Benghazi...oh you knew it was coming

[Beanz]

Yes, Bush was a bad President can we now over 4 years since he left office talk about the current President on his own right. I did not say that the President is personally responsible for what happened in Benghazi and had the official statement been that it was a coordinated AQ attack that was successful do to negligent planning and reaction furthermore the responsible parties have been relieved of their jobs then we wouldn't be talking about this. I often tell my children that lying only makes it worse and my Soldiers that bad news doesn't get better with time. Someone should remind all of DC of this. If all you can offer in this discussion is to point to Bush and how Obama is not quite as bad then you are really just making Lyle's points for him.

So it's OK to talk about Nixon and Watergate but not Bush ? I ask because I am a little unclear on the rules of engagement here.

[VictorCharlie]

GB we can talk about King Tut if you want but I don't think it is relevant to the attack on Benghazi.

[Gandalf]

Again Miles, provide the legally binding document that spells out the criteria of when a military operations are legal/illegal and what legal court rules on such matters. Something can't have a legal basis w/o a spelled out law and body that rules on such matters. Even things like the Geneva Convention accords are not internationally binding b/c not all countries signed all of them. I'll say again since you can't help but make this about your ignorant bigotry towards America. I don't hold the concept of war and legality only true for the US. I'm not sure how where I went to college has any bearing on this topic. It is part of my job to have a thorough understanding of the Law of Landwarfare. Particularly to keep myself and my subordinates out of prison. Needless to say I think I have a much better understanding of these issues than you. But hey bro if it makes you feel like you are sticking it to the bid bad US by using made up phrases like "illegal war" you right ahead. The educated and informed folk will continue to laugh at you.

Nobody laughs, you silly servant of a corrupt global super power.

A war of aggression, as defined by Nuremburg is illegal. You are NOT an expert, others are and you have a serious agenda. You are tool within a superpower, and want to pay for your life. Your moral concerns are irrelevant. You want to pay for your children to do well and protecting your interests is a primary concern. You are not an expert on anything, you are an agent of a superpower.

Nobody is laughing at me as I have no vested interest. I don't work for the military, I don't pretend to justify invasions of nations, or kill others to secure the welfare of my children. You do and that is why you are not to be trusted. You are the problem. You will NEVER admit that your nation is sick and is the problem and makes all of this happen.

People like Finklestein and Chomsky are Jews working in the system and telling truth, but you are not on that level and so I laugh at you with your military background, delusion, and pretence at being a lawyer. Dershowitz is a lawyer and if you are like that then you clearly went to Harvard, but no you didn't, and you not an expert in anything whence the way you think. Real thinkers laugh at people like you. People that joined the military in the first place. You couldn't do anything else.

[VictorCharlie]

Oh we are back to me just being a dumb sheep of a Soldier that couldn't do anything else are we? When in doubt Ad Hominem right? I don't have any agenda here. I don't really care what you and others think about the US and of course my children are my primary concern. What a silly statement to make.

Nuremberg gets you close but really is just more of a declarative statement about aggression and lets face it was very much a winners getting to write history moment. Article 39 of the UN Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security". But again that isn't a definition of legal vs illegal only stating that the UN can vote on an act and how to bring peace back. I think even you can agree that if the US gets a vote then the whole concept of legality is a sham.

What you are really looking for is the Rome Statutes that actually have an international criminal court that rules on aggression with codified law but it only has jurisdiciton over state parties and the US is not one.

See Miles I wasn't just being obtuse there was an actual answer to the question you just didn't know it. Thankfully despite being a full blown retard that should be lucky there is a military to employ me I somehow figured it out. Must have been that lousy American education I got.

[El Kabong]

He didn't nail anything. All you have done is an ice skating job. For the first time in a while I am smiling. I am shocked at your cheek. VC has studied at an American University and paid for by the military, he is paid for and bought. The man will kill on request and will drum up a few pages from his muscular tomes, but really American history is false history as Norman Finklestein has proven.

And if he hadn't gone to school at all you would have complained all the same of the ignorance you ASSUME VC has because you just want to be contrarian because well fuck I don't even know....you don't like Obama, you don't like America, why are you being so difficult on this issue miles? Do you even know or is it just a habit?

Greenbeanz we're talking specifically about Benghazi here but I'll be glad to answer other questions on various politicians here or in other threads. W wasn't the best President ever, but he was better than Obama I can tell you that much just having lived through both. W took more shit and was held accountable for his actions....still waiting for Obama to be held accountable for anything...anything

[El Kabong]

[Kirkland Laing]

What did the Obama administration do or not do that's getting you so exercised?

They left Americans under attack there to be killed. They lied about who did the attacking, why the attacking happened, they left Amb. Stevens vulnerable knowing full well it wasn't safe to be there. They drew down his security detail. They kept the armed forces from retaliating or saving lives.

This is bigger than Watergate, people died, moves weren't made that could have been made and as a citizen I want to know why.

Sure attacks happen from time to time, usually bombs with nothing else after them, but this was a terrorist military style attack which could have been stopped. Fly a C-130 over or a F-117 and people would scatter, that's all it would have taken, forces were in the area ready to go and were told not to....why?

You need to ask the people in charge of the forces. That's the actual military commanders. It's nothing to do with the Obama administration. There is absolutely zero evidence that you can show that says Obama personally prevented help from getting there. This is just another load of nonsense. This is probably the fourth or fifth "bigger than Watergate" event of the Obama administration and it's as bullshit as the rest of them were.

[Kirkland Laing]

#3 The Benghazi attacks were long and drawn out, the United States had significant information and resources in the area to prepare for & limit the damage of those attacks and instead of allowing the military to do their job somebody, somewhere in the Administration said "No, stand down"

They did actually manage to get one team there. Two of them were killed if I remember correctly. There was another special forces team in Tripoli but they were only armed with hanguns and were kept in Tripoli in case things got worse there.

There is zero evidence anywhere to suggest the White House told anybody to stand down.

[El Kabong]

You need to ask the people in charge of the forces. That's the actual military commanders. It's nothing to do with the Obama administration. There is absolutely zero evidence that you can show that says Obama personally prevented help from getting there. This is just another load of nonsense. This is probably the fourth or fifth "bigger than Watergate" event of the Obama administration and it's as bullshit as the rest of them were.

@VictorCharlie, your thoughts? I mean I'd explain BUT nothing I say is ever taken seriously

[Kirkland Laing]

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

[Kirkland Laing]

You need to ask the people in charge of the forces. That's the actual military commanders. It's nothing to do with the Obama administration. There is absolutely zero evidence that you can show that says Obama personally prevented help from getting there. This is just another load of nonsense. This is probably the fourth or fifth "bigger than Watergate" event of the Obama administration and it's as bullshit as the rest of them were.

@VictorCharlie , your thoughts? I mean I'd explain BUT nothing I say is ever taken seriously

You need to try and write something sensible then people willhave no excuse not to take you seriously.

[El Kabong]

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The UN is impotent, corrupt, and more inept than the Obama Administration

[Kirkland Laing]

I also find VC quite hilarious with his pompous spiel about there being no
such thing as an illegal or legal war. So American. Of course it cannot be illegal if it is us doing it! Just as the lunatic Israeli's believe settlement building is nothing more than putting up trees in the park, it is America's god given right to inflict manifest destiny upon any nation should the whim to do so set in. 'Legality, no such thing'. Invade who you want when you want and see how that plays out if you are not of the annointed nations.

There isn't anything pompous about my post. There is not a legal precedent for when war is allowed or not. I think you confuse international law on how war is conducted with a non-existant legal basis to go to war. This is true for all countries not just the US and I never said different if you had any ability at objectivity you'd have realized that. We've had this conversation before and you were never able to provide the international legal binding document that prescribed when military action is "legal" or the legal body that rules on such things and typically resorted to threatening me with bodily harm. The act of going to war is a lot of things but it is not a matter of legality.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The UN is impotent, corrupt, and more inept than the Obama Administration

It's impotent because motheruckers like George Bush ignore the will of its members and do what the fuck they want.As far as corruption goes the UN is a vestal virgin compared to the American political system.

[Kirkland Laing]

Anyway, Benghazi! All it took was a few facts to shut you up. Never mind, I'm sure the next scandal really will be bigger than Watergate. That'll be the one thatg ets Obama, you just wait.

[El Kabong]

It's impotent because motheruckers like George Bush ignore the will of its members and do what the fuck they want.As far as corruption goes the UN is a vestal virgin compared to the American political system.

It's impotent because they rely all too heavily on the United States doing the heavy lifting and because the UN "leaders" are corrupt, Kofi Annan among them

As Iraq's interim defense minister Hazem Sha'alan remarked, "Where was Kofi Annan when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering the Iraqi people like sheep?"

The UN has bungled mission after mission and been slow to react examples: Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan

Kofi Annan's Legacy of Failure

You didn't watch the videos apparently