Its time to Impeach Obama.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Elraptor
Elraptor

30966

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#51 Elraptor
Member since 2004 • 30966 Posts
Did Clinton do the same thing in Bosnia? That's an honest question; I don't recall whether he had Congressional authorization. In any event, one might defend Obama's actions by pointing to an legislatively approved treaty, perhaps backed by an enabling statute? The U.S. did wait for a U.N. resolution, after all. I'm not sure that's always enough, but it has to count for something . . .
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#52 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]Its funny when those who normally favor war are suddenly against it when Obama decides to go to war.rcafan
this just show how the bias on both sides.... i agree with you.

Party politics at its finest unfortunately

Avatar image for superfive9
superfive9

180

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 superfive9
Member since 2010 • 180 Posts

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] :lol: No, Obama is in no way doing what Bush did...DroidPhysX

He's not sending soldiers there, but he's taking military action against another country. By definition, Bush took military action against another country, but congress approved it

Lol? Bush launched a full out invasion....

Yes, he sent soldiers, it was an invasion. And he got approval from congress to use that military action. Obama is using military action, but he didn't get approval from congress. Even Democrats are going against what he did

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
TacticalDesire

10713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 TacticalDesire
Member since 2010 • 10713 Posts

Since WWII, congress has essentially deferred to the white house when it comes to engaging in war. I was watching Mitch McConnell (who is not the biggest Obama fan) talk about Libya a few weeks ago, and he was asked about what he thought the U.S. should, and he basically said that he had no issue with trusting Obama to make the right call on the situation.-Sun_Tzu-

This is a pretty true statement.

Avatar image for SaintLeonidas
SaintLeonidas

26735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#55 SaintLeonidas
Member since 2006 • 26735 Posts

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="superfive9"]

But Bush got congressional approval, Obama is doing the same thing Bush did (only not as big) and the only difference is that Bush got approval from congress to go to Iraq and Afghanistan

superfive9

:lol: No, Obama is in no way doing what Bush did...

He's not sending soldiers there, but he's taking military action against another country. By definition, Bush took military action against another country, but congress approved it

Get your facts straight, we are not invading Libya and it is hardly "military action", what we are doing is taking part in a UN enforced no fly zone, working with various other countries to do nothing more than enforce that no fly zone...there is a BIG difference between that and what Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Avatar image for Omni-Slash
Omni-Slash

54450

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#56 Omni-Slash
Member since 2003 • 54450 Posts
Everyone knows that I'm no Obama supporter....I'm perfectly good with his choice of action on this....that being said my only criticism is that he has not made a fimr public statemement of what we are doing...why we are doing in and for how long.....this is the one time where he should have a 15 minute primetime announcement.....
Avatar image for Nick3306
Nick3306

3429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 Nick3306
Member since 2007 • 3429 Posts
I don't really like obama, but i agree with him on taking action.
Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
Oleg_Huzwog

21885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 Oleg_Huzwog
Member since 2007 • 21885 Posts

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Out of curiosity, what is the section of the Constitution in question?

GabuEx

Article 1, Section 8.

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

Avatar image for SaintLeonidas
SaintLeonidas

26735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#59 SaintLeonidas
Member since 2006 • 26735 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Article 1, Section 8.

Oleg_Huzwog

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

I believe he wanted to see if the TC even knew the section he was criticizing Obama for going against.
Avatar image for superfive9
superfive9

180

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 superfive9
Member since 2010 • 180 Posts

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"] :lol: No, Obama is in no way doing what Bush did...SaintLeonidas

He's not sending soldiers there, but he's taking military action against another country. By definition, Bush took military action against another country, but congress approved it

Get your facts straight, we are not invading Libya and it is hardly "military action", what we are doing is taking part in a UN enforced no fly zone, working with various other countries to do nothing more than enforce that no fly zone...there is a BIG difference between that and what Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never said we are invading Libya. And it is military action by the US, we are destroying Libyan anti-air defenses, we've launched missiles into their land. I support it and support Obama's decision, but he should've gotten permmission from congress

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#61 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Article 1, Section 8.

Oleg_Huzwog

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

Congress also confirms supreme court justices. But Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Supreme Court Justice during Congressional recess. How come they didnt impeach Eisenhower?

Avatar image for broken_bass_bin
broken_bass_bin

7515

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#62 broken_bass_bin
Member since 2009 • 7515 Posts

This decision was made by the United Nations Security Council. Not the United States.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#63 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

This decision was made by the United Nations Security Council. Not the United States.

broken_bass_bin

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

Avatar image for superfive9
superfive9

180

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 superfive9
Member since 2010 • 180 Posts

[QUOTE="broken_bass_bin"]

This decision was made by the United Nations Security Council. Not the United States.

DroidPhysX

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

Avatar image for SaintLeonidas
SaintLeonidas

26735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#65 SaintLeonidas
Member since 2006 • 26735 Posts

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="superfive9"] He's not sending soldiers there, but he's taking military action against another country. By definition, Bush took military action against another country, but congress approved it

superfive9

Get your facts straight, we are not invading Libya and it is hardly "military action", what we are doing is taking part in a UN enforced no fly zone, working with various other countries to do nothing more than enforce that no fly zone...there is a BIG difference between that and what Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Never said we are invading Libya. And it is military action by the US, we are destroying Libyan anti-air defenses, we've launched missiles into their land. I support it and support Obama's decision, but he should've gotten permmission from congress

I don't care whether he got approval or not, especially when the actions being taken and decision to do so are not ours alone and are extremely necessary, but the fact of the matter is to even try to compare what is happening in Libya to what Bush did in Iraq/Afghanistan is absolutely ridiculous.
Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#66 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
Since WWII, congress has essentially deferred to the white house when it comes to engaging in war. I was watching Mitch McConnell (who is not the biggest Obama fan) talk about Libya a few weeks ago, and he was asked about what he thought the U.S. should, and he basically said that he had no issue with trusting Obama to make the right call on the situation.-Sun_Tzu-
They've given up declarations of war, but they are certainly not deferring totally to the president. Congress usually approves these things even if they don't formally declare war. That said, the president's war and policing powers are pretty ambiguous, and if nothing else, there was an act passed by congress in 2001 that authorizes the president to use force against any supporter of terrorism - which Gaddhafi certainly is.
Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
Oleg_Huzwog

21885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 Oleg_Huzwog
Member since 2007 • 21885 Posts

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

DroidPhysX

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

Congress also confirms supreme court justices. But Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Supreme Court Justice during Congressional recess. How come they didnt impeach Eisenhower?

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

Avatar image for Bubble_Man
Bubble_Man

3100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#68 Bubble_Man
Member since 2006 • 3100 Posts

Once again he goes against the Constitution by not asking for approval of the congressto take military action against Libya. So why are people not caring exactly?

00-Riddick-00

You've been listening to Michael Savage, eh? I think people use the world "impeach" too much. I've been hearing about how every president should be impeached, from Clinton until now. I'm not a big Obama fan, but don't think he should be impeached. I have a feeling he wont be re-elected...then people can talk about how the next president should be impeached.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#69 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

Oleg_Huzwog

Congress also confirms supreme court justices. But Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Supreme Court Justice during Congressional recess. How come they didnt impeach Eisenhower?

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

Avatar image for rcafan
rcafan

2025

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 rcafan
Member since 2010 • 2025 Posts

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]

Once again he goes against the Constitution by not asking for approval of the congressto take military action against Libya. So why are people not caring exactly?

Bubble_Man

You've been listening to Michael Savage, eh? I think people use the world "impeach" too much. I've been hearing about how every president should be impeached, from Clinton until now. I'm not a big Obama fan, but don't think he should be impeached. I have a feeling he wont be re-elected...then people can talk about how the next president should be impeached.

why do people even think this? obama has done so many things but people look to do anything to bash him on

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

Hasn't practically every president for the past half-century done this?

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#72 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Congress also confirms supreme court justices. But Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed the Supreme Court Justice during Congressional recess. How come they didnt impeach Eisenhower?

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

Actually, the Constitution says pretty much nothing about who can appoint and confirm supreme court justices.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#73 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

fidosim

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

Actually, the Constitution says pretty much nothing about who can appoint and confirm supreme court justices.

So the Supreme court can appoint And confirm its own judges?

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#74 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

Actually, the Constitution says pretty much nothing about who can appoint and confirm supreme court justices.

So the Supreme court can appoint And confirm its own judges?

Constitutionally, yes.
Avatar image for X360PS3AMD05
X360PS3AMD05

36320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#76 X360PS3AMD05
Member since 2005 • 36320 Posts

Out of curiosity, what is the section of the Constitution in question?

GabuEx
Oh snap! Gabu wants to know if TC actually knows the Constitution.
Avatar image for Zaibach
Zaibach

13466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#77 Zaibach
Member since 2007 • 13466 Posts

Its ridiculous the amount of hate obama gets in OT, kinda like rap music...wonder if there is a link lol

I'm from the UK and obama remains one of the US's only redeeming factor

Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
Oleg_Huzwog

21885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 Oleg_Huzwog
Member since 2007 • 21885 Posts

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

DroidPhysX

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

Uh, no...

  • Warren - confirmed by Senate Mar 1, 1954
  • Harlan - confirmed by Senate Mar 16, 1955
  • Brennan - confirmed by Senate Mar 19, 1957
  • Whittaker - confirmed by Senate Mar 19, 1957
  • Stewart - confirmed by Senate May 5, 1959

Link

Anyhoo, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#79 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

Constitutionally, yes.fidosim

Section 2, clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Looks like someone needs to brush up on constitutional law

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#80 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

All of whom were confirmed after Congress resumed session, yes? What are you getting at?

Oleg_Huzwog

Actually no. The justice was never confirmed. Same thing with ambassadors. They have to have congressional approval. But presidents left and right have been appointing them during recess sessions w/o Congressional approval. And it never came up to a vote.

Uh, no...

  • Warren - confirmed by Senate Mar 1, 1954
  • Harlan - confirmed by Senate Mar 16, 1955
  • Brennan - confirmed by Senate Mar 19, 1957
  • Whittaker - confirmed by Senate Mar 19, 1957
  • Stewart - confirmed by Senate May 5, 1959

Link

Anyhoo, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

You said that he didnt get congressional approval for the military strike. Well, presidents dont get congressional approval for ambassadors (i could have sworn for a supreme court justice, but grr) and appoint them to their positions w/o it. Why dont they get impeached?

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm wrong, the president has the power for recess appointments.

Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#81 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

I loath Obama but this is absurd.

BluRayHiDef

Why do you loath Obama?

Unfortunately, people are so used to getting lied to by their politicians that they now expect it.

Not just Obama, but just about every president deserves to get impeached. You don't become the president of the United States by being a good, honest person.

Avatar image for AugustusGraham
AugustusGraham

343

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82 AugustusGraham
Member since 2011 • 343 Posts

Jeez, a lot of this is PAINFUL to read. Just goes to show why arguing politics is futile because people obviously know little to nothing about law, government, policy, governmental action and foreign policy. There is NO reason right now to impeach Obama. Also, he is by no means a bad president. People just like to be butthurt I suppose.

Avatar image for superfive9
superfive9

180

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 superfive9
Member since 2010 • 180 Posts

I'm from the UK and obama remains one of the US's only redeeming factor

Zaibach

Despite giving Russia nuclear secrets of the UK.

But that's a different topic, I don't think Obama should be impeached but I do think there's a porblem of how he took action on Libya

Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#84 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="broken_bass_bin"]

This decision was made by the United Nations Security Council. Not the United States.

superfive9

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

Avatar image for kris9031998
kris9031998

7554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#85 kris9031998
Member since 2008 • 7554 Posts
Isnt it true that for 90 days the president is allowed to use the military without the consent of congress?
Avatar image for rcafan
rcafan

2025

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 rcafan
Member since 2010 • 2025 Posts

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

psychobrew

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

this is not a war though.
Avatar image for deactivated-5fc147aeeb0aa
deactivated-5fc147aeeb0aa

8315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#87 deactivated-5fc147aeeb0aa
Member since 2009 • 8315 Posts

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

psychobrew

There is so much fail in this post.

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#88 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
Section 2, clause 2DroidPhysX
My mistake, I was thinking of article III.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Yes, but people like to play party politics here and look for anyway to rip Obama. I'm not even going to vote for Obama in 2012 and even I agree with him.

psychobrew

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

That's what some people who voted for him were hoping he would do due to his opposition to the Iraq war, but he's made it pretty clear throughout his political career that he is not anti-war as a matter of general principle.

And Obama didn't start this war - Qaddafi did.

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#90 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'd prefer to hear confirmation from the TC.

SaintLeonidas

Why wait? That's the section he's referring to. "Congress shall have power blah blah long list blah blah to declare war."

And then the counter for this situation is found in Article 6: "blah blah and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land blah blah." Treaty here being the UN Charter.

I believe he wanted to see if the TC even knew the section he was criticizing Obama for going against.

Pretty much this. I've found that it can sometimes be a mistake to assume that I understand what a person is talking about, and as such I prefer to make sure I know what a person's actual assertion is before replying.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#91 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23046 Posts
Isn't Bush guilty of the same thing with the Iraq war? That's what Kucinich seemed to indicate in his impeachment documents against Bush.

Regardless, I'd like to see the rule enforced despite recent historical precedent. I'm not comfortable with the decision to go to war resting with one man.
Avatar image for Oleg_Huzwog
Oleg_Huzwog

21885

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 Oleg_Huzwog
Member since 2007 • 21885 Posts

You said that he didnt get congressional approval for the military strike.

DroidPhysX

I also said why he didn't need congressional approval. Refer to Article 6.

EDIT: flogging dead horse portion removed. Didn't see your edit.

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
DroidPhysX

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#93 DroidPhysX
Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

You said that he didnt get congressional approval for the military strike. Well, presidents dont get congressional approval for ambassadors (i could have sworn for a supreme court justice, but grr) and appoint them to their positions w/o it. Why dont they get impeached?

Oleg_Huzwog

I also said why he didn't need congressional approval. Refer to Article 6.

(and yeah, the Senate does confirm ambassadors)

I admited i was wrong on the previous post.:)

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23046 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

That's what some people who voted for him were hoping he would do due to his opposition to the Iraq war, but he's made it pretty clear throughout his political career that he is not anti-war as a matter of general principle.

And Obama didn't start this war - Qaddafi did.

You seem like a good person to pose this question to as you seem to be in favor of the Libya actions and you also seem to follow politics/foreign affairs rather closely.

Why are we interfering here and not Bahrain or Yemen? Aren't they embroiled in similar situations?
Avatar image for sgotskillz
sgotskillz

287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 sgotskillz
Member since 2010 • 287 Posts

Well he did for the right reasons. Libya is attacking civilian targets, not military targets. The UN security council, which is headed by the United States warned them to stop. They didnt. So the council took military action like they said they would. Its not only the US who is taking military action against the Libyan aggressions. So please, stop pointing your finger at the US only...

MarineXXII

"The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia's military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space -- and the pictures tell a different story. According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 22 Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi -- the country's largest city -- and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground. At this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never occurred. The same sources in Russia's military establishment say they are also monitoring the situation around Libya's oil pumping facilities."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TncgsS0FDWg


So why don't the western countries do anything against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down. Why not intervene? Because their personal interests aren't met however Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels.


Symbolically, the 19th of March was known to the Romans as Quinquatria. It marked the beginning of the war season where celebrations and sacrifices were made.

It was sacred to both Mars, the god of War, and was the birthday of the goddess Minerva.

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...



On March 20, 2003, President Bush launched the bombing of Baghdad at 5:50 Baghdad time. This lasted until March 21st. It was called "shock and awe" by the mainstream media. But, according to the mystery religion this date is known as the Eve of Ostara, more commonly known as the Spring or Vernal Equinox. Occultists worship the Goddess of the Earth, Gaea, on this day. The druids knew this date as the Spring Fertility Rites,the Day of Feast. The war was promptly ended on May 1, 2003 (day of "Mission Accomplished"). This date is known on the druidic calendar as Beltane,or Walpurgis Night. It was named after St. Walburga who is the pagan goddess of fertility. From March 20th to May 1st, the pagan ritual is to give blood to Earth and renew life to the goddess of fertility. What better time for them to declare a bloody war on the days of a ritual sacrifice and end it exactly when the pagan ritual ends. High ranking Freemasons practice occult ritual practices

Masonic handshakes -


Obama & Gaddafi


Sarkozy & Gaddafi


Blair & Gaddafi




Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#96 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

rcafan

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

this is not a war though.

You're right. Niether was Afghanistan or Iraq, but you know what I mean.

Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#97 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

I agree with his choice to take action too, I may lean right but I'll be fair, Obama did the right thing, I just think he should've gotten approval from congress

-Sun_Tzu-

I thought he was supposed to end the wars, not start new ones.

That's what some people who voted for him were hoping he would do due to his opposition to the Iraq war, but he's made it pretty clear throughout his political career that he is not anti-war as a matter of general principle.

And Obama didn't start this war - Qaddafi did.

Like Saddam started the war in Iraq?

Avatar image for fidosim
fidosim

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#98 fidosim
Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts
Isn't Bush guilty of the same thing with the Iraq war? That's what Kucinich seemed to indicate in his impeachment documents against Bush.

Regardless, I'd like to see the rule enforced despite recent historical precedent. I'm not comfortable with the decision to go to war resting with one man.mattbbpl
The Iraq War was authorized by congress though, hence the controversy.
Avatar image for Theokhoth
Theokhoth

36799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 Theokhoth
Member since 2008 • 36799 Posts
:lol::lol::lol::lol: He hasn't done that. :lol::lol::lol: