplistic. But on the most basic level it has a valid point. Look, I agree that it's terrible what is happening to innocent people over there. So why don't we discuss how we handle the problem. Establishing safe zones over there. How best to accept them. Better screening. Determining if these people can be screened at all. Etc...
We can acknowledge that it's an over simplified analogy but we're not addressing the problem when we stop the discussion at, Muslims aren't skittles and here are a bunch of reasons why. Every rational person agrees that Muslims and the extremists that have hijacked their religion are not skittles. But I think every rational person also agrees on the point trying to be made. Which is another thing that bugs me. Everything has to fit into 130 characters for people to discuss it or it's ignored. Then the conversation gets stalled over people complaining about the oversimplification.
@Zootopia, and it's honestly not a bad one
@Dyslexic eman resu, Look, I'm not denying that people need to be vetted, examined, etc. But simply saying don't allow them in at all is preposterous, trump's son didn't even say we need to check the skittles first, his statement directly implied that they shouldn't be allowed entry. I'm not opposed to vetting refugees, I'm opposed to blind refusal of people in dire need of help.
@Mhael, and there was a study done by a conservative group that estimated the chances of dying from a terror attack are about 1/3.6 billion.
Since 9/11, we've accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East, and of those, less than 5 participated in(unsuccessful) terror attacks.
@Dyslexic eman resu, good point, set up safe zones instead of letting in too many refugees
@Hoopscallion, but there are refugees already here. It's not a metaphor on what we might do, its a metaphor for their culture. If only a small fraction of their people want to hurt you but you have no way of knowing which ones, why would you honestly take any of them. I'd much rather not eat any skittles if it meant they might hurt my teeth, it's not my problem that the bowl they live in is a bad bowl
@lakewood20, Oh sure there's hundreds of thousands of refugees here. We've been accepting them for decades. Why just June alone gave us 2300.
We do know though. The vetting process takes 18-24 months. It takes more time to seek refuge status than it does to apply for a visa and the scrutiny is much higher.
People will die. These aren't skittles that will hurt your teeth. If you deny them entry they will die and that blood is on your hands. A girl comes screaming to your house and says there's a rapist after her and you can see a guy chasing her. Sure it's not your problem, you can shut your door. But you are definitely a bad person for doing so.
@Hoopscallion, that blood isn't on our hands at all unless we're the ones killing them. If we took in every person who might ever get hurt then we'd be taking on billions. You have to draw the line somewhere and I draw it between letting others die while letting my own survive. I'd let the queen of England die if it meant good Americans could live
@lakewood20, And so I say you're a bad person. They aren't here to kill you, the lines have been drawn already. Less than one percent of applicants get in and have been vetted extensively. They are interviewed by the FBI, the department of homeland security, the UN and various other organizations. They spend two years being tested. You are more likely to be killed by your family than by a refugee.
I get what you're saying. But I think it's a terrible thing to say. You're saying your life and your families life is more important than thousands of other people lives. You're willing to let thousands die if your family is safe from a threat so miniscule that it barely even exists. You're welcome to do that. And i'm welcome to judge you for it. And you can defend yourself and it's a never ending cycle of we can all think these things.
@Hoopscallion, you're limiting my argument. Unless by family you mean the entire country is related to me. I'd rather have thousands die in a dangerous country than thousands die from dangerous refugees. I don't worry if the other shepherds sheep are killed by wolves, I don't pay them for it, I don't build them a fence, I only worry about my sheep. Thinking that we owe the world everything has caused the world to hate us
@Hoopscallion, we can't go out and interfere in the lives of people who don't even know who we are, and when we police the world and try to control everyone they hate us and our way of live and that's how terrorism even got started
@lakewood20, that is a completely unrelated argument that I agree with. We should not be policing the world. Someone knocking on your door and asking to come in has nothing to do with trying to control anyone. I'm gonna need you to explain that one to me. Because if someone asks to come into your house and you say yes can your neighbors accuse you of trying to police the neighborhood?
@Hoopscallion, going in to other countries and trying to take people out of the country and hiding them from danger will obviously enrage those who didn't come. We have no idea which ones are dangerous so we're either ruining the dangerous ones plans or bringing the dangerous ones home with us within our borders. If we didn't go over there and take refugees or go over there at all, it wouldn't have been our problem. The reason they even have people trying to leave is because we antagonized them and made them violent and turned it worse than it ever would have been on their own.
@lakewood20, Look dude you have to look stuff up and listen to other people instead of just saying stuff you feel. The US does not go into other countries looking for refugees. The UN does. You know the United Nations. Refugees apply to the UN for refugee status. The UN vets them and approves less than one percent of their applicants. They recommended them to various countries. When they say maybe this one should go to the US the US then vets them for two more years. The FBI, the department of homeland security. Everything we have is used on these guys for two years.
Since 2001 the united States has accepted almost 800,000 refugees. Almost a million. You said if we get thousands of refugees we'd have thousands of dead Americans. We have hundreds of thousands of refugees already. Where are all the dead Americans? Where are all the terrorists that have slipped in? How has our country not fallen apart?
The policing argument i already agreed with and it's a different issue
@Mhael, Yep He made the poisonous mushroom analogy (only with skittles) the germans used for the jews when referring to Syrian refugees. Which by the way since 2001 there have been three incidents of terror plots from refugees with refugee status in the US only one of which was planned to take place in the USA.
@Hoopscallion, so you're acting like I'm underselling my numbers, and that I don't know what the UN is, and that I'm basing my entire argument on emotion yet you're the one telling me how wrong I am because of your emotional standpoint. Logically, nobody would ever let strangers in their house if they resemble a threat. You seem to fail to grasp that I'm using small numbers to illustrate my point. The US, no matter how big is still a house, and if dangerous people are coming in and hurting us then it's fair to consider them possible threats when more of them seek entrance. You on the other hand think saving them from themselves is the right thing to do at the expense of our own lives. It sounds like you'd choose to save the lives of foreigners over the lives of our neighbors. If you want to act like there's no terrorism threats in our country and I'm making stuff up then feel free to research it yourself. I don't have the time or the effect to do it for you.
@Hoopscallion, American lives are more important to me than foreign lives especially if they're possibly dangerous
@lakewood20, it is amazing that you can say I'm being emotional and then say that these lives matter more. That is the definition of thinking with your heart and not your head. And you're thinking with fear when it's been proven that refugees are vetted enough and have been for decades. Yes, you are the one arguing against logic with emotion. If i spent two years studying someone and interviewing them then yes i would let them in my house
@Hoopscallion, i hope you know I don't actually care. This only seriously matters if I wanted to be a politician. If you want me to be logical then I say we close all borders and let anyone do whatever they want. That's honestly the only way to end terrorism and war. If we only worry about domestic affairs other than trade then there won't be any serious problems. And I'm sorry for you but that means not taking in any refugees. I shouldn't be the one that has to take care of you for your bad government and lifestyle. Not everyone is born with the best life and it sucks to suck
@lakewood20, your life would not change with taking in refugees. You know how i know? Because we have taken in thousands of refugees in the last few months. Also it doesnt matter if you're a politician, governors and senators do not have any power to deny refugees. They're going on about it for no reason while we being them in. And yes you're much much more likely to die from Americans than any other group. Mass shootings, accidents, crimes of passion. You are not speaking from logic. You're right that it doesn't matter but you should refrain from saying you speak from logic if these are your arguments. Because they are probably wrong. Have a good day!
@Hoopscallion, your entire argument is that we should bring those refugees in so they don't die. How do you know they're going to die? How is that logic? If there are attacks here how are they any safer? How are thousands of refugees a month good for anything? If those refugees are even slightly dangerous then they're dangerous. Not to mention the unnecessary strain on our economy. Odds are they aren't going to assimilate soon if not ever, and what sort of contributions are they going to make? They aren't going to ease in to the work force, they're not going to go home when they're safe, and they're going to be contacted by terrorist troops urging them to act for their homeland. You're not allowed to make straw men out of my arguments and ignore my stance when you're taking an even more emotional one and then act like you're right and leave. What sort of hoopscallion do you think you are?
@lakewood20, there are almost million refugees here right now. This talk of danger is not real. I have presented the vetting process over and over as evidence. The FBI head signs off personally on each now. They are not dangerous. That's nothing but emotion to think they are. The strain on this, the strain on that. Proven to be untrue. I can show you sources that say the best thing that could happen to our economy would be to open borders and have no limits on people coming in. Sure some of my argument is from emotion, i never said it wasn't. However your entire argument is based in fear and not in reality. Probably so. There are a million refugees here. Why aren't we all dead yet?
@Hoopscallion, show me a source that proves that 800,000 thousand refugees is 100% helpful to our state of mind, national security, and our economy and I'll give you a source that your UN vetting argument is untrue and that terrorists do get through and do attack us
@lakewood20, well my claim was that open borders would help everyone. Not that specifically the 800,000 refugees have but here http://openborders.info/economist-consensus/
Google it. Tons and tons of papers and research and economists that say this. Enough that multiple say there is a consensus in the economic world
@Hoopscallion, I just researched your exact sentence and found an article almost word for word what you said. Way to think critically. And the number of refugees or 800,000 over the last 15 years does not at all prove open borders is a good thing. If there were no borders then there is no feasible way that a government can operate. This isn't communism, not everyone plays their part and lives happily ever after we simply can't afford the sort of numbers your dream world seems to hold. Especially if we suddenly start now. I agree open borders would be fine before wars and before pilgrimage but not now. There's a reason first second and third world countries are labeled as such. Not all humanitarians are right, and not every website you read can be copied and pasted to win an argument
@Hoopscallion, there's no way to win an argument like this since you don't want to understand that my argument isn't fear or emotions and I don't want to agree that letting strangers come in to our country is a good idea.
@lakewood20, and you won't listen and hear that they aren't strangers. They are all interviewed and vetted and researched for two years. Two years. How do you not get this? Each individual person is put through the wringer for two years. They aren't strangers. We let strangers into our country all the time. Every day. Strangers can be dangerous so you should never leave your house. That's what I'm hearing. Anyone can kill you dude. Also your argument is that we can't help people because they might be dangerous. That is the definition of fear silly.
You are correct that you don't want to agree. That's the whole crux of this. Statistically and factually your argument can be invalidated but you don't want to agree so you never will. You make strange claims that things have to help 100 percent of the time or we shouldn't do them. By this logic you should probably be kicked out of the country. You're not helping me. I don't see how you being here is 100 percent a good thing. Same for me
@lakewood20, I mean we're clearly not gonna agree. You keep arguing against things that I did not say or simply not listening to facts and people who know better than you or I. You won't accept they aren't strangers and I don't think we should leave people to die so I'm not gonna change my mind. We should just end this now.
@Hoopscallion, it's not fear it's that I don't want to waste my time on people I don't care for. I really don't think that adding that many people is a good thing. I wouldn't want them here even if they were the best of the swedes, or Canadians. I believe that our economy is built on a shady foundation and we need to become more independent and bring companies back to the United States. We can't help others until we can help ourselves and I don't think that can be proven wrong by statistics.
@lakewood20, you are not wasting time. What is wrong with you? These refugees coming in do not affect you. Are you feeding them? Giving them your money? How are you wasting time on them?
@Hoopscallion, so you're telling me that 0% of taxes will go to support these people? On top of the percents that go to our homeless, or the welfare abusers, or the people on disability, or the people who need public financing? Or that these people will not be taking up space? Or that they will not be burdens at all? They won't fit in on day one. The point is we have way too many problems to be taking on the problems of others
@Hoopscallion, if you have 7 kids in a 3 bedroom house and you also have your family living with you, and your neighbors are having a domestic dispute, and their 2 kids come over to your house to move in and avoid the yelling and violence, would the average person take them in. (Obviously not you, you'd take them in and pretend things were fine) The average person.
@lakewood20, welfare and finance are separate arguments and this is a serial problem with you. We are not talking about those problems. Taking up space? Brother there is so much land in this country it's ridiculous. Less than a million people live in all of Montana and it's humongous.
Look I'm gonna stop responding to you. You clearly are just saying things that you feel and don't have anything to back them up with and trying to start other arguments. Their country is at war. Bombs are going off and killing people. They want out and we have room and even if it did cost us a little i think it's worth it to save lives.
@Hoopscallion, oh yea? Go build houses there and tell people to live there. I know we have plenty of room all over the place but there aren't cities there and they aren't suitable for life yet. The problem isn't my point it's that you like to degrade my stance and belittle me and treat me like some kid in highschool. My points are as valid as yours you just think you're right and I'm lying
@Hoopscallion, first, trying to place responsibility of another people on our heads because of whats going on in there country is insane. We are responsible for ourself, not anyone else. Also, the "vetting" process you talk about is a joke. How much information do you think the FBI can get from a warzone and with how much accuracy? Not much. Basically the vetting process is interviewi g people and taking their word they aren't terrorists unless they are bad enough to actually be on international lists. Just look at Europe and all the sexual assaults, rapes, and terrorist attacks there.
@Hoopscallion, also finances are a huge issue and why open borders is suicide for a country that has opem welfare. Any illegal or immigrant can qualify for all kinds of programs that are paid by us through our tax dollars.
Remember back when they started digging into her emails? I looked into it then, and found an interview with a senator McCarthy (I don't know if any relation with the other one) who said when he thought he was speaking off the reccord:
We know digging into her emails is useless. We're not going to find anything. However whenever we do start a new investigation that shakes the public trust in her. that's why we're doing it
@Captain Anderson, except they found all kind of things, so probally not a good example if true.
Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, spineless, evil human being. Idk how she gets away with what she does. Even after deleting classified emails needed for an FBI investigation, she is still running for POTUS. How could anyone vote for this LIAR!
@Maschine, I don't like your style
@Maschine, implying lying isn't a required part of any government possition at some point or another
@Davrial, yeah I don't know why everyone is so butt hurt. Bush put us into a 11 year war over non existent WMD, and yall mad she deleted emails that we wouldn't have seen anyway?
@Maschine, what's cute is that you believe that American popular vote makes a difference when the Electoral College exists... all Presidential candidates are liars and for decades all they've had in their minds is their own personal gain. Don't take sides like everyone else. Think for yourself and research that the problem starts at local and state levels- don't jump straight into the top being the problem when the American people started this by not voting in local elections.
@R2 LSD2, If you ignore the fact that Saddam used chlorine gas (WMD and also a war crime) to fight the curds sure there was no evidence of them ever possessing WMDs. But we also have to ignore the fact that we were stopping a tyrannical dictator who was planning to invade kuwait and probably Israel. So if you ignore both of those facts yes you have a point.
@R2 LSD2, Also you have to ignore the fact that having classified data on a home server is a gigantic national security risk.
@Maschine, how could anyone vote for the bigoted liar who keeps making up his own facts
@Kliment Voroshilov, we had little to no proof that would happen, and in fact ISIS and the economy collapse are a direct result of the war in Iraq. Every country in the world besides the UK were against us doing this.
@Maschine, how is trump getting away with the things he's done? Illegally using charity funds to pay his own expenses, bribing an attorney general so she wouldn't look into his university (which was another lie/scam) won't release his taxes and makes up most of his facts. He goes on and on about the Clinton foundation, but at least you can records about where the money comes from, that's something you can't do about his companies. This man is about to be on trial for child abuse
@Brickmasta8, you also chose to ignore the use of chlorine gas. Also conflating the rise of ISIS with the Iraq war is incorrect. While I am willing to admit that the instability due to the early removal of us forces in Iraq may have let them get a foothold there more esily they started as a radical outgrowth of the anti-syrian rebels.
@Maschine, 2 words is all that's needed to answer your question. Donald Trump. There isn't a single republican that would have lost to her. But hey, maybe you think Trump is honest.
@Maschine, lol, you write like trump talks..... SAD
@Maschine, if you vote for Hillary Clinton, you hate America.
@Maschine, She's running against Trump, that's why people would vote for her.
@Kliment Voroshilov, if chemical weapons are WMDs (which they aren't) someone should invade the US for using it in Nam.
I also think it's funny how you think America has the right to invade a sovereign nation simply because you don't agree how it's governed.
P.S he did "invade" Kuwait (he annexed it but whatever)
So yes ignoring those two points.
P.p.s most of the emails were about drone strikes that already happened. That isn't a national security risk.
@R2 LSD2, This is to long to refute in a single comment so prepare for itemized rebukes.
1. "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:
Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;" directly from the FBI Directorate to regulate WMD.
Also the geneva protocol of 1925 was created specifically to regulate chemical weapons, though it did not use the term WMD that was because it had not been coined yet. It did call for the regulation of said weapons in the same manner as modern WMDs.
2. In Vietnam the US used agent orange which was not a chemical weapon despite what some people seem to belive. It was designed to kill the foliage in the jungles of Vietnam not to be used as a weapon for killing enemy combatants.
3. You are correct that he annexed Kuwait but annexation still uses force to claim territory from another country as your own. Which I may point out often leads to a full out war.
@R2 LSD2, 4. There are thousands of emails that have been reviewed but thousands more that were never surrendered. For tou to say that there was no classified information is impossible.
4. (Ammended) that is to say any information that poses a security risk.
Don't try to argue with them, they are globalists and hate America
@Kliment Voroshilov, 1.) By your definition: Fireworks, TNT, and thermite, and hand grenades are WMD. But if we use the whole definition it's more clear.
To finish your definition it states: "WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive. These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure."
@Kliment Voroshilov, 2.) Although herbicidal warfare use chemical substances, its main purpose is to disrupt agricultural food production and/or to destroy plants which provide cover or concealment to the enemy, not to asphyxiate or poison humans and/or destroy human-made structures. You'd be correct except for the fact that it killed thousands of people, so of our own troops, and cause birth defects for generations. So by definition you are correct. But that is both what actually happened.
@Kliment Voroshilov, 3.) Texas was annexed as was hawaii? No force was used. Intimidation yes, bloodshed no. Also was not a full scale war. Like I said, you can not invade a sovereign nation because you don't like how they are governed.
to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state:
Germany annexed part of Czechoslovakia or Austria
@Kliment Voroshilov, 4.) National security: Accordingly, in order to possess national security, a nation needs to possess economic security, energy security, environmental security, etc. Security threats involve not only conventional foes such as other nation-states but also non-state actors such as violent non-state actors, narcotic cartels, multinational corporations and non-governmental organisations; some authorities include natural disasters and events causing severe environmental damage in this category.
Explain how these emails put us in any jeopardy of losing national security? We aren't going to get invaded, our infrastructure is still trash, still have evil corporations, cartels are still rampant. I don't see how she made it any worse. Was it irresponsible? Yes. Did she lie about it? Yes. Would I vote for her? No. But she did not jeopardize national security, all she did was cause a media frenzy. And unless you have solid proof she altered the status que or jeopardized the
@Maschine, things listed above, you are just part of the frenzy.
Refute to your 1.)
So by this definition that includes chemical weapons as a WMD are you negating your earlier claim that they are not? tTherefore accnowledging that Sadam did in fact posses and use WMDs.
Response to 2.)
Again by your admission that the purpose of agent orange was not as a weapon negates your earlier statement. The effects of agent orange as far as the deaths are concerned were unintentional. where they awful and unnecessary? Yes, but they were unintended consequences.
Rebuke of your 3.)
You are correct that Texas and Hawaii were annexed but the fact that you chose to omit is that in both cases the government's of the respective parties (parties being the general term for thouse involved) supported the annexation.
Iraq invaded Kuwait on the claim that they were stealing Iraqi oil reserves and the government and citizens of Kuwait opposed the action.
Rebuke to your 4.)
Ok I am willing to concede that her emails did not nesecarrily constitute a security risk. I still stand by the fact that she broke the law and thus far no charges have been filed. This is a miscarriage of justice. Can we agree on that point?
Also I am quite enjoying this bit of mental jousting and thank you for the opportunity. I hope that you feel the same.
@Kliment Voroshilov, 1.) No because he did have a weapon that had "a relatively large- scale impact on people, property, and/infrastructure. He used chemical weapons yes. We agree on that point. He just didn't have a large enough payload to be considered a WMD. At most he killed 5,000 people. As opposed to agent orange that killed millions in South East Asia. The scale is off (which sounds fvck up) but in short he didn't kill enough people to be a WMD.
"Dioxin is one of the most deadly known substances. It’s both natural and man-made. It’s a potent carcinogenic human immune system suppressant. Minute amounts cause serious health problems and death.In 2009, the US Institute of Medicine reported evidence linking Agent Orange to soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (including hairy-cell leukemia), Hodgkin’s disease, and chloracne."
I mean, it's like using weed killer. It isn't meant to be used on humans. But if poor it into a water supply it will kill humans. Was the original goal to kill all the people in the forest and surrounding cities? Probably not, but it still did.
If I accidentally hit you with my car, it's my fault. Does the same apply to chemical weapons if it was an accident?
@Kliment Voroshilov, if it's a legal annexation it doesn't matter. Still doesnt justify an invasion. Ukraine for example could 100% legally join Russia. Even agaisnt the people's will and still would be legal. Not every government is a republic and that's okay.
But I do understand what you are saying. From an American POV that isn't okay. But from a legal standpoint it doesn't matter.
@Kliment Voroshilov, 4.) Agree 100%. She broke the law and should be in jail or at least withdrawn from the race.
And I like this a lot! Bounce ideas and beliefs off people is the best!
Rebuke to 1.)
While he did not use them in a manner that seems to constitute a WMD based on your reasoning, the substance itself is still considered one therefore Sadam possessed WMDs.
Can we agree on that point?
@R2 LSD2, and the wars in Libya and Syria are on her at least Bush did it legally - thousands are dying escaping the lies Hillary bought and pushed Obama into a war without Congressional declaration of war
Rebuke to agent orange:
In the metaphor of you running someone over with your car you are correct that you would be punished but it would be considered manslaughter i.e. you would be imprisoned but it would be a lighter sentence and it would not be a direct action of I'll will or murder.
This same thought can be applied to agent orange that is caused harm but it was not known to thouse who Called for its use therefore was not a direct attempt to kill.
The difference is subtle but important.
If the involved parties both support the annexation it is legal. But this was not the case with Iraq and Kuwait.
Kuwait did not support the Iraqi invasion and I call it that specifically because they did not support it.
In this parlance annexation is the legal obsobtion of one territory into another.
What happened in the Kuwait-Iraq example was an invasion a belligerent power taking control of a victim power by force.
Lastly though I have enjoyed this I have to sleep soon based on my time zone so I would move that we table this discussion indeffinetly.
@Kliment Voroshilov, sounds like a plan. Good talk :)
@R2 LSD2, Good talk indeed. I wish I could shake your hand I feel like that is a must in these sort of situations.
@Kliment Voroshilov, right! It's hard to find people that will even talk about this stuff. You ,sir, are a gentleman and scholar.
@Sweet or Sour, "legally" lol
Neither conflict has a congressional declaration of war (only happened 11 times).
Bush was given authorized to use force to uphold UN resolutions. However, There were no existing UN resolutions authorizing force on sanctions. The US tried to get a new one. In its original drafts the US sought permission to attack on its own and it was REJECTED. The US only got the UNSC to demand WMD inspectors be allowed back into Iraq or there were would be dire consequences. The UNSC never actually authorized force.
At least Syria was approved: The bill authorizes only 60 days of military action, with the possibility of a one-time extension of 30 days. The bill also specifically prohibits the use of ground troops.
However I believe we are over 90 days are we not? So I guess it would be illegal now?
Every war since WWII has not be approved. So that's no reason not to like hillary.
@R2 LSD2, but its ok to not like Bush for effectively the same reason? Jeb Bush was one of the most sensible choices but ignored because of G2, yet Hillary walks on water though they had no plan for day after in Libya. Obama finally admitted this hear they had no clue. Rather than go with a proven danger I voted for Bernie. Cannot vote Clinton and put Bill back at the scene of his women's rights violations.
@2ndAmendment, Gary Johnson is a fake libertarian. He gets triggered when you talk about illegal immigrants, he finds if offensive. Gary Johnson is an idiot and so are the people that support him
@Maschine, lol are you triggered? I'd vote for him before I vote for the other two clowns...
@2ndAmendment, you're just an idiot globalist.
@Maschine, I'm not an idiot. I actually am quite the genius.
@2ndAmendment, who even is Gary Johnson? He is a nobody...no one has heard of this guy! I'm calling it a plant from the GOP to take votes away from DJT
@Maschine, he pulls more from hillary, moron. Look at the polls uneducated sheep.
@2ndAmendment, just cause you saw a poll online doesn't mean it's correct. You're the sheep, voting for Gary Johnson. Must be a globalist.
South Park was right. It's a giant d-bag vs. a turd sandwich.
That doesn't even look like Hilary... Clone..?
@Godricgryffindor , if it is, then hopefully she will leak that classified info too.
Im so glad i live in Australia
*right with our culture.
Trump should try to profile me #donttrustwhites
Clinton may be the worst politician in Washington, but Trump is the worst human in the U.S.
Bush SR., the REPUBLICAN ex-president is voting for Clinton.... If you can't even get a rep ex-pews to vote for you, then maybe you're wrong. On the other hand, he's voting for Clinton...
@TheDoctorsTARDIS, it is because they are all globalists. Just another old geezer like George Soros trying to flood America with immigrants
So my thinking is that Hilary gets to be president and we don't have to worry about trump anymore. Then Hilary is arrested for the whole email thing and whatnot and she is no longer president. So both of them are not president and we can breath freely.
Somebody tell me we are not going to have one of these two as president
@NSA is watching you, then Tim Kaine would be president. You should vote for Gary Johnson.
@The Ash of Ley, don't split the vote, you honestly risk a trump presidency
@Brickmasta8, or everyone forgets Hilary and switches to Johnson.
I... Don't disagree with this
New cinemasins schanel confirmed:goversins