The Mueller investigation.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I see, without the UNSC resolution war crimes do not take place? But NATO did declare there were war crimes committed by Milosevic. Should NATO get approval from UNSC before it can interfere in crimmes committed in the NATO jurisdiction?

    IMO, UNSC should have automatically approved the NATO action. If they didn't that's their problem
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    ??????? International law was violated by the US who started a war of aggression against Serbia. Those responsible for crimes of their states against international law can be personally persecuted for this too.

    War crimes are, BTW, also something which can be done by private persons during a war, for example by murdering or torturing war prisoners.

    ?????????? The NATO attack was a criminal aggression because there was no UNSC resolution approving it.
    The NATO needs UNSC approval for any military action against third states, except for the case when these third states attack them, then the right of self-defense is superior.

    The NATO is simply a collection of states, it does not define a jurisdiction. If you simply mean all the NATO members, then, no, the US does not have any right to attack other NATO members without UNSC resolution too. The NATO treaty does not define such a right, and the UN Charta is superior here.
    That one thinks that everybody else should accept what one thinks is a quite natural mental distortion. If one thinks that this should be done automatically, this is simply the wish to gain world rule. The "If they didn't that's their problem" part is even worse: It shows total ignorance of international law - the US does not have to care about international law at all, they can do what they like. That's the law of the jungle, declared by the strongest guy. Of course, after this, all players have no choice but to accept the law of the jungle at least in their relations with this strongest guy. Russia and China are now strong enough to defend themselves, and they don't have to hope for the US following international law.

    This is, essentially, the same ignorance of international law, in a propagandistic formulation. Of course, in the eyes of his own propaganda, everybody oneself is the good guy. The actually strongest guy, of course, too. How a civilized rule differs from the law of the jungle? It is that even the strongest guys are restricted by the rules, that they cannot do with their military whatever they like, but have to follow the rules. And there have to be instances which decide about the rules, and these instances are not simply executors of the whims of the strongest guy. The Clintons do not accept anything like this, the US is the good guy and can do what they like, sometimes using their military for this. International law is irrelevant for the US and their vassals. They are relevant only for other states, and it is the US, not some third instance, which decides if these other states have violated international law, with the decision made by the propaganda media.
    Dictators are quite comfortable with US world rule. All they have to do is to submit to US interests in foreign policy, and they are fine. At least as long as the US prefers to put another guy into his place. This maybe a little bit uncomfortable, but this is what you have to accept if you live in the jungle. Moreover, all you have to care about is to avoid any conflict with the US players (in particular, US companies making business in your country, and US media controlling all the mass media in your country).

    Those who want the rule of international law have, instead, to fight the US, because it ignores international law. They will be automatically named "dictators" by the US propaganda, completely independent of what they really do and if they have been elected in fair democratic elections or not. Same for their claimed violations of international law.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No it isn't. No one claims any territory and when the situation has stabilized the troops go home.
    No one in NATO tries to rule the world. Some in the UNSC do!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Oh, really? Well, I'm from the Netherlands and I can remember the US troops rolling into Amsterdam and they were my heroes after living under German rule and watching some Nazi soldiers kill our Jewish doctor across the street where we lived, without any provocation whatever. Save your vile rants for those types and leave decent people alone.

    The Clintons are loved and venerated for their humanity and lifelong efforts to serve the US honorably. you disgusting shit slinger.

    Are you going now also going to tell me that Trump is a new savior, who is making "America great again", and proves it by separating children from their parents and locking them in cages like animals, and completely ignoring the letter and message of the US Constitution?That your kind a guy?

    You haven't got a clue of what you are talking about, and if you do you are an agitator and war-monger.

    You're sure you are not a Russian plant? I would not put it past you.
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And also in peace time, just like Milosovic, through ethnic cleansing.
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    You have forgotten to add an "according to Western propaganda".

    Leave your vile rants against Nazis for Nazis. Moreover, I think it is fair to tell you that I don't believe your story, which you have probably invented given that I have mentioned recently that I'm German.

    Personally, I have a quite positive opinion about parts of US history, beginning with the Founding Fathers and their constitution. I do not talk here about events which happened almost a century ago, even during the Cold War I would have been on the Western side, given that at that time there was really more freedom on the Western side.

    Today the US is the most dangerous country, threatening peace everywhere where people do not follow US commands.
    The Clintons are hated by many victims of their wars in Serbia, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. If you like these warmongers, your choice. I have never presented Trump as a savior, simply as a lesser evil in comparison with Clinton. And you have simply discredited yourself by using invectives like "shit slinger".

    US troops going home? LOL. There are US troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the only countries which have been at war with the US and managed later to get rid of them are Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia where the US has lost the war (ok, possibly some small islands where to have a base was not interesting).

    In the UNSC only the NATO members try to rule the world.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You mean the western Democracies? Seems to me the western democracies are a lot more peaceful than the Middle Eastern and South American countries, by any regional identification.

    Rule the world, how? Invading neighbors like Russia? Stealing protected intellectual properties like China?
    They belong to NATO? Get your facts straight.

    And any continuing presence of US or NATO forces is at the request or with the consent of the country. We don't invade to acquire land.

    OTOH, it is Trump who told us we should have taken all Iraqi oil for our efforts. Way to go for a US president to present a US peacekeeping force. If you want to complain about a bad luck choice of a president with a minority vote, I'll join you in criticism, but Clinton? Get off it man, that's old news and won't have any positive effects on our current politics.

    That's the subject of this thread.

    If you, as a German, live in the US, are you at all concerned about the recent rise of the Neo-Nazis and the increase of hate crimes? You should be.
    These people do not believe in the principles set forth in the Constitution, one of the greatest governing documents ever conceived.

    That's the subject of this thread.

    p.s. We lived on the Plantage Parklaan in Amsterdam and as a boy of six , with two friends I climbed the roofs to the murdered Jewish Dr office which was confiscated and made into a officer dig by the Germans, storing all the Dr 's posessions in the attic.
    Being the smallest I climbed through a small attic window I stole the confiscated silverware and still have a knife and two forks which the Germans had stored in the attic along with fine china and art works.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    p.p.s. My uncle married a lovely German woman and on my travels I have met some very fine German people. I have no quarrel with the Germans.

    The point I am making is that throughout history no one is exempt from blame . As a Dutchman I shall always be ashamed of our part in the slave trade. Perhaps this is why I spent most of my life in public service to help the poor and elderly.

    At last you have made a few positive comments about the US instead of ragging on one president. If you keep doing that you can expect Hitler being mentioned as a monster who took an entire country to its near total destruction and killed 6 million Jews as a "Final Solution".

    The Clintons are old news and are tirelessly engaged in humanitarian efforts all around the world.
    So give them a rest and concentrate on the current Constitutional crisis inflicted by our current president.

    That's the subject of this thread.

    And your blatant accusation that I am a liar is a much worse ad hominem than being called a shit-slinger.
    Being a trading nation, Holland had a lot of Jewish citizens. I vividly remember the yellow stars on people's clothing. I didn't have to wear one. (that boy is not me)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    An assessment which required you to accept (from US corporate agitprop and the Murdoch swillfeed and the US authoritarian think tanks that invented it) - and post here as "argument" - all manner of exaggerations and bs about the Clintons, while simultaneously and somewhat comically pretending that Trump was not at all what he quite obviously is and always has been.

    And in making that bizarre mistake, you have repeatedly displayed your ignorance of American politics and Trump, as well as the Clintons in general and in particular.

    Which brings us to the Mueller report, which is not going to evaporate upon contact with whatever Bill Clinton did in 1999. It shows a President - Trump - breaking laws both international and national, obstructing the enforcement of those laws, weakening the enforcement of those laws in consequence, and thereby weakening the US Federal government's control over US based international capitalists and their depredations foreign or domestic.

    Anyone who values international law as a path to civilization, or at least an obstacle to tyranny, is now in the position of backing the removal of Trump from office and the imprisonment of him and his associates.
    Write4U likes this.
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Sounds interesting, what does the Mueller report write about Trump violating international law? (Just for your information, US laws forbidding something to foreign citizens or governments have nothing to do with international law.)

    Which wars have been started recently by the non-NATO UNSC members Peru, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Indonesia, South Africa, Kuwait? I'm aware only of some support by Kuwait of SA aggression against Yemen, in coalition with the US and other NATO members.

    Those countries more peaceful makes sense only if one thinks about internal problems like crime rates, which have nothing to do with what I talk about.
    No. Controlling the mass media (simply by buying them), some "Northamerican Government Organizations" (NGOs), and a lot of politicians, so that they can control democratic elections. If this fails, one organizes "peaceful" regime change operations. If this fails, one starts heavy political pressure with various sanctions, robbing the state's money deposited in Western banks, and so on.
    After installing puppet regimes under US control. Like in Kosovo, which has been occupied by the NATO, ethnically cleansed from the former Serbian population, with criminal terrorists now as the government, which does not object at all.
    This has always been the US policy. It was only hidden in a much better way.
    That's the subject of this thread.
    I'm not so stupid to choose the US - the country with the largest GULAG of the world - as a place to live.

    About blame: You are responsible for what you do yourself. Blame for a group depends on your own self-identification as a member of this group. Simply being part of such a group by nature (like it happens with race, ethnicity, nationality, family) is not sufficient for this.
    First, it is not ad hominem at all (it was simply a comment about what you have written). Then, it is not worse than using invectives like "shit-slinger", because I have not used any bad word at all. That I did not believe your story is simply a fact of life, you have to live with it. I'm not morally obliged to believe any stories presented here (the attic story I would have believed, btw).
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Read it yourself.
    Money laundering, what Manafort was doing as Trump's campaign manager, what Flynn was doing as Trump's Security Advisor, and so forth - it's a long list.
    We are talking about Trump breaking the law, not foreign citizens or governments.
    And sure they do. US law requires that Trump obey international law in his dealings with foreigners.
    It wasn't hidden, it was lied about - by the Republican Party, that started the war.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    If you don't believe me, then I have nothing to say to you. Click!
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Whatever. I care about arguments, not about stories.
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    These are US laws, not international law.

    There have been violations of international law by the US during Trump time, in particular two bombings of Syria after fake gas attacks, continuing occupation of Syrian territory, the continuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, support of coup attempt in Venezuela. Anything written about this in the Mueller report?
    So why don't you use the long list of violations of international law above to impeach him? Because you want even more such violations of international law?
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They directly reference international law - they forbid breaking it.
    Money laundering for the Russian mob, for example, is a violation of international law as established by various treaties.
    Nope. The Mueller investigation was narrowly focused.
    Good question. We are now in the midst of answering it.
    It may, for example, be impossible to do that - as is typical of fascist takeovers, the rule of law in the US has been crippled and undermined by the autocrat wannabe.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Meanwhile, in addition to the various impeachable offenses described in the Mueller report we have an impeachable situation surrounding a described gap on page 10 of that report:
  19. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    By getting drunk and abandoning his post, Yanukovych automatically resigned his authority as President of Ukraine. Government officials can't walk off the job without authorization and still retain their authority or their powers and privileges. The Ukrainian parliament remained intact, as did their electoral institutions, so that was the legitimate government regardless of whether a bunch of vodka-soaked peasants across the border like it or not. Even if Ukraine's parliament somehow became illegitimate over the course of the Maidan events, Yanukovych as President never had the legal right to authorize a Russian invasion.

    If someone is getting raped, you would argue that the rapist is the legitimate authority and can do whatever they like because there are currently no police present at the scene, provided that the rapist speaks Russian.

    No, you only care about stories, and only those promoted by Russian state media.

    Putin isn't afraid of a US invasion, he's simply scared shitless that America will inspire his own people to stand up for their rights one day and then he'll end up getting stabbed up the butt like Ghadaffi, without any tigers left to feed his opponents to.
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    A nonsensical fantasy.
    Your own source gives all the necessary rights to the president: "The President represents the country and government as a whole in international affairs. The President has the authority to conduct negotiations and sign treaties on behalf of the Ukrainian government."
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nothing in there about authorizing foreign invasion and annexation.

    And nothing in such posts about the Mueller report. That's something your sources - the US Republican media feeds - really, really, don't want to talk about.
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No necessity, given that Yanukovich did not invade or annex anything. But all that is necessary for Yanukovich to ask a foreign power for military help against some fascist terrorists and putschists.
    Is there something to talk about? Remember, I don't care about your internal policy issues. Some collaboration of Trump with Putin would be interesting, as foreign policy related, but once there is nothing about such a thing ...
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    In the U.S., by comparison, our process holds explicitly that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The Constitution itself requires posterity.

    Meanwhile, Articles 17 and 102 of the Ukranian Constitution would appear to forbid a President from giving away the country to a foreign power.

    Additionally, Article 19 would appear to forbid a constiutional suicide pact, though not explicitly. Unless the Constitution foresaw a President of Ukraine giving away the nation's territorial integrity and economic and informative safety, your argument that Yanukovich has all the necessary rights to do so.

    Just making it up as you go like this isn't what we call smart. Nor is it useful. And it lacks decency, as well. Maybe if, over the course of the last four years, you showed yourself capable of bringing anything better, people wouldn't think so poorly of your posts. You've been at this for four years; as a matter of the character you present, it's enough to note you seem so rattled by the Mueller investigation and report that you're willing to make up bullshit about anything in order to distract the discussion therefrom.

    I suppose the real question is whether you have anything better to offer than trolling. And, yes, after four years there is a reason why that's what people see.

Share This Page