Evangelical Christians and Trump

[bullypulpit]

I see three options for evangelicals in this election and none of them include voting for Trump. Evangelicals can morally justify a protest vote for a third party, not vote at all, or join the 30%+ of evangelicals saying they'll vote for Hillary Clinton.

For the full article: http://www.christianpost.com/news/trumps-offer-to-christians-is-same-offer-devil-made-christ-168993/

He who sups with the Devil, should have a long spoon.

[red states rule]

Sure BP ask the people Hilary's staff mocked to vote fore her




WikiLeaks Dump: Top Clinton Aides Mock Catholicism, Evangelical Christianityhttp://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/11/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-campaign-aides-bash-catholics-evangelical-christians-palmieri

[revelarts]

For the full article: http://www.christianpost.com/news/trumps-offer-to-christians-is-same-offer-devil-made-christ-168993/

He who sups with the Devil, should have a long spoon.

There's no way evangelicals can justify voting for Hillary Clinton bullypulpit.

Pro-abortion, Pro-homosexual rights (newly), forcefully criticized the Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Never liked evangelicals, and panders to Black Christians .. "i'm no ways Tired... and love hot sauce and fird chicken" :puke3:

Not to mention her years of general political and business corruption.


there no GOOD choice as far as evangelicals are concerned.
3rd party makes sense but pickens are extremely slim.
Gary Johnson and Jill stein are not pure options either.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

For the full article: http://www.christianpost.com/news/trumps-offer-to-christians-is-same-offer-devil-made-christ-168993/

He who sups with the Devil, should have a long spoon.

JUST HOW LONG IS THAT SPOON YOU USE??
The Rev has got you pegged on this one. It is obvious that you have no clue and your support for the hildabeast shows you lack good judgment
in political matters.
Now would you answer this- Does Lucifer drink his tea ice cold or steaming hot? -Tyr

[fj1200]

I see three options for evangelicals in this election and none of them include voting for Trump. Evangelicals can morally justify a protest vote for a third party, not vote at all, or join the 30%+ of evangelicals saying they'll vote for Hillary Clinton.

For the full article: http://www.christianpost.com/news/trumps-offer-to-christians-is-same-offer-devil-made-christ-168993/

He who sups with the Devil, should have a long spoon.

I see a fallacy. There is a significant portion of evangelicals who already vote Democratic, they haven't all of a sudden had a change of heart.

[revelarts]

Bully here's a question for you.
How can ANTI-WAR progressives vote for Hillary?
She's approved of every war she's had a chance to vote on. AND is known as the one that egged on the Libyan offensive.

And as Bernie Sanders pointed out She's going to be getting foreign policy advice from Henry Kissenger. Someone the Anti-War left considers (rightly so) a war criminal.

Here's another question.
How can Occupy-Wall Streeters vote for Hillary?
She's shown by her votes and PRIVATE statements that she's in bed with the 1 Percenters, so how can "real" ...we know better... progressives vote for Hillary?

Here's another question.
How can Anti-Fraking environmentalist Progressives vote for Hillary?
I'm not as familiar with her positions here but it seems i've heard that she's not exactly a friend of the trees. and again is in bed with big companies and industries that are considered by the left as enemies of the environment.

Here's another question.
How can Anti-Globalist leftist vote for Hillary?
A few years ago there where quite a few Anti Gobalism protest at world bank meetings and similar conferences in the U.S. and around the world. The world bank, the IMF, the corps for the TPP and NAFTA , and other global trade agreements and the like have been called out as being inhuman, anti worker and anti freedom.
But Hillary is COMPLETELY on board with globalist agendas of every stripe.


Seem Anti-war Democrats, Occupy wall st. progressives and environmentalist can morally justify a protest vote for a third party or not vote at all....
Joining the odd percentage of them saying they'll vote for Trump may not make much sense but for the Anti-War left it may be better. Trumps not on board with the establishment wars at least. His will be more knee jerk and less strategic. And likely make wars shorter to save money. The OWS group may be better off too. Trump is not really part of the 1 percenters inside club and is not bought. Yes he's rich but he's not a corporate or banker's tool as far a i can tell. Environmentally I really have no idea what he's likely to do.
but as i said there are no good choices here. but for the principled left that has no concern about social morals in general Trump is probably a better bet than Hillary policy wise. Hillary's corrupt and is a 100% establishment globalist player.

[Black Diamond]

Bully here's a question for you.
How can ANTI-WAR progressives vote for Hillary?
She's approved of every war she's had a chance to vote on. AND is known as the one that egged on the Libyan offensive.

And as Bernie Sanders pointed out She's going to be getting foreign policy advice from Henry Kissenger. Someone the Anti-War left considers (rightly so) a war criminal.

Here's another question.
How can Occupy-Wall Streeters vote for Hillary?
She's shown by her votes and PRIVATE statements that she's in bed with the 1 Percenters, so how can "real" ...we know better... progressives vote for Hillary?

Here's another question.
How can Anti-Fraking environmentalist Progressives vote for Hillary?
I'm not as familiar with her positions here but it seems i've heard that she's not exactly a friend of the trees. and again is in bed with big companies and industries that are considered by the left as enemies of the environment.

Here's another question.
How can Anti-Globalist leftist vote for Hillary?
A few years ago there where quite a few Anti Gobalism protest at world bank meetings and similar conferences in the U.S. and around the world. The world bank, the IMF, the corps for the TPP and NAFTA , and other global trade agreements and the like have been called out as being inhuman, anti worker and anti freedom.
But Hillary is COMPLETELY on board with globalist agendas of every stripe.


Seem Anti-war Democrats, Occupy wall st. progressives and environmentalist can morally justify a protest vote for a third party or not vote at all....
Joining the odd percentage of them saying they'll vote for Trump may not make much sense but for the Anti-War left it may be better. Trumps not on board with the establishment wars at least. His will be more knee jerk and less strategic. And likely make wars shorter to save money. The OWS group may be better off too. Trump is not really part of the 1 percenters inside club and is not bought. Yes he's rich but he's not a corporate or banker's tool as far a i can tell. Environmentally I really have no idea what he's likely to do.
but as i said there are no good choices here. but for the principled left that has no concern about social morals in general Trump is probably a better bet than Hillary policy wise. Hillary's corrupt and is a 100% establishment globalist player.

She's a war hawk.

[Gunny]

Bully here's a question for you.
How can ANTI-WAR progressives vote for Hillary?
She's approved of every war she's had a chance to vote on. AND is known as the one that egged on the Libyan offensive.

And as Bernie Sanders pointed out She's going to be getting foreign policy advice from Henry Kissenger. Someone the Anti-War left considers (rightly so) a war criminal.

Here's another question.
How can Occupy-Wall Streeters vote for Hillary?
She's shown by her votes and PRIVATE statements that she's in bed with the 1 Percenters, so how can "real" ...we know better... progressives vote for Hillary?

Here's another question.
How can Anti-Fraking environmentalist Progressives vote for Hillary?
I'm not as familiar with her positions here but it seems i've heard that she's not exactly a friend of the trees. and again is in bed with big companies and industries that are considered by the left as enemies of the environment.

Here's another question.
How can Anti-Globalist leftist vote for Hillary?
A few years ago there where quite a few Anti Gobalism protest at world bank meetings and similar conferences in the U.S. and around the world. The world bank, the IMF, the corps for the TPP and NAFTA , and other global trade agreements and the like have been called out as being inhuman, anti worker and anti freedom.
But Hillary is COMPLETELY on board with globalist agendas of every stripe.


Seem Anti-war Democrats, Occupy wall st. progressives and environmentalist can morally justify a protest vote for a third party or not vote at all....
Joining the odd percentage of them saying they'll vote for Trump may not make much sense but for the Anti-War left it may be better. Trumps not on board with the establishment wars at least. His will be more knee jerk and less strategic. And likely make wars shorter to save money. The OWS group may be better off too. Trump is not really part of the 1 percenters inside club and is not bought. Yes he's rich but he's not a corporate or banker's tool as far a i can tell. Environmentally I really have no idea what he's likely to do.
but as i said there are no good choices here. but for the principled left that has no concern about social morals in general Trump is probably a better bet than Hillary policy wise. Hillary's corrupt and is a 100% establishment globalist player.

It pains me rev that you can't even be right and be right. Your opinion does NOT define war criminals anymore than BPs does "evangelical Christians. I don't even know what the Hell an "evangelical" Christian is. People who go to church and are some big, political force trying to control morality as BP says? I must have missed those ones the last 50+ years. I was raised Southern Baptist and most of them to include most of my family are Democrats.

This whole "moral majority" crap is just a left-over from the 80s the left refuses to leave alone.

But I DO know what war criminal is. Your definition isn't it.

[revelarts]

It pains me rev that you can't even be right and be right. Your opinion does NOT define war criminals anymore than BPs does "evangelical Christians. I don't even know what the Hell an "evangelical" Christian is. People who go to church and are some big, political force trying to control morality as BP says? I must have missed those ones the last 50+ years. I was raised Southern Baptist and most of them to include most of my family are Democrats.

This whole "moral majority" crap is just a left-over from the 80s the left refuses to leave alone.

But I DO know what war criminal is. Your definition isn't it.

Evangelicals are typically considered to be conservative christians that tend to take the bible more literally. And often have no problem promoting Christian values in the public square. They are of several denominations or non denominational. The conservative branch of Southern Baptist falls into the evangelicals group even though many like yourself or your family may not consider yourselves apart.

As far as what "war criminal" is .. well... I hesitate to tell you what I meant by it or what the text books say it is or what History says it is because i suspect you know better and don't need a book to tell you jack squat. and no matter what I'll be wrong... because i won't listen.
am i right?

[Black Diamond]

What's a war criminal?

[fj1200]

I don't even know what the Hell an "evangelical" Christian is.

Your generally either evangelical, mainline, or Catholic depending on where your church falls.

[fj1200]

What's a war criminal?

Someone who has committed a war crime of course; i.e. conduct that violates accepted rules of war.

[revelarts]

What's a war criminal?
Ask Gunny I suspect he is the ONLY one on earth... or at least on this board... that knows what it really is.

What it was at the Nuremberg Trials and other war crime trials probably isn't right.
What it is in the law dictionary or any dictionary says probably isn't right either.

so we 'll have to wait for gunny to enlighten us all.

You know wait a minute as far a gunny is concerned there may not be any such thing as a 'war crime'.
since you do what you have to in war. there really is no law and the like.
but hey... don't let me speak outta turn here... i'm not gunny so.. I just need to listen.

[revelarts]

Your generally either evangelical, mainline, or Catholic depending on where your church falls.

though there are some that would say they are "Evangelical Catholics"
context of the use gets into it at that point.

[Black Diamond]

Someone who has committed a war crime of course; i.e. conduct that violates accepted rules of war.

Rules of war? Win at all costs, while my minimizing the number of casualties on your side.

[Black Diamond]

though there are some that would say they are "Evangelical Catholics"
context of the use gets into it at that point.

Some Catholics speak in tongues. That may qualify..

[fj1200]

Rules of war? Win at all costs, while my minimizing the number of casualties on your side.

As rev alluded to you're familiar with Nuremberg? Of course it helps to be on the winning side. I believe we've even prosecuted our own troops on war crimes although it might be under UCMJ or something. Be that as it may there is a thing called war crimes.

[revelarts]

Rules of war? Win at all costs, while my minimizing the number of casualties on your side.

What if you do thing that do not contribute to the war effort... winning.
Things that are just wrong.
Troops go thorough a town in an area already won and rape the women then kill everyone there.
Is that a "war crime"

Is experimenting on prisoners for science and/or punishment a war crime?

Is bombing areas of zero strategic value a war crime?

[Black Diamond]

As rev alluded to you're familiar with Nuremberg? Of course it helps to be on the winning side. I believe we've even prosecuted our own troops on war crimes although it might be under UCMJ or something. Be that as it may there is a thing called war crimes.

I agree re winning side. I know there's a such thing as war crimes but I may not agree with the definition(s).

[fj1200]

I agree re winning side. I know there's a such thing as war crimes but I may not agree with the definition(s).

I'm not sure there is much room for disagreement.

[Gunny]

Ask Gunny I suspect he is the ONLY one earth... or at least on this board that knows what it really is.

What it was at the Nuremberg Trials and other war crime trials probably isn't right.
What it is in the law dictionary or any dictionary says probably isn't right either.

so we 'll have to wait for gunny to enlighten us all.To the contrary ... YOU are tye one labeling people war criminals using out of context standards. I can differentiate between both my personal and professional opinions, and keep patters in the context of which they happen.

You on the other hand choose to judge people by your opinion based on whatever standard you choose, regardless historical context. You don't use a dictionary. GMAB. You use Rev's sense of justice.

The Nuremberg Trials were a joke and anything BUT justice. They were nothing more than revenge. If you contend they were anything more, you're nuts. They had no legal authority to begin with. Then they stripped military personnel of their status yet tried them for their military status in a military court.

There's no black or white to war. Never was and never will be. You treat things for what they are or were in context.

[Black Diamond]

What if you do thing that do not contribute to the war effort... winning.
Things that are just wrong.
Troops go thorough a town in an area already won and rape the women then kill everyone there.
Is that a "war crime"

Is experimenting on prisoners for science and/or punishment a war crime?

Is bombing areas of zero strategic value a war crime?

Mengele wasn't doing anything to help the war effort. In fact he hindered it. Hitler's #1 goal became annihilating the Jews. It took priority over winning the war. One third of expenditures went to the Holocaust.

Dresden was bombed in the way it was because the RAF and air corps were losing one third of their planes and Hitler refused to give up. We initially wanted to avoid killing civilians..

[revelarts]

To the contrary ... YOU are tye one labeling people war criminals using out of context standards. I can differentiate between both my personal and professional opinions, and keep patters in the context of which they happen.

You on the other hand choose to judge people by your opinion based on whatever standard you choose, regardless historical context. You don't use a dictionary. GMAB. You use Rev's sense of justice.

The Nuremberg Trials were a joke and anything BUT justice. They were nothing more than revenge. If you contend they were anything more, you're nuts. They had no legal authority to begin with. Then they stripped military personnel of their status yet tried them for their military status in a military court.

There's no black or white to war. Never was and never will be. You treat things for what they are or were in context.

As i thought
Gunny knows
Nuremberg was a joke... Even if i used a dictionary I'd be wrong.
and everyone just has to listen to gunny because he knows better.
and gunny says I'm wrong for even having an opinion.

there we have it folks.

[Gunny]

As i thought
Gunny knows
Nuremberg was a joke... Even if i used a dictionary I'd be wrong.
and everyone just has to listen to gunny because he knows better.
and gunny says I'm wrong for even having an opinion.

there we have it folks.

Apparently I know more than you. It was only my profession. I am well versed on all the laws, AND well-versed on the job training. I didn't have the luxury nor need of a bunch of links to revisionist history, a slide rule, and or the time to calculate whatever rev thinks is the perfect answer.

Let me know how many combat tours you you have, how many court martials you've had to sit on, and how many hours of instruction on military law you have.

An authority on the topic? Damned rights I am. It was my profession and I don't half-ass shit.

[revelarts]

But just for context

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOAC-Deskbook-2015_Ch10.pdf
III. WAR CRIMES
A. Definition of “War Crime.” The lack of a clear definition for this term stems fromthe fact that both “war” and “crime” themselves have multiple definitions. Somescholars assert that “war crime” means any violation of international law that issubject to punishment. It appears, however, that there must be a nexus between theact and some type of armed conflict.


“In contradistinction to hostile acts of soldiers by which the latter do not losetheir privilege of being treated as lawful members of armed forces, war crimesare such hostile or other acts of soldiers or other individuals as may be punishedby the enemy on capture of the offenders.”15
“Crimes committed by countries in violation of the international laws governingwars. At Nuremberg after World War II, crimes committed by the Nazis wereso tried.”16
“The term ‘war crime’ is the technical expression for a violation of the law ofwar by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the lawof war is a war crime.”17
As with other crimes, there are Actus Reus and Mens Rea elements.


.....


Nuremberg Tribunals. The Charter of the International Military Tribunaldefined the following crimes27 as falling within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction:

[LIST=1]
Crimes Against Peace. Planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of adeclared or undeclared war of aggression, or war otherwise in violation ofinternational treaties, agreements, or assurances. This was a chargeintended to be leveled against high-level policy planners, not generally atground commanders.
Crimes Against Humanity. A collective category of major inhumane actscommitted against any (internal or alien) civilian population before orduring the war.
Violation of the Laws and Customs of War. The traditional violations ofthe laws or customs of war; for example, targeting non-combatants.


International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

[LIST=1]
Crimes against Peace or Crime of Aggression are not among listedoffenses to be tried.

Violations of the Laws or Customs of War (War Crimes).

[LIST=1]
Traditional offenses such as murder, wanton destruction of cities,towns or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity,firing on civilians, plunder of public or private property and takingof hostages.

The Opinion & Judgment in the Tadic case set forth elements ofproof required for finding that the Law of War had been violated:

[LIST=1]
An infringement of a rule of international humanitarian law(Hague, Geneva, other);

Rule must be customary law or treaty law;

Violation is serious; grave consequences to victim or breach oflaw that protects important values;

-------------------------

Common Article 3 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949
Article 3, the text of which is repeated in all four Geneva Conventions, is the only part of the conventions that applies explicitly to internal armed conflicts. It has been called a “treaty in miniature,” and sets forth the minimum protections and standards of conduct to which the State and its armed opponents must adhere. The protections it spells out are at the core of international humanitarian law. Additional Protocol II of 1977 also covers internal armed conflicts, but it is less widely accepted among States than the 1949 Conventions. Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘’hors de combat” by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

--------------

Red Cross war Crimes pages
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule156

[Black Diamond]

As i thought
Gunny knows
Nuremberg was a joke... Even if i used a dictionary I'd be wrong.
and everyone just has to listen to gunny because he knows better.
and gunny says I'm wrong for even having an opinion.

there we have it folks.
As was correctly pointed out history and therefore definitions are written by the victors.

[Black Diamond]

I'm not sure there is much room for disagreement.
Some say Hiroshima and Dresden were war crimes and some don't. Some call bush a war criminal for disobeying France and some don't.

[Elessar]

What's a war criminal?

An over-used term that the left applies to anyone in seat or military they
do not agree with or understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

[revelarts]

Bully here's a question for you.
....

And as Bernie Sanders pointed out She's going to be getting foreign policy advice from Henry Kissenger. Someone the Anti-War left considers (rightly so) a war criminal.
....

Seems i only said Henry Kissengers a war Criminal but gunny based on that one statement you go over the edge and say I don't know what it is AT ALL.
you didn't even ask me what i meant by it you just Ass- sumed

Well this is the kind of information i based my statement on you may disagree and that's fine.

"Christopher Hitchens examined Kissinger’s war crimes in his 2001 book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger.html?id=pBBBEH0OEoUC&source=kp_read&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false). He listed the key elements of his case:
1. The deliberate mass killing of civilian populations in Indochina.
2. Deliberate collusion in mass murder, and later in assassination, in Bangladesh.
3. The personal suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation — Chile — with which the United States was not at war.
4. Personal involvement in a plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation of Cyprus.
5. The incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor
6. Personal involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist living in Washington, D.C."


If these are not "war crimes" in your PERSONAL view fine.
It seems pretty clear to me that others have been tried and jailed for similar. Maybe you missed court on those days. so i guess i can forgive you for not being aware that trails have occurred that you didn't go to. so yeah

that's what my opinion is based on.

[Black Diamond]

Seems i only said Henry Kissengers a war Criminal but gunny based on that one statement you go over the edge and say I don't know what it is AT ALL.
you didn't even ask me what i meant by it you just Ass- sumed

Well this is the kind of information i based my statement on you may disagree and that's fine.

"Christopher Hitchens examined Kissinger’s war crimes in his 2001 book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger.html?id=pBBBEH0OEoUC&source=kp_read&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false). He listed the key elements of his case:
1. The deliberate mass killing of civilian populations in Indochina.
2. Deliberate collusion in mass murder, and later in assassination, in Bangladesh.
3. The personal suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation — Chile — with which the United States was not at war.
4. Personal involvement in a plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation of Cyprus.
5. The incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor
6. Personal involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist living in Washington, D.C."


If these are not "war crimes" in under you PERSONAL view fine.
It seems pretty clear to me that others have been tried and jailed for similar. Maybe you missed court on those days. so i guess i can forgive you for not being aware that trails have occurred that you didn't go to. so yeah

that's what my opinion is based on.
You've never on this board called anyone but Kissinger a war criminal ?

[Black Diamond]

Seems i only said Henry Kissengers a war Criminal but gunny based on that one statement you go over the edge and say I don't know what it is AT ALL.
you didn't even ask me what i meant by it you just Ass- sumed

Well this is the kind of information i based my statement on you may disagree and that's fine.

"Christopher Hitchens examined Kissinger’s war crimes in his 2001 book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger.html?id=pBBBEH0OEoUC&source=kp_read&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false). He listed the key elements of his case:
1. The deliberate mass killing of civilian populations in Indochina.
2. Deliberate collusion in mass murder, and later in assassination, in Bangladesh.
3. The personal suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation — Chile — with which the United States was not at war.
4. Personal involvement in a plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation of Cyprus.
5. The incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor
6. Personal involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist living in Washington, D.C."


If these are not "war crimes" in your PERSONAL view fine.
It seems pretty clear to me that others have been tried and jailed for similar. Maybe you missed court on those days. so i guess i can forgive you for not being aware that trails have occurred that you didn't go to. so yeah

that's what my opinion is based on.
I may not agree with others jailed for similar

[Gunny]

But just for context

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOAC-Deskbook-2015_Ch10.pdf
III. WAR CRIMES
A. Definition of “War Crime.” The lack of a clear definition for this term stems fromthe fact that both “war” and “crime” themselves have multiple definitions. Somescholars assert that “war crime” means any violation of international law that issubject to punishment. It appears, however, that there must be a nexus between theact and some type of armed conflict.


“In contradistinction to hostile acts of soldiers by which the latter do not losetheir privilege of being treated as lawful members of armed forces, war crimesare such hostile or other acts of soldiers or other individuals as may be punishedby the enemy on capture of the offenders.”15
“Crimes committed by countries in violation of the international laws governingwars. At Nuremberg after World War II, crimes committed by the Nazis wereso tried.”16
“The term ‘war crime’ is the technical expression for a violation of the law ofwar by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the lawof war is a war crime.”17
As with other crimes, there are Actus Reus and Mens Rea elements.


.....


Nuremberg Tribunals. The Charter of the International Military Tribunaldefined the following crimes27 as falling within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction:

[LIST=1]

Crimes Against Peace. Planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of adeclared or undeclared war of aggression, or war otherwise in violation ofinternational treaties, agreements, or assurances. This was a chargeintended to be leveled against high-level policy planners, not generally atground commanders.
Crimes Against Humanity. A collective category of major inhumane actscommitted against any (internal or alien) civilian population before orduring the war.
Violation of the Laws and Customs of War. The traditional violations ofthe laws or customs of war; for example, targeting non-combatants.


International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

[LIST=1]
Crimes against Peace or Crime of Aggression are not among listedoffenses to be tried.

Violations of the Laws or Customs of War (War Crimes).

[LIST=1]
Traditional offenses such as murder, wanton destruction of cities,towns or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity,firing on civilians, plunder of public or private property and takingof hostages.

The Opinion & Judgment in the Tadic case set forth elements ofproof required for finding that the Law of War had been violated:

[LIST=1]
An infringement of a rule of international humanitarian law(Hague, Geneva, other);

Rule must be customary law or treaty law;

Violation is serious; grave consequences to victim or breach oflaw that protects important values;


Common Article 3 to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949Article 3, the text of which is repeated in all four Geneva Conventions, is the only part of the conventions that applies explicitly to internal armed conflicts. It has been called a “treaty in miniature,” and sets forth the minimum protections and standards of conduct to which the State and its armed opponents must adhere. The protections it spells out are at the core of international humanitarian law. Additional Protocol II of 1977 also covers internal armed conflicts, but it is less widely accepted among States than the 1949 Conventions. Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘’hors de combat” by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

1949. Thanks for making my argument for me.

[revelarts]

You've never on this board called anyone but Kissinger a war criminal ?

In this thread he's the only one.

And I'm pretty certain that the only others i've accused of war crimes are W. Bush Cheney and MAYBE Rumsfeld. I don't use the term lightly

But in fact they all have been tried and found guilty of war crimes in absentia

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/



Kuala Lumpur — It’s official; George W Bush is a war criminal.
In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.
The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment....

....War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in America, was part of the prosecution team.
After the case he said: “This is the first conviction of these people anywhere in the world.”
While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world.
“We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland. The Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same happened in Germany.”
Boyle then referenced the Nuremberg Charter which was used as the format for the tribunal when asked about the credibility of the initiative in Malaysia. He quoted: “Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such a plan.”
The US is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter said Boyle who also believes the week-long trial was “almost certainly” being monitored closely by both Pentagon and White House officials.
Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said: “The tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts”.

[revelarts]

I may not agree with others jailed for similar


1949. Thanks for making my argument for me.


I've been told if people are found guilty and go to jail that means they are Guilty. Because the law is good and police and courts are right and good and fair.

It seems you guys have a double standard NO laws apply for war and LAW is Perfect and must be obeyed iin "civilian" life.

It does seems to me that there is generally a common idea about justice and right and wrong. that should apply in war or peace civilian or soldier.

But frankly Gunny and you and i've noticed some others on the right seem to think ...at based... that might makes right and protecting me and mines are the final "rights".

good and evil right or wrong don't really play into anything really.
At least that's the way you come across.

[Black Diamond]

In this thread he's the only one.

And I'm pretty certain that the only others i've accused of war crimes are W. Bush Cheney and MAYBE Rumsfeld. I don't use the term lightly

But in fact they all has been tried and found guilty of war crimes in absentia

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/



Kuala Lumpur — It’s official; George W Bush is a war criminal.
In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.
The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment....

....War crimes expert and lawyer Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in America, was part of the prosecution team.
After the case he said: “This is the first conviction of these people anywhere in the world.”
While the hearing is regarded by some as being purely symbolic, human rights activist Boyle said he was hopeful that Bush and Co could soon find themselves facing similar trials elsewhere in the world.
“We tried three times to get Bush in Canada but were thwarted by the Canadian Government, then we scared Bush out of going to Switzerland. The Spanish attempt failed because of the government there and the same happened in Germany.”
Boyle then referenced the Nuremberg Charter which was used as the format for the tribunal when asked about the credibility of the initiative in Malaysia. He quoted: “Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit war crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such a plan.”
The US is subject to customary international law and to the Principles of the Nuremberg Charter said Boyle who also believes the week-long trial was “almost certainly” being monitored closely by both Pentagon and White House officials.
Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, who headed the prosecution said: “The tribunal was very careful to adhere scrupulously to the regulations drawn up by the Nuremberg courts and the International Criminal Courts”.

I don't necessarily agree with some of the Nuremberg prosecutions. If torture were effective I would beall for it but it isn't.

[Black Diamond]

I've been told if people are found guilty and go to jail that means they are Guilty. Because the law is good and police and courts are right and good and fair.

It seems you guys have a double standard NO laws apply for war and LAW is Perfect and must be obeyed iin "civilian" life.

It does seems to me that there is generally a common idea about justice and right and wrong. that should apply in war or peace civilian or soldier.

But frankly Gunny and you and i've noticed some others on the right seem to think ...at based... that might makes right and protecting me and mines are the final "rights".

good and evil right or wrong don't really play into anything really.
At least that the way you come across.

not sure where you got that from. Perhaps I didn't express myself the right way

[revelarts]

not sure where you got that from. Perhaps I didn't express myself the right way

well to start if you don't have a problem with people going to jail for things similar too...

1. The deliberate mass killing of civilian populations in Indochina.
2. Deliberate collusion in mass murder, and later in assassination, in Bangladesh.
3. The personal suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation — Chile — with which the United States was not at war.
4. Personal involvement in a plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation of Cyprus.
5. The incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor
6. Personal involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist living in Washington, D.C."

seem like your ideas of right and wrong might not be ..uh... clear or Paramount.
And that 'might makes right' is the real foundation for your politics and" law".

[Black Diamond]

well to start if you don't have a problem with people going to jail for things similar too...

1. The deliberate mass killing of civilian populations in Indochina.
2. Deliberate collusion in mass murder, and later in assassination, in Bangladesh.
3. The personal suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation — Chile — with which the United States was not at war.
4. Personal involvement in a plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation of Cyprus.
5. The incitement and enabling of genocide in East Timor
6. Personal involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist living in Washington, D.C."

seem like your ideas of right and wrong might not be ..uh... clear or Paramount.
and that 'might makes right' is the real foundation for you politics and" law".
Yeah I wasn't clear.

You said others have been jailed for similar. I may not agree with those jailings, either.

[Black Diamond]

If civilians are aiding and abetting the enemy, such as the Vietcong or nva I have no problem slaughtering them. Better them than our GIs

[Gunny]

I've been told if people are found guilty and go to jail that means they are Guilty. Because the law is good and police and courts are right and good and fair.

It seems you guys have a double standard NO laws apply for war and LAW is Perfect and must be obeyed iin "civilian" life.

It does seems to me that there is generally a common idea about justice and right and wrong. that should apply in war or peace civilian or soldier.

But frankly Gunny and you and i've noticed some others on the right seem to think ...at based... that might makes right and protecting me and mines are the final "rights".

good and evil right or wrong don't really play into anything really.
At least that the way you come across.

You're reading something into my statements that is NOT there. I never said "might makes right". I said what IS. Might makes right had been the determining factor in ANY war, fight, or whatever, even the law.

Again, you cannot differentiate between opinion and fact. Stating facts does not necessarily state my opinion.

Accusing people with nothing but some revisionist history is NOT stating fact.

[revelarts]

Yeah I wasn't clear.

You said others have been jailed for similar. I may not agree with those jailings, either.
So you think those things are wrong but ...it may not be right to JAIL people for it?
I'm not following you here.

[Black Diamond]

So you think those things are wrong but ...it may not be right to JAIL people for it?
I'm not following you here.
I don't necessarily think the things you listed are wrong

[Black Diamond]

I don't necessarily think the things you listed are wrong

No matter who does them. Assuming you're talking about war and its "rules"

[revelarts]

You're reading something into my statements that is NOT there. I never said "might makes right". I said what IS. Might makes right had been the determining factor in ANY war, fight, or whatever, even the law.

Again, you cannot differentiate between opinion and fact. Stating facts does not necessarily state my opinion.

Accusing people with nothing but some revisionist history is NOT stating fact.

So you're saying that Might makes right is the way it IS.
but you don't agree with it.
you DO think there is right and wrong and you would LIKE TO to live by that but instead you go with the flow of 'might makes right' because "that's the way it IS". Can't fight city hall. You're just being practical.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth i'm just trying to understand what the heck you Really mean.
what you've written is not clear.

[revelarts]

I don't necessarily think the things you listed are wrong

so just to be clear
you don't think

deliberate mass killing of civilian populations
Deliberate collusion in mass murder,
assassination,
suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation with which the United States was not at war.
plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation
enabling of genocide
involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist

is wrong.

[Black Diamond]

so just to be clear
you don't think

deliberate mass killing of civilian populations
Deliberate collusion in mass murder,
assassination,
suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation with which the United States was not at war.
plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation
enabling of genocide
involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist

is wrong.

Civilian populations aiding and abetting the enemy are the enemy.
And btw, you must consider Dresden a war crime.
As for Allende, the goal was to stop communism. And Hitler came to power in a Democratic system. Should he have been shielded? Would it have been a war crime to assassinate him?
I don't know about Suharto so I can't comment on it.

[OCA]

so just to be clear
you don't think

deliberate mass killing of civilian populations
Deliberate collusion in mass murder,
assassination,
suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation with which the United States was not at war.
plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation
enabling of genocide
involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist

is wrong.

You forgot overthrowing Mossadeq and the propping up of the Shah who brutalized his own citizens with American help.

I think you also were referring to Pinochet, no?

Earlier you were talking Kissinger, you do know Kissinger cooked up a story about Turkish ethnics being abused by Greek ethnics on Cyprus in order to get Turkey to invade becsuse of him and Dick's paranoia about Russian nukes getting on the island. With all the documented atrocities over the years Kissinger is def guilty of war crimes.

[Black Diamond]

You forgot overthrowing Mossadeq and the propping up of the Shah who brutalized his own citizens with American help.

I think you also were referring to Pinochet, no?

Earlier you were talking Kissinger, you do know Kissinger cooked up a story about Turkish ethnics being abused by Greek ethnics on Cyprus in order to get Turkey to invade becsuse of him and Dick's paranoia about Russian nukes getting on the island. With all the documented atrocities over the years Kissinger is def guilty of war crimes.

And Guatemala and Panama and Congo and south Vietnam.

[Gunny]

So you're saying that Might makes right is the way it IS.
but you don't agree with it.
you DO think there is right and wrong and you would LIKE TO to live by that but instead you go with the flow of 'might makes right' because "that's the way it IS". Can't fight city hall. You're just being practical.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth i'm just trying to understand what the heck you Really mean.
what you've written is not clear.

Because you're too busy looking for all the wrong answers expecting grey areas to be black and white only. It isn't about fighting city hall or not ... it's about knowing when to.

[Black Diamond]

Because you're too busy looking for all the wrong answers expecting grey areas to be black and white only. It isn't about fighting city hall or not ... it's about knowing when to.

This

Avoid war, but if you don't, fight to win. Not not to lose.

[revelarts]

Civilian populations aiding and abetting the enemy are the enemy.
And btw, you must consider Dresden a war crime.
As for Allende, the goal was to stop communism. And Hitler came to power in a Democratic system. Should he have been shielded? Would it have been a war crime to assassinate him?
I don't know about Suharto so I can't comment on it.


Because you're too busy looking for all the wrong answers expecting grey areas to be black and white only. It isn't about fighting city hall or not ... it's about knowing when to.


This

Avoid war, but if you don't, fight to win. Not not to lose.

See ONE of the the problems i have here BD is that you include "fighting communism" um... well technically that wasn't a real war is it?

So ok
what about the "WAR or terror".
what about the "WAR or crime".
and the "WAR on drugs".
or the "WAR on poverty".
etc

hows that for not being BLACK and WHITE gunny?
are you somehow clear on thoses as well? Any black lines there?
" it's about knowing when to." is it when YOU say so Gunny?
that's the problem. You somehow claim to know but can't clarify it AND you have no standard ANYONE ELSE can consult.
So might makes right WHEN YOU SAY SO.... when you say it's war.
And others have no input that you consider valid.
Geneva is not valid,
Neurenburg is not valid
USMJ is not valid
Constitution is not valid, its Pollyanna
principals are not valid... pragmatism is the only rule.
pragmatism to win. NOT to right.

that's the thing you seem to be saying that there is SOME line for violence at some point, but not one that's clear. Not one that you can seem to define. and once that line is crossed ANYTHING/EVERYTHING goes.

NO rules... in war and you want to define where the wars start.
I'm sure some Cops want NO rules in law enforcement as well.
makes it lot easier to SLAUGHTER EVERYONE that MIGHT be an enemy.

Sorry if it rubs you wrong if people says that slaughtering people is a crime, assignation leaders of foreign countries we're NOT at war with is a crime. genocide is a crime, even when at war. I'm really sorry you guys feel otherwise. Sorry you guys think those things are "grey areas".
Very sorry that you guys think that the rules of war and the constitution don't really apply to you.
and shouldn't apply to our people in and out of the armed forces.

It still seems to you both think that "might does make right".
And if the Gov't gives you a reason ...legit or otherwise... all the better.

[Black Diamond]

See ONE of the the problems i have here BD is that you include "fighting communism" um... well technically that wasn't a real war is it?

So ok
what about the "WAR or terror".
what about the "WAR or crime".
and the "WAR on drugs".
or the "WAR on poverty".
etc

hows that for not being BLACK and WHITE gunny?
are you somehow clear on thoses as well? Any black lines there?
" it's about knowing when to." is it when YOU say so Gunny?
that's the problem. You somehow claim to know but can't clarify it AND you have no standard ANYONE ELSE can consult.
So might makes right WHEN YOU SAY SO.... when you say it's war.
And others have no input that you consider valid.
Geneva is not valid,
Neurenburg is not valid
USMJ is not valid
Constitution is not valid, its Pollyanna
principals are not valid... pragmatism is the only rule.
pragmatism to win. NOT to right.

that's the thing you seem to be saying that there is SOME line for violence at some point, but not one that's clear. Not one that you can seem to define. and once that line is crossed ANYTHING/EVERYTHING goes.

NO rules... in war and you want to define where the wars start.
I'm sure some Cops want NO rules in law enforcement as well.
makes it lot easier to SLAUGHTER EVERYONE that MIGHT be an enemy.

Sorry if it rubs you wrong if people says that slaughtering people is a crime, assignation leaders of foreign countries we're NOT at war with is a crime. genocide is a crime, even when at war. I'm really sorry you guys feel otherwise. Sorry you guys think those things are "grey areas".
Very sorry that you guys think that the rules of war and the constitution don't really apply to you.
and shouldn't apply to our people in and out of the armed forces.

It still seems to you both think that "might does make right".
And if the Gov't gives you a reason ...legit or otherwise... all the better.you think the cold war wasn't a real war? Historians disagree, I beleive.

[Black Diamond]

you think the cold war wasn't a real war? Historians disagree, I beleive.

Historians would consider the cold war more of a real war l than the war on drugs, poverty, maybe terror.

[revelarts]

you think the cold war wasn't a real war? Historians disagree, I beleive.

you think the war on drugs isn't a real war? some disagree.
you think the war on the environment isn't a real war? some disagree.
you think the war on ...fill in the black... isn't a real war?

[Black Diamond]

you think the war on drugs isn't a real war? some disagree.
you think the war on the environment isn't a real war? some disagree.
you think the war on ...fill in the black... isn't a real war? I am saying the cold war is more real
Certainty more real to Afghans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the vets who died in those "police actions"

[revelarts]

I am saying the cold war is more real
Certainty more real to Afghans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the vets who died in those "police actions"
But you already said that assassination of people, leaders and journalist in South America ...not combat soldiers... was part of the "cold war" and legit as well.

my point is the label war can be put on anything it seems and at that point ...according to you and gunny... Anything goes.

[Black Diamond]

But you already said that assassination of people, leaders and journalist in South America ...not combat soldiers... was part of the "cold war" and legit as well.

my point is the label war can be put on anything it seems and at that point ...according to you and gunny... Anything goes.

Label shouldn't be put on drugs, poverty, inflation, etc. Cheapens what war really is.

Cold war gets its name because we didn't attack Moscow or vice versa. But was a real war, imo.

[Elessar]

so just to be clear
you don't think

deliberate mass killing of civilian populations
Deliberate collusion in mass murder,
assassination,
suborning and planning of murder, of a senior constitutional officer in a democratic nation with which the United States was not at war.
plan to murder the head of state in the democratic nation
enabling of genocide
involvement in a plan to kidnap and murder a journalist

is wrong.

Just to be clear, Bush did not order or condone any of the above.
That is just a kangaroo court in Malaysia.

Why don't they put Al Quida or ISIS on trial? Those are things they have done
and are still doing.

[aboutime]

Over many years of living as an American, and a Veteran. I have learned to recognize how Democrats so easily avoid actual ACTIONS in many cases, when they Demand Congress must pay more toward certain so-called "WARS".

The truth is. When Democrat politicians HAVE NO HONEST ANSWERS to problems in America, across the board they 1. THROW MONEY AT IT, money we do not have. And....
2. IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM AS A "WAR" On...
(fill in the blanks).
All of this began with LBJ...as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty
Wikipedia
The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent.

NOW ASK YOURSELF....."How's that war coming along?"

[Black Diamond]

But you already said that assassination of people, leaders and journalist in South America ...not combat soldiers... was part of the "cold war" and legit as well.

my point is the label war can be put on anything it seems and at that point ...according to you and gunny... Anything goes.
Us government saw communism as a threat to our existence. Regardless of whether it's called a war or not.. if your nations existence is being threatened, you do what you have to do.

[fj1200]

Some say Hiroshima and Dresden were war crimes and some don't. Some call bush a war criminal for disobeying France and some don't.

I was more thinking what is defined as a war crime, Geneva Convention as example, rather than the particulars. The devil is always in the details.

Isn't it more of a war crime to actually obey France? :dunno:

[revelarts]

Us government saw communism as a threat to our existence. Regardless of whether it's called a war or not.. if your nations existence is being threatened, you do what you have to do.

Some have said the same about Climate Change... Drugs... Illegal Aliens... "all" muslims heck OBAMA...

you and Gunny claim there's no real rules and again you fall back to "a threat to our existence." but that's in the eye of the beholder is what i'm saying.

[Elessar]

I was more thinking what is defined as a war crime, Geneva Convention as example, rather than the particulars. The devil is always in the details.

Isn't it more of a war crime to actually obey France? :dunno:

I'm not sure what France has to do with this.

[Black Diamond]

I'm not sure what France has to do with this.

They voted no on Iraq war, so it was illegal for us to invade Iraq..

Or so the argument goes.

[fj1200]

I'm not sure what France has to do with this.

I'm not sure either but...


They voted no on Iraq war, so it was illegal for us to invade Iraq..

Or so the argument goes.

... it's a silly argument.

[Gunny]

See ONE of the the problems i have here BD is that you include "fighting communism" um... well technically that wasn't a real war is it?

So ok
what about the "WAR or terror".
what about the "WAR or crime".
and the "WAR on drugs".
or the "WAR on poverty".
etc

hows that for not being BLACK and WHITE gunny?
are you somehow clear on thoses as well? Any black lines there?
" it's about knowing when to." is it when YOU say so Gunny?
that's the problem. You somehow claim to know but can't clarify it AND you have no standard ANYONE ELSE can consult.
So might makes right WHEN YOU SAY SO.... when you say it's war.
And others have no input that you consider valid.
Geneva is not valid,
Neurenburg is not valid
USMJ is not valid
Constitution is not valid, its Pollyanna
principals are not valid... pragmatism is the only rule.
pragmatism to win. NOT to right.

that's the thing you seem to be saying that there is SOME line for violence at some point, but not one that's clear. Not one that you can seem to define. and once that line is crossed ANYTHING/EVERYTHING goes.

NO rules... in war and you want to define where the wars start.
I'm sure some Cops want NO rules in law enforcement as well.
makes it lot easier to SLAUGHTER EVERYONE that MIGHT be an enemy.

Sorry if it rubs you wrong if people says that slaughtering people is a crime, assignation leaders of foreign countries we're NOT at war with is a crime. genocide is a crime, even when at war. I'm really sorry you guys feel otherwise. Sorry you guys think those things are "grey areas".
Very sorry that you guys think that the rules of war and the constitution don't really apply to you.
and shouldn't apply to our people in and out of the armed forces.

It still seems to you both think that "might does make right".
And if the Gov't gives you a reason ...legit or otherwise... all the better.

I see no reason to give a definitive answer where none ias required; especially, to questions that are false premises to begin with. Don't blame me because I'm not stupid enough to walk into a firefight with a singular plan because my mind is closed to all other options. I'm not Custer. You're a classic example of someone in over his head on a topic you know nothing about. You read crap that ain't there and put words in my mouth that were never said. "Context" isn't even in your vocabulary.

Truth be told, all this hysteria you think is a constant isn't there. We're usually bored, watching over the rails as the sea passes by. Or sitting some boring class below decks in the sweltering heat listening to countless classes on all those rules of war you don't know a damned thing about. You can say what you want. Your delusional high mindedness and lack of any reality to your argument CAN get you killed. They were's all your high-minded bullshit? Dead on the ground in a pool of blood.

[Elessar]

I'm not sure either but...
... it's a silly argument.

I get you now.

France and the UN were both involved in the "Food for Oil" scheme,
so naturally one of our oldest allies did not back the invasion.

And before anyone trots out that "No Blood for Oil" crap, we did not
gain a dime off Iraqi oil.