Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
YES! If it's illegal then start the impeachment proceedings!
That would be the job of the Senate. Clearly someone needs to re-read the Constitution..
Just because the Senate is incompetent and wont do their job, this doesnt mean it was legal.. This is like robbing a bank and then being granted immunity for testifying against your partner.. It doesnt mean you robbing the bank was legal.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Stand corrected.. It just annoys me to no end to see people justifying this war that called the Bush wars illegal.. My apologies.. It was meson that made that claim.
I've never called Iraq illegal, just a mistake. I don't really believe legality should be the sole criteria for judging a war's merit. As far as I'm concerned if it holds no benefit to the US it's a waste of blood and $$$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Yep, its like the left would have been all find and dandy with the war had we taken their oil. Hey.. we killed people, so what, we got oil outta it..
As it is we killed people and got what out of it? Oil wouldn't justify it but nothing else has either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Yep.. I dont mind paying for it provided its legal. My hope is when all of this is said and done, we can have a stable middle east, and then decrease our military size because of limited threats in the world. If we can do this, the cost of the wars might be paid back by reduced future military costs.. I know.. I'm dreaming..
A stable middle east? That hasn't existed for centuries, what makes you think newcomers like the US will change that? There's far too much "My God is better than your God" crap going on there for us to be a stabilizing factor. I'd much prefer we tell all nations in the ME they either learn to live together or die together, our involvement being limited to vaporizing any country that messes with us.
You asked no real question, just hypotheticals. You might want to brush up on the facts regarding the UN and NATO.
Actually I did,you just don't seem to want to answer it...
Quote:
It was a "NATO war" from the start. UN authorized military force and NATO forces stepped in. Its fairly simple.
Nope,you are wrong.
Quote:
Look lames, I'm pretty much an isolationlist, and really, I don't like our CIF. But neocons are blasting Obama for this? really? Like its a no good mission from the start. Give me a break.
We need more political parties in this country. More free thinkers, less group think.
You are an isolationist who likes to attack other nations???
And the only reason the NeoConfused are up in arms is it's Obama, has nothing to do with whether they believe in what we are doing in Libya. Many whined because we weren't involved, now they whine because we are.
Hahaha, I agree with you 100%, Hannity and company would be all "rah rah rah, evil doers, spread democracy" if it was a Phonycon Republican leading our current global babysitting.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
That would be the job of the Senate. Clearly someone needs to re-read the Constitution..
Just because the Senate is incompetent and wont do their job, this doesnt mean it was legal.. This is like robbing a bank and then being granted immunity for testifying against your partner.. It doesnt mean you robbing the bank was legal.
I believe impeachment must begin in the House and the trial conducted by the Senate.
I really wouldn't mind seeing it but I'd be hoping to see the manner in which we go to war on trial at the same time.
I've never called Iraq illegal, just a mistake. I don't really believe legality should be the sole criteria for judging a war's merit.
I agree, which is why I havent criticized Obama attacking Libya, only for not taking the necessary steps to comply with the law..
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
As far as I'm concerned if it holds no benefit to the US it's a waste of blood and $$$.
We wont know the answer to that one for decades.. Many thought the same when we went it to fight Hitler as well..
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
As it is we killed people and got what out of it? Oil wouldn't justify it but nothing else has either.
Again, hopefully time will prove our actions were correct, both Bushs, and Obamas, but I understand those who disagreed with them
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
A stable middle east? That hasn't existed for centuries, what makes you think newcomers like the US will change that? There's far too much "My God is better than your God" crap going on there for us to be a stabilizing factor. I'd much prefer we tell all nations in the ME they either learn to live together or die together, our involvement being limited to vaporizing any country that messes with us.
I dont know if we are going to change that, but what I do know is its not right to have a government that kills their own people. I dont view these wars as religious, they are hopefully helping opressed individuals get an equal footing in their country. This is the same as other countries who came forward and helped america establish our independance from the British monarchy.. Tyranical dictators have no place in this world..
Hahaha, I agree with you 100%, Hannity and company would be all "rah rah rah, evil doers, spread democracy" if it was a Phonycon Republican leading our current global babysitting.
So you are opposed to Obama attacking Libya, but some how want to make it about a hypothetical so you don't actually have to criticize him publicly?
Or you are for him attacking Libya and want to goof on the neo-cons even though you share their viewpoint?
I believe impeachment must begin in the House and the trial conducted by the Senate.
Yes the impeachment hearings are held by the Senate..
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
I really wouldn't mind seeing it but I'd be hoping to see the manner in which we go to war on trial at the same time.
I wouldnt want to see it happen at all. We all know the Senate wont impeach, and for decades all we'd hear is that we tried to impeach Obama because he was black..
What I do want is for Congress to initiate the proceedures to make this law legal.. Why they havent started yet I'll never understand...
You asked no real question, just hypotheticals. You might want to brush up on the facts regarding the UN and NATO.
You do realize that the US is NATO?
Quote:
THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.
How much was Bush jr war in Iraq from start to the present cost? When you do, lets compare apples and oranges.
I don't know, but since that's a sunk cost now, and totally irrelevant to this conversation, who frikkin cares?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
