Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Question: If One Votes And The US Commits War Crimes Does That Make You Responsible?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I think its a legitimate question now because we know of the war crimes being carried out by the USA and UK etc...

I think we all know that there is the possibility that after the elections the war crimes will continue. So does this make the voter responsible since they are aware of what they are voting in?

Is the very act of voting, offering the candidate a "Free Pass" to commit genocide?


edit on 16-8-2012 by TheMindWar because: Typo




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Yeah, if you protest the war, much like the communist hippies during Vietnam.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Yes. If you vote for the man (or woman) who will be leading the military, the blood is on your hands too.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


They better be held accountable. I know many will hide and deny it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I think voting comes down to voting the less of two evils these days. Do not feel like you are the ones committing the crimes the government does because it is not you pulling the trigger.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Does anyone honestly think the amount of blood shed that happens is really dependent on the person sitting in the oval office?

If thats true why did a Democrat continue on the same violent actions of the Previous Republican.

At this point your culpable for not standing up and voting your conscious, when only 30 percent vote, they pander to one of the two parties extremist.

Extreme right or Extreme Left.

If the rest that didn't exercised their rights and just vote who they honestly thought would be good instead of the party line...

Well we might have a diffrent America entirely.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Nope. Just write a disclaimer against war crimes on the ballot when you vote.

Better address Economy Saboteur as well.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Even if everybody in america did not vote a candidate could vote for himself and win by one vote.

So your vote ultimately doesn't matter.

Second, Romney has practically said he'll invade Iran, so a vote for him will allow him to accomplish that goal.

But in the end a president is a grown man, and he alone will have to answer for any crimes.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 
I'm inclined to believe so myself, and this is why I will not support any candidate who does not represent my views accordingly. As such, I am unable to support either Romney or Obama, in regards to a large range of topics.

Part of my little effort to "come out of Babylon" so I don't share in her sins. Unfortunately, at least some of the fruits of my labor still go to her efforts, however unwillingly on my part...so I don't know if that's enough.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.

If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by calnorak
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.

If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.


Therein lies the problem. We KNOW we're voting in the Commander-In-Chief.

American voters are no different than those who vote for any other oppressive regime.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by calnorak
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.

If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.

We'll frequently hear claim of those in authority stating "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - and I find the same applies here. When the records of certain people and groups are clear to a fair extent, and their aims stated clearly as well, then supporting them - even if you were unaware of these positions or tendencies - still imputes complicity in their offenses, as far as I can tell.

Now, if you voted in support of someone who is on the record as clearly and consistently at odds with these tendencies, and no stated goals along these same lines, and they changed to commit or aid such acts - I'd agree with your statements here.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by calnorak
 





it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty. If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.


True,

But any time a drone strike kills an innocent... Im sorry insurgent... forgot how changing the word changes what happened...

Anytime we invade a country and no one speaks out.

Anytime the Constitution is stepped on and again we are silent...




"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


So yea, its all our faults for not doing something.

Even if it was something as simple as not voting the party line.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by calnorak
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.

If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.


Therein lies the problem. We KNOW we're voting in the Commander-In-Chief.

American voters are no different than those who vote for any other oppressive regime.


We don't vote the commander in chief in, the electoral college does. Sometimes it goes with the popular vote, sometimes not. Besides, I found out last time that there are more on the ticket then the mainstream media says we can vote for. I voted a 3rd party that actually matched what I believed a president should be at the time. I may go a different person this time, I may not.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by calnorak
it comes down to basically this: If it was a crime and you injured the party, then you would be guilty.

If you voted and had no idea sad person would commit a crime, how could you be responsible? The premise is insanely ridiculous.


This is my point. I don't think there is any excuse for anyone having "no idea" anymore. Burying ones head in the sand and pretending things are good does not make it so.
edit on 16-8-2012 by TheMindWar because: Typo



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
i rarely hear during the elections about how much the candidate plans on commiting war crimes.
of course its not the voters fault, the voter wasn't aware of future events.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by calnorak
 
I do feel it's fair to point out that the electoral vote and popular vote have only differed twice (IIRC), and one of those was likely only due to SCOTUS stopping the recounting of votes...

Regardless, in this day and age, I also see no good purpose to it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 


Are you saying people are ignorant of past events?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by listerofsmeg
i rarely hear during the elections about how much the candidate plans on commiting war crimes.

Then it seems you don't pay much attention to the foreign policy intents of the candidates, and the track record of US military involvement over the last half-century or more, I suppose.


of course its not the voters fault, the voter wasn't aware of future events.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


I have struggled with this EXACT issue since a child and still do SOMEWHAT. LIKE AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT DESCISIONS THEY MAKE. It seems the TRUE answer is NO for the ELECTION GAME seems rigged. It makes no sense to allow someone in power of a nation like AMERICA that CAN effect foriegn policies who WILL not KEEP the WORLD moving FINANCIALLY. What I am saying is the electors or ALREADY decided by the ELITES of EA*RTH so its REALLY not on the VOTERS HANDS its on theirs.
edit on 8/16/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join