Agador Spartacus said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

If you don't support war, you're a lib?

When dems get power back they will import Iranians by the millions if we destroy their infrastructure.

Who wants that?

---

Maybe we should elect the candidate that preaches "no new wars" next time.

---

This one started 47 years ago. Trump decided to end it through a final battle.

That talking point from the left no longer works.

MW03 said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols prohibit attacking objects necessary for civilian survival, such as water installations, food supplies, and power plants.

I guess those that signed off on the Geneva Conventions decided what happened in WWII was unacceptable and shouldn't happen again...

---

Only commenting to point out that the "additional protocols" is an important distinction, here. The US has not ratified Protocol 1, which is where the second part of that sentence comes from. At least not formally.

---

Fair point.

dmart90 said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

Man, we are going to have to hop in the way back machine to see when we first started committing "War Crimes"! WWII is chock full of them!

This is one of the lamest arguments I can think of in regard to a military operation.

---

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols prohibit attacking objects necessary for civilian survival, such as water installations, food supplies, and power plants.

I guess those that signed off on the Geneva Conventions decided what happened in WWII was unacceptable and shouldn't happen again...

---

The 1949 Geneva Convention's ban on territorial annexation and forced population transfer was because the Western Allies felt bad about relocating 14 million Germans.

Even though it did permanently solve the problem of Germans wanting to "liberate our brothers in the east". And would have solved the problem of Palestinian terrorist attacks if Israel has been allowed to use it in 1967.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Threatening genocide is generally considered a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which the United States is a party.

---

I'm going to need a citation for that with analysis to primary sources, not reliance on CNN paid experts.

---

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4#EndDec

---

Thanks.

Now where is your analysis that cites to primary sources to the point that you are trying to make.

Here, I have some refutation for you somewhere in here: https://www.wikipedia.org/

You can find the evidence in there that supports my position for yourself.

---

Did you really just link to the Wikipedia homepage and say "something here supports my position" while trying to also be a smartass about citing primary sources?

---

I was pointing out that you provided nothing of value by providing nothing of value in return.

Do you want to actually do what I asked? Defend your position with analysis and quotes to primary sources? You haven't given that a try yet.

I mean, you don't have to. But, saying "It's a war crime" with no analysis and then citing an encyclopedia isn't really helpful.

---

I provided you a link to the scanned originally signed copy of the Genocide Convention from the online version of the United Nations Depository. I am *100% sure* you actually looked at the webpage, opened the PDF "Certified true copy", and looked down to page 11 of the PDF (page 3 of the English section), and read Article III, section (c) about about direct and indirect incitement of genocide.

You responded with "here's wikipedia's homepage."

Quality work.

---

Yeah, but you're just a "triggered libtard" (or something like that)...so, he won the argument by default.

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

japantiger said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

ETFan said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Looks like new talking points have been distributed to be parrotted.

---

I remember when a president saying he was going to wipe an entire civilization off the map didn't need "talking points", we simply all agreed that's psychotic and insane.

But, we've got ourselves a cult, what can ya do?

They've successfully moved the overton window so that anything is defensible.

---

I guess your recollections aren't all that relevant since you're too young to remember MAD.

It was ALL ABOUT wiping civilizations off the map.

I got under my desk at school as a small child on a regular basis because a Soviet Premier said he'd "Bury" us.

Historically ignorant children who bandy about terms like "cult" and "psychotic" should listen more and speak less.

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke. Furthermore, even if they could hit us and had a nuke, MAD still would not apply because one nuke vs the US hundreds does not equal MAD. The Soviet Union was an entirely different thing.

---

You said that threatening to wipe a civilization off the map was psychotic and insane. Your words. That's been the status quo since the late 1940's, whether you admit it or not. We know that leftists don't deal in reality.

Oh, and your buddies the Mullahs (or what's left of them) were actively developing a nuke and in fact lied about the range of the rockets as we saw first hand. Finally, do you have any idea what just one nuke on a boat detonated in the Houston ship channel would do to this country and the world?

---

Yes I did say that and stand by it. And no, it has not been the status quo since the 1940's. I am not familiar with any US President since WW2 who has ever threatened genocide. If you can cite one, I am happy to be corrected.

Edit: I guess you could probably make the case for Andrew Jackson regarding the Indians

---

Richard Nixon: "I'm going to destroy the ******* country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapon if necessary. It isn't necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, that shows you the extent to which I'm willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapon."

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this from some private conversation with Kissinger. Not a public statement to the world?

---

So Trump saying things out loud and to the public is somehow… worse?

We should be praising his candor and forthright statements instead of "wish he would only plot annihilation in secret and publicly say something completely different, you know, be more like Nixon".

Thats your angle now?

---

There is a difference between a comment you make in private with an advisor and a public threat sent out to the entire world. Surely you can see that

---

Surely you can see that the public comment is more consistent with a government that is forthright with the people… you know, like our Founding Fathers wanted.

You think closed doors comments that are not reflected in public comments is… better? You libs sure love your Soviet era ways…

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Geneva Conventions board.

See my prior posts on "war crimes". It's a made up concept and term. There is no Earth Management Team, no Laws of the Earth, no Earth Police, Courts and Prison.

Once you understand that concept, then treaties and conventions and UN councils and so forth mean NOTHING.

Ability to enforce your morals on others is done at the behest of weaponry or through access to beasties like food and water.

Tonight Trump will do the right thing for the world. He will not be committing war crimes.

---

18 U.S. Code 1091 is the US domestic law version of the Genocide Convention, if you believe US domestic law means something.

(For the record, I never said I thought Trump's post violated US law or International law. I only said threats to commit genocide are generally considered a war crime.)

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Geneva Conventions board.

See my prior posts on "war crimes". It's a made up concept and term. There is no Earth Management Team, no Laws of the Earth, no Earth Police, Courts and Prison.

Once you understand that concept, then treaties and conventions and UN councils and so forth mean NOTHING.

Ability to enforce your morals on others is done at the behest of weaponry or through access to beasties like food and water.

Tonight Trump will do the right thing for the world. He will not be committing war crimes.

---

18 U.S. Code 1091 is the US domestic law version of the Genocide Convention, if you believe US domestic law means something.

(For the record, I never said I thought Trump's post violated US law or International law. I only said threats to commit genocide are generally considered a war crime.)

---

The law would be unconstitutional if ruled upon as it would be restricting the Executive function of commanding the armed forces.

It's not possible for POTUS to commit "war crimes" as there is no constitutional law to restrict his command of our armed forces.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

japantiger said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

ETFan said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Looks like new talking points have been distributed to be parrotted.

---

I remember when a president saying he was going to wipe an entire civilization off the map didn't need "talking points", we simply all agreed that's psychotic and insane.

But, we've got ourselves a cult, what can ya do?

They've successfully moved the overton window so that anything is defensible.

---

I guess your recollections aren't all that relevant since you're too young to remember MAD.

It was ALL ABOUT wiping civilizations off the map.

I got under my desk at school as a small child on a regular basis because a Soviet Premier said he'd "Bury" us.

Historically ignorant children who bandy about terms like "cult" and "psychotic" should listen more and speak less.

---

MAD does not apply here whatsoever. Iran literally is incapable of striking the US homeland with anything, much less a nuke. Furthermore, even if they could hit us and had a nuke, MAD still would not apply because one nuke vs the US hundreds does not equal MAD. The Soviet Union was an entirely different thing.

---

You said that threatening to wipe a civilization off the map was psychotic and insane. Your words. That's been the status quo since the late 1940's, whether you admit it or not. We know that leftists don't deal in reality.

Oh, and your buddies the Mullahs (or what's left of them) were actively developing a nuke and in fact lied about the range of the rockets as we saw first hand. Finally, do you have any idea what just one nuke on a boat detonated in the Houston ship channel would do to this country and the world?

---

Yes I did say that and stand by it. And no, it has not been the status quo since the 1940's. I am not familiar with any US President since WW2 who has ever threatened genocide. If you can cite one, I am happy to be corrected.

Edit: I guess you could probably make the case for Andrew Jackson regarding the Indians

---

Richard Nixon: "I'm going to destroy the ******* country, believe me, I mean destroy it if necessary. And let me say, even the nuclear weapon if necessary. It isn't necessary. But, you know, what I mean is, that shows you the extent to which I'm willing to go. By a nuclear weapon, I mean that we will bomb the living bejeezus out of North Vietnam and then if anybody interferes we will threaten the nuclear weapon."

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this from some private conversation with Kissinger. Not a public statement to the world?

---

So Trump saying things out loud and to the public is somehow… worse?

We should be praising his candor and forthright statements instead of "wish he would only plot annihilation in secret and publicly say something completely different, you know, be more like Nixon".

Thats your angle now?

---

There is a difference between a comment you make in private with an advisor and a public threat sent out to the entire world. Surely you can see that

---

Surely you can see that the public comment is more consistent with a government that is forthright with the people… you know, like our Founding Fathers wanted.

You think closed doors comments that are not reflected in public comments is… better? You libs sure live your Soviet era ways…

---

You jumped into a conversation and are arguing something completely different than what was being discussed. Some other poster said Presidents have been threatening genocide since the 40's and I told him that was not true.

Yes, being forthright with the People is good. We agree. My issue was more with the public genocide threat, which is disturbing and unprecedented.

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

Quote:

---

But I would like to hold the US to a higher standard than those losers.

---

That higher standard is like strapping one arm behind one's own back in a fist fight. Yes, it's letting the losers set the standards for the fight, but if the point is to win, then you do whatever is necessary to do so. It will necessarily be ugly.

Now if we can ensure that all potential future opponents will behave per that higher standard, then sure, let's go. But it never seems to work out like that, does it?

Btw, this "higher standard" is a big part of America's problems in terms of Democrats vs Republicans, isn't it?

Your enemy threatens to put woman and children on or in key infrastructure that we might consider bombing, and we are the war criminals?

If 25th were enacted by his administration how do you think it would end? It would be total pandemonium and a end to a political party.

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

The Collective said:

---

Your enemy threatens to put woman and children on or in key infrastructure that we might consider bombing, and we are the war criminals?

---

In lib world, this makes sense. It's how you know they hate America.

Burpelson said:

---

If 25th were enacted by his administration how do you think it would end? It would be total pandemonium and a end to a political party.

---

Enacted by whom?

Do you know how the 25th works?

flown-the-coop said:

---

The Collective said:

---

Your enemy threatens to put woman and children on or in key infrastructure that we might consider bombing, and we are the war criminals?

---

In lib world, this makes sense. It's how you know they hate America.

---

The libs never make a peep about the muslims using women and children as human shields.

Keyno said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

---

He didnt' cite any language. He just threw a hyperlink at us.

The attitude of the OP ends up with destruction of the United States, which would become ruled by evil globalists. We bombed all of the infrastructure in Germany in WWII. Had we not done so Germany wins the war. Compassion is one thing, but naivete on the scale of the OP is insane.

Berlin after they surrendered
1 of many

flown-the-coop said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Geneva Conventions board.

See my prior posts on "war crimes". It's a made up concept and term. There is no Earth Management Team, no Laws of the Earth, no Earth Police, Courts and Prison.

Once you understand that concept, then treaties and conventions and UN councils and so forth mean NOTHING.

Ability to enforce your morals on others is done at the behest of weaponry or through access to beasties like food and water.

Tonight Trump will do the right thing for the world. He will not be committing war crimes.

---

18 U.S. Code 1091 is the US domestic law version of the Genocide Convention, if you believe US domestic law means something.

(For the record, I never said I thought Trump's post violated US law or International law. I only said threats to commit genocide are generally considered a war crime.)

---

The law would be unconstitutional if ruled upon as it would be restricting the Executive function of commanding the armed forces.

It's not possible for POTUS to commit "war crimes" as there is no constitutional law to restrict his command of our armed forces.

---

You mean to say the President himself might be found immune from prosecution under that US law. But the law itself would not be unconstitutional. We (not infrequently) prosecute our own for war crimes, etc. (See Robert Bales, Abu Ghraib, etc., etc.)

But again, I think that's different than the point I was making.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

The Collective said:

---

Your enemy threatens to put woman and children on or in key infrastructure that we might consider bombing, and we are the war criminals?

---

In lib world, this makes sense. It's how you know they hate America.

---

The libs never make a peep about the muslims using women and children as human shields.

---

Because Orange Man Bad antagonized the mostly peaceful jihadist to the point where they have to use women and children as shields in order to survive and keep writing terroristic poetry.

It all makes sense to them.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Geneva Conventions board.

See my prior posts on "war crimes". It's a made up concept and term. There is no Earth Management Team, no Laws of the Earth, no Earth Police, Courts and Prison.

Once you understand that concept, then treaties and conventions and UN councils and so forth mean NOTHING.

Ability to enforce your morals on others is done at the behest of weaponry or through access to beasties like food and water.

Tonight Trump will do the right thing for the world. He will not be committing war crimes.

---

18 U.S. Code 1091 is the US domestic law version of the Genocide Convention, if you believe US domestic law means something.

(For the record, I never said I thought Trump's post violated US law or International law. I only said threats to commit genocide are generally considered a war crime.)

---

The law would be unconstitutional if ruled upon as it would be restricting the Executive function of commanding the armed forces.

It's not possible for POTUS to commit "war crimes" as there is no constitutional law to restrict his command of our armed forces.

---

You mean to say the President himself might be found immune from prosecution under that US law. But the law itself would not be unconstitutional. We (not infrequently) prosecute our own for war crimes, etc. (See Robert Bales, Abu Ghraib, etc., etc.)

But again, I think that's different than the point I was making.

---

Well, it would be unconstitutional as applied to POTUS, and POTUS could pardon all others.

And that is the point here since with was POTUS himself making the comment (and giving the orders).

The people who gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat are the same kind of people who single out Trump for war crimes and ignore the rest...

Then there are the Dems who would rather live in a miserable world if it meant they could lord over it.

flown-the-coop said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Geneva Conventions board.

See my prior posts on "war crimes". It's a made up concept and term. There is no Earth Management Team, no Laws of the Earth, no Earth Police, Courts and Prison.

Once you understand that concept, then treaties and conventions and UN councils and so forth mean NOTHING.

Ability to enforce your morals on others is done at the behest of weaponry or through access to beasties like food and water.

Tonight Trump will do the right thing for the world. He will not be committing war crimes.

---

18 U.S. Code 1091 is the US domestic law version of the Genocide Convention, if you believe US domestic law means something.

(For the record, I never said I thought Trump's post violated US law or International law. I only said threats to commit genocide are generally considered a war crime.)

---

The law would be unconstitutional if ruled upon as it would be restricting the Executive function of commanding the armed forces.

It's not possible for POTUS to commit "war crimes" as there is no constitutional law to restrict his command of our armed forces.

---

You mean to say the President himself might be found immune from prosecution under that US law. But the law itself would not be unconstitutional. We (not infrequently) prosecute our own for war crimes, etc. (See Robert Bales, Abu Ghraib, etc., etc.)

But again, I think that's different than the point I was making.

---

Well, it would be unconstitutional as applied to POTUS, and POTUS could pardon all others.

And that is the point here since with was POTUS himself making the comment (and giving the orders).

---

Obviously "the President could pardon them" is quite different than saying something is or is not against domestic or international law.

And again, I'm not saying I think President Trump's post or whatever violated domestic or international law (setting aside whether he is or is not capable of being prosecuted).

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Threatening genocide is generally considered a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, to which the United States is a party.

---

I'm going to need a citation for that with analysis to primary sources, not reliance on CNN paid experts.

---

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4#EndDec

---

Thanks.

Now where is your analysis that cites to primary sources to the point that you are trying to make.

Here, I have some refutation for you somewhere in here: https://www.wikipedia.org/

You can find the evidence in there that supports my position for yourself.

---

Did you really just link to the Wikipedia homepage and say "something here supports my position" while trying to also be a smartass about citing primary sources?

---

I was pointing out that you provided nothing of value by providing nothing of value in return.

Do you want to actually do what I asked? Defend your position with analysis and quotes to primary sources? You haven't given that a try yet.

I mean, you don't have to. But, saying "It's a war crime" with no analysis and then citing an encyclopedia isn't really helpful.

---

I provided you a link to the scanned originally signed copy of the Genocide Convention from the online version of the United Nations Depository. I am *100% sure* you actually looked at the webpage, opened the PDF "Certified true copy", and looked down to page 11 of the PDF (page 3 of the English section), and read Article III, section (c) about about direct and indirect incitement of genocide.

You responded with "here's wikipedia's homepage."

Quality work.

---

Oh, look. You do know how to properly cite to an article. Good for you.

Next is the part where you quote the document that you cited, and then make the case that threatening genocide is a war crime, and then the analysis that what Trump said is explicitly prohibited by the document you cited.

You are almost there!

Quote:

---

The people who gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat are the same kind of people who single out Trump for war crimes and ignore the rest...

---

A five member panel selected by the Norwegian parliament in 1994 is singling out Trump for war crimes?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Geneva Conventions board.

See my prior posts on "war crimes". It's a made up concept and term. There is no Earth Management Team, no Laws of the Earth, no Earth Police, Courts and Prison.

Once you understand that concept, then treaties and conventions and UN councils and so forth mean NOTHING.

Ability to enforce your morals on others is done at the behest of weaponry or through access to beasties like food and water.

Tonight Trump will do the right thing for the world. He will not be committing war crimes.

---

18 U.S. Code 1091 is the US domestic law version of the Genocide Convention, if you believe US domestic law means something.

(For the record, I never said I thought Trump's post violated US law or International law. I only said threats to commit genocide are generally considered a war crime.)

---

The document provided does not support your position that threats are a war crime.

MagnumLoad said:

---

The attitude of the OP ends up with destruction of the United States, which would become ruled by evil globalists. We bombed all of the infrastructure in Germany in WWII. Had we not done so Germany wins the war. Compassion is one thing, but naivete on the scale of the OP is insane.

---

That certainly helped by bombing their military manufacturing facilities but I don't think it can be definitively stated that Germany would have won without it.

I have been watching a lot of podcasts about WWII POWS that were brought stateside for the duration of the war. When captured German generals were brought in and then sent across the country to internment camps by rail, they saw our manufacturing and agricultural abilities on such a scale, they innately understood Germany never had a chance once we entered the war. (Absent a nuclear capacity in Germany.) We could not only produce planes, tanks, jeeps and ships at a substantial volume, but have the men to operate them and the agricultural volume to keep them fed well.

Plus we had the refinery and pipeline capacity to keep our machinery running and advancing.

Having said that, would the war have lasted longer in Europe had Hitler not decided to open the Eastern Front and losing men and materiel to the Soviets, instead focusing everything on repelling us? Probably.

KingofHazor said:

---

Typical liberal: sounds intelligent at first, then you realize that they simply made up everything they wrote.

---

Which part sounded intelligent?

People think we'd actually use a WMD?

The Pro-Adolf Hitler crowd is very squeamish about America blowing up bridges.

Interesting.

— America First Insight (@AF_Insight) April 7, 2026

The Collective said:

---

People think we'd actually use a WMD?

---

The left clearly does. That's why this thread exists.

The only way we'd use a nuclear weapon would be if Iran used one first, or deployed chemical weapons against our bases, or an allied country's population.

aggiehawg said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

The attitude of the OP ends up with destruction of the United States, which would become ruled by evil globalists. We bombed all of the infrastructure in Germany in WWII. Had we not done so Germany wins the war. Compassion is one thing, but naivete on the scale of the OP is insane.

---

That certainly helped by bombing their military manufacturing facilities but I don't think it can be definitively stated that Germany would have won without it.

I have been watching a lot of podcasts about WWII POWS that were brought stateside for the duration of the war. When captured German generals were brought in and then sent across the country to internment camps by rail, they saw our manufacturing and agricultural abilities on such a scale, they innately understood Germany never had a chance once we entered the war. (Absent a nuclear capacity in Germany.) We could not only produce planes, tanks, jeeps and ships at a substantial volume, but have the men to operate them and the agricultural volume to keep them fed well.

Plus we had the refinery and pipeline capacity to keep our machinery running and advancing.

Having said that, would the war have lasted longer in Europe had Hitler not decided to open the Eastern Front and losing men and materiel to the Soviets, instead focusing everything on repelling us? Probably.

---

Reading up about the difference between American and German tanks was pretty fascinating. German tanks were better. But, they cost like 5 times more to build, used a lot more fuel, were slower, and required more maintenance.

American tanks were good enough, and we could make a crap ton of them quickly and operate them more cheaply.

Germany was not prepared to fight a long, drawn out war. The strategy was total victory very quickly. Once that didn't happen, our ability to win a war of attrition was pretty much sealed.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

buckle up for another ride on the trump rollercoaster:

1. he said it but he didn't mean it
2. he meant it but he was exaggerating
3. he wasn't exaggerating but now i think it's good
4. it's bad but at least he's not a democrat

maga never learns

---

This is genius.

The man wrote "Art of the Deal," and every person with a brain knows he uses very public information in negotiation. He does it every single time and will continue to. This is not a mystery, except to the willfully obtuse.

Keep banging the pots. We know there is not a single thing he can do or not do that you won't complain about.

Try putting America first for a change.

---

the funny thing is that he quite literally did not write it (a ghostwriter did). and it shows! he is categorically bad at making deals, this is just the latest example.

Keyno said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

Keyno said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

"Bombing civilian infrastructure" is not a war crime.

And no matter what you want, other than ordering the release of nuclear weapons, Trump is not going to be removed from office by the 25th Amendment.

---

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again..."

This is a genocide threat. Is that a war crime still or not anymore?

---

Is "Death to America" a genocidal threat?

---

Look up what that phrase actually means to Iranians.

---

Here is my 4th time to ask you Kenyo, is threatening genocide considered a war crime?

---

Another poster stated that it was and cited it. In a previous page. I haven't double checked it yet

---

It's not.

It's a position that is difficult to support, which is why it is so unsupported on this thread. The empty link to a long document with zero analysis that doesn't really even help the position isn't really meaningful.

But, if you want to make a contention that you know that it is, I would be interesting in hearing your argument.