What's new

Obama Bombs a Hospital: War Crime, or Historic Achievement?

U.S. Bombs Somehow Keep Falling in the Places Where Obama “Ended Two Wars”

Sep. 30 2015, 10:21 p.m.

“We’ve ended two wars.” — Barack Obama, July 21, 2015, at a DSCC fundraiser held at a “private residence”

“Now that we have ended two wars responsibly, and brought home hundreds of American troops, we salute this new generation of veterans.” — National Security Adviser Susan Rice, May 20, 2015

“His presidency makes a potentially great story: the first African-American in the White House, who helped the country recover from recession and ended two wars.” — Dominic Tierney, The Atlantic, January 15, 2015, “America Will Miss Obama When He’s Gone”

Report from Airwars, August 2, 2015, detailing civilian deaths from continuous U.S.-led airstrikes in Iraq and Syria:



New York Times, today, headlined: “U.S. Planes Strike Near Kunduz Airport as Fight Rages On”

American warplanes bombarded Taliban-held territory around the Kunduz airport overnight, and Afghan officials said American Special Forces were rushed toward the fighting. … The situation for the Afghan forces improved somewhat toward midnight: American warplanes conducted airstrikes at 11:30 p.m. and again at 1 a.m. on Taliban positions near the airport, an American military spokesman said. … Around the same time, soldiers with the American Special Forces headed out toward the city with Afghan commandos, according to Afghan government officials.

How do you know when you’re an out-of-control empire? When you keep bombing and deploying soldiers in places where you boast that you’ve ended wars. How do you know you have a hackish propagandist for a president? When you celebrate him for “ending two wars” in the very same places that he keeps bombing.

All of this, just by the way, is being done without any Congressional approval, at least with regard to Iraq and Syria. As my colleague Cora Currier noted when reporting on the Airwars report in August, these civilian deaths are “a reminder of the extent to which the United States’ air war in Syria and Iraq has rolled ahead with little public debate over its effectiveness. Congress has still not passed a specific legal authorization for the war.”

Russia today announced that its upper Parliament approved its own imperialistic intervention and bombing campaign inside Syria, and that legislative body was widely (and not inaccurately) derided by U.S. commentators for being what the New York Times called a “rubber stamp.” The Obama administration, by contrast, does not even bother with the empty ritual of Congressional approval for its bombing campaigns; the president proved he is even willing to bomb a country after Congress rejected his authorization to do so, as happened in Libya. Indeed, the one and only time Obama venerated the need for Congressional approval for bombing was when he was pressured to bomb the Assad regime for crossing his “red line” but did not actually want to do so; as Charles Davis put it today, “Obama only seeks Congress’ authorization when he doesn’t actually want to do something, as when Assad crossed his ‘red line.'”

Whatever else one wants to say about Iraq and Afghanistan, one cannot honestly say that Obama ended the wars in those countries. The U.S. continues to drop bombs on both, deploys soldiers in both, kills civilians in both, and engages in a wide range of overt and covert force, all without a shred of Congressional approval.
 
.
I will stop talking to a ungracious self-claimed genius.Whatever
 
. . . .
At least no one is acusing China of War Crime yet.
That is not the point.

You made the US not being a signatory to the ICC. You said there is a reason but did not state what was that reason or reasons. Why not ? Is it because you were too lazy and not smart enough to find out why ? I will give you a hint: Same reason or reasons as China. :lol:
 
.
That is not the point.

You made the US not being a signatory to the ICC. You said there is a reason but did not state what was that reason or reasons. Why not ? Is it because you were too lazy and not smart enough to find out why ? I will give you a hint: Same reason or reasons as China. :lol:
Since you asked, besides all those excuses for not being a signatory of ICC, one of the reason is US doesn't want its military personals to be open to charges of war crimes, which in US's case that is the most likely case that an US citizen will be charged in front of ICC. I don't see any wrong with the US position on this.
 
.
Since you asked, besides all those excuses for not being a signatory of ICC, one of the reason is US doesn't want its military personals to be open to charges of war crimes, which in US's case that is the most likely case that an US citizen will be charged in front of ICC. I don't see any wrong with the US position on this.
This is why it is so much fun making fun of you guys -- constant foot-in-mouth disease.

You guys constantly eager to take jabs at US and so often it ends up at your expense, like now. All because you refuse to take the time and do basic research. The US position on why we did not sign the ICC is public, not secret. Can you find out where ?

To you, statements like this...

There is a reason why the United States is not a participant in the International Criminal Court
...Insinuate that there are nefarious reasons behind said action, and intends to make you look smart. Too often it ended up making you look foolish, like now when US and China shares the same reasons why neither are signatory to the ICC.

Hope you like the taste of your own foot.
 
.
Obama must be put in jail for crime against humanity.
 
.
This is why it is so much fun making fun of you guys -- constant foot-in-mouth disease.

You guys constantly eager to take jabs at US and so often it ends up at your expense, like now. All because you refuse to take the time and do basic research. The US position on why we did not sign the ICC is public, not secret. Can you find out where ?

To you, statements like this...


...Insinuate that there are nefarious reasons behind said action, and intends to make you look smart. Too often it ended up making you look foolish, like now when US and China shares the same reasons why neither are signatory to the ICC.

Hope you like the taste of your own foot.
You are the one who always take the position that anyone who says anything about US is to take jabs at it. You should stop being so over sensitive here as it only makes you look guilty and suspicious.

One thing you are right about is that China and US do share the fear that thier citizens would be unfairly treated for political reasons, but those so call political reasons are fundamentally different for China and US. Now you can tell me why Bush had to issue American Service-members Protection Act that specifically aims to protect US military personnel and other elected and appointed officials from charges in front of ICC which itself is not even a party? That even comes with the possibility of an invasion of the Hague, Netherland to free US citizens detained by ICC, thus nicknamed The Hague Invasion Act. Here I even applaud how far US government is willing to go to protect the people who serve their government. Since you are so convinced that China and US share the same concerns about ICC, where is the equivalent law or even a statement from China?

Maybe I should've made myself more clear last time since obviously your judgement is so clouded by your bias. From US prospective, I don't see anything wrong with US government's position on this considering how many US military personnels are overseas conducting their missions for the government.
 
Last edited:
.
You are the one who always take the position that anyone who says anything about US is to take jabs at it. You should stop being so over sensitive here as it only makes you look guilty and suspicious.

One thing you are right about is that China and US do share the fear that thier citizens would be unfairly treated for political reasons, but those so call political reasons are fundamentally different for China and US. Now you can tell me why Bush had to issue American Service-members Protection Act that specifically aims to protect US military personnel and other elected and appointed officials from charges in front of ICC which itself is not even a party? That even comes with the possibility of an invasion of the Hague, Netherland to free US citizens detained by ICC, thus nicknamed The Hague Invasion Act. Here I even applaud how far US government is willing to go to protect the people who serve their government. Since you are so convinced that China and US share the same concerns about ICC, where is the equivalent law or even a statement from China?

Maybe I should've made myself more clear last time since obviously your judgement is so clouded by your bias. From US prospective, I don't see anything wrong with US government's position on this considering how many US military personnels are overseas conducting their missions for the government.
And I am supposed to be of the 'inferior' Asian race ? :lol:

The common concern, which does not need to be officially declared, that the US and China have, is SOVEREIGNTY.

http://www.cfr.org/courts-and-tribu...-questions-international-criminal-court/p8981
China objected on grounds that "the statute is an attempt to interfere with the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation."
The issue is greater than the ASPA, which you brought on.

If you ever served in a military, especially one that has global interests or even contribute to UN peacekeeping missions which are essentially police actions, you would have known that a soldier is the most visible agent/representative of a country that is under expedition. US objections to the ICC is the same as China's. It is beyond protection of diplomats and soldiers but of the potential the ICC has to legally harm a country.

Here is why...
The ICC is based on a principle of complementarity. This means that the ICC can only act when a national court is unable or unwilling to carry out a prosecution itself because the ICC was not created to supplant the authority of the national courts. However, when a state's legal system collapses or when a government is a perpetrator of heinous crimes, the ICC can exercise jurisdiction.
The language is sufficiently vague. If someone does not like US involvement in Iraq, for example, a charge can be levied against the US government of 'heinous crimes' and that will allow the ICC to supplant American legal protections to American diplomats and/or military members, most vulnerable are the overseas stations.

Here is your own legal expert's opinion as to why China, like US, should not be an ICC signatory...

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_861_wenqi.pdf
Zhu Wenqi

Zhu Wenqi is Professor of International Law, Renmin University of China School of Law

...co-operation with the ICC in particular by non-party states may, if analysed in terms of the authority of the UN Security Council, the jurisdiction of the ICC or the general principles of international law, be an obligation of a mandatory nature in certain specific cases.
China is a permanent UN Security Council member and recognized that under specific cases, even such a member maybe legally obliged to obey the ICC, opening the door to expose China to ideologically and politically motivated reasons to violate China's sovereignty, in physical and legal perspectives.

China was concerned that given the political differences between China and the West, being an ICC member would expose China to Western legal attacks, from ordinary Chinese citizens all the way to the Chinese President. Neither the Chinese President nor Professor Zhu need to explicitly stated so. For US, the concern is the same despite the differences in potential opposition litigants. For US, the potential litigant or litigants may contain China or North Korea. For China, the potential litigant maybe the US. Get it ?

So what was the point of this from you...???
There is a reason why the United States is not a participant in the International Criminal Court
Was it because you were sympathetic to US ? Hardly. I bet that after you found out China was not an ICC member, you started scrambling to find out why after that feeble attempt to cast US in a negative light. Now you ended up with eggs on your face.
 
.
And I am supposed to be of the 'inferior' Asian race ? :lol:

The common concern, which does not need to be officially declared, that the US and China have, is SOVEREIGNTY.
Here is their common conerns, but that is where it ends.


The language is sufficiently vague. If someone does not like US involvement in Iraq, for example, a charge can be levied against the US government of 'heinous crimes' and that will allow the ICC to supplant American legal protections to American diplomats and/or military members, most vulnerable are the overseas stations.

Here is your own legal expert's opinion as to why China, like US, should not be an ICC signatory...

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_861_wenqi.pdf

China is a permanent UN Security Council member and recognized that under specific cases, even such a member maybe legally obliged to obey the ICC, opening the door to expose China to ideologically and politically motivated reasons to violate China's sovereignty, in physical and legal perspectives.

China was concerned that given the political differences between China and the West, being an ICC member would expose China to Western legal attacks, from ordinary Chinese citizens all the way to the Chinese President. Neither the Chinese President nor Professor Zhu need to explicitly stated so.
Here you already gave the difference between US and China's concerns, and please mind you that I have always known that China is not a party of ICC. Maybe one day China will share the same concern of US, but that won't be in the near future. Until then there is no immediate need for China have something like ASPA to protect China's interest.

So what was the point of this from you...???
It was simply to remind everyone here who wants to put Obama or anyone who is involved in this bombing on trial for war crime in front of ICC that they are wasting their time. Now what I am confused is why you think that US is not a participant of ICC is painted in a negative light.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom