If Obama Strikes should he be impeached?

[danielost]

No, I didn't lose it first, I said it was an empty threat. Second I wouldn't use a two stage missile I would use a single stage missile. You can destroy almost any major city from just off coast. And if the military would have sunk an oil tanker. What would the liberal press headlines have been. Bush destroys oil tanker and the environment. You chose the coast line.

[Frank Merton]

No, I didn't lose it first, I said it was an empty threat. Second I wouldn't use a two stage missile I would use a single stage missile. You can destroy almost any major city from just off coast. And if the military would have sunk an oil tanker. What would the liberal press headlines have been. Bush destroys oil tanker and the environment. You chose the coast line.

I'm a little puzzled: was this a real threat that was somehow aborted or is it just your hypothesis? To destroy a city implies that Saddam had nuclear weapons -- I don't doubt that he had a program but he had to interrupt it and destroy the evidence, so I can't see that he actually had any weapons -- and no assurance that it would work. Finally, I don't see why he would want to do such a thing, considering the consequences that would ensue (although of course what he did do brought about such consequences anyway, but he wouldn't have know that then).

[Simbi Laveau]

He should be impeached now.he's done far more illegal things already

[Harte]

When I say "Somehow when it's a kangaroo court asking a man about tawdry personal adventures that are none of their business, it's "illegal" and of course it's being partisan." that means it's a matter between a man, his wife, his family, and God. It's none of your business, it's none of my business, and if there ever comes a day when a woman becomes President, there is no difference at all, and it's still none of your business.

So we simply sweep the victim under the rug?

You put a lot of words in my mouth in that last post that I've never said.

To be clear:

There would be no grounds for impeachment if Obama were to procede with a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

That's my point.

Your point seems to be wandering to an imaginary kangaroo court that should never have taken a case prosecuted by a woman with a claim of sexual assault, harassment, etc.

You speculate on what I think about the Constitution. No reader here has to speculate about what you think when it comes to sexual assault.

Harte

[danielost]

I'm a little puzzled: was this a real threat that was somehow aborted or is it just your hypothesis? To destroy a city implies that Saddam had nuclear weapons -- I don't doubt that he had a program but he had to interrupt it and destroy the evidence, so I can't see that he actually had any weapons -- and no assurance that it would work. Finally, I don't see why he would want to do such a thing, considering the consequences that would ensue (although of course what he did do brought about such consequences anyway, but he wouldn't have know that then).

Really, you don't think a few gas missiles could destore a city.

[Yamato]

So we simply sweep the victim under the rug?

You put a lot of words in my mouth in that last post that I've never said.

To be clear:

There would be no grounds for impeachment if Obama were to procede with a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

That's my point.

Your point seems to be wandering to an imaginary kangaroo court that should never have taken a case prosecuted by a woman with a claim of sexual assault, harassment, etc.

You speculate on what I think about the Constitution. No reader here has to speculate about what you think when it comes to sexual assault.

Harte

I read what you say about the Constitution and it's not obsolete, and so long as people don't listen to moronic political comments stating it is, we'll stand a better chance of defending it thanks.

No idea what you're talking about re: sexual assault. More republican fantasy....Neil Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O' Reilly maybe?

Your point, if that's what it is, is wrong. The President has no authority to declare war. Shooting missiles at another country who didn't attack us first is a declaration of war of the worst kind. Stop acting like the most sacred clearest language in our rule of law is just a formality of Congress in the paperwork. If I had to follow your "point" then words don't make any sense and neither does the law. The law is far from dead but enabling politics like yours whose whole point is to render it obsolete should be.

[Yamato]

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It didn't authorize the President to call them into service, and it didn't leave it to our imagination how they're called into actual service either. it says clearly that this power begins WHEN CALLED. If we're going to pretend this unrestrained executive power is there and constitutional when the Constitution says nothing about it, then that is as unconstitutional as one can get, claiming unwritten power exists for any branch or any position of power.

If the WPR is NOT unconstitutional then Obama should be impeached for breaking that law already. What is this wimpish republitard surrender in this country that a President can be impeached for lying about sex but not war crimes?

[spacecowboy342]

Sheesh! The world is so much better off without that corrupt, vile, ambitious and ruthless man controlling a country. If he hadn't been attacked he would have attacked -- he already proved that twice -- and with much more fearsome weapons.

No the States didn't gain much from its sacrifice -- the world did.

It wan't the world's soldiers and marines dying

[spacecowboy342]

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

It didn't authorize the President to call them into service, and it didn't leave it to our imagination how they're called into actual service either. it says clearly that this power begins WHEN CALLED. If we're going to pretend this unrestrained executive power is there and constitutional when the Constitution says nothing about it, then that is as unconstitutional as one can get, claiming unwritten power exists for any branch or any position of power.

If the WPR is NOT unconstitutional then Obama should be impeached for breaking that law already. What is this wimpish republitard surrender in this country that a President can be impeached for lying about sex but not war crimes?

What war crimes? If it was legal for Nixon to invade Cambodia what illegality has Obama done?

[Yamato]

What war crimes? If it was legal for Nixon to invade Cambodia what illegality has Obama done?

Breaking the law, known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 over Libya. The WPR wasn't even passed yet before we found out about Tricky Dick's secret bombing campaigns, otherwise I don't know why you're bringing that up. If it was legal? Why do I have to accept that supposition to tell you what Obama's done? Dealing with some of the statist appeasers who think the President can just go do whatever because there's no laws to restrain him, you'd be the same voices blathering about slavery in 1860; "look at all those officials we didn't punish in the past for slavery! Guess we can't do anything about it now! Sorry negro sympathizers, we're locked in on this slavery thing!"

As if we can't correct anyone today for something similar some dead guy did over 40 years ago. What a perfect excuse for more political constipation and being an obedient worker who understands that the government isn't to be questioned. Liberals choking on their stale bread that the Constitution is some kind of religious document that can't be changed. It can be changed and based on the government our tax dollars have bought for us lately, it must be changed.

Seems like we're p***ing away whatever laws we want to at this rate. Habeas Corpus, the UN Charter, Geneva Convention, Hague Convention, the US Constitution, the War Powers Resolution, the UN Security Council vote, we can go on and on. Who needs any of that tired old crap huh? Our next president might be republican for chrissakes. We need to watch not to hold Obama to account or we won't be able to have the same dirty fun once it's our turn again!

Edited September 14, 2013 by Yamato

[Space Commander Travis]

How is an oil tanker a "good missile platform"?

Oil tanker's are huge(thus easily spotted), and their top "skin" could not even physically handle a serious missile launch without major re-enforcement and modification.

I just don't think any country would attempt such an absurd(easily spotted) and costly idea.

in the world of Cubby Broccoli, perhaps.

[Space Commander Travis]

I'm a little puzzled: was this a real threat that was somehow aborted or is it just your hypothesis? To destroy a city implies that Saddam had nuclear weapons -- I don't doubt that he had a program but he had to interrupt it and destroy the evidence, so I can't see that he actually had any weapons -- and no assurance that it would work. Finally, I don't see why he would want to do such a thing, considering the consequences that would ensue (although of course what he did do brought about such consequences anyway, but he wouldn't have know that then).

he was Mad and Evil of course. Standard excuse for anything that the West might want to claim its chosen Enemies would try to do, however improbable.

[Space Commander Travis]

It wan't the world's soldiers and marines dying

in Iraq you mean? Well, it wasn't just the US, as anyone in Britain would be able to tell you.

[Yamato]

An oil tanker is a good missile platform when it's a missile platform masquerading as an oil tanker.

[Yamato]

he was Mad and Evil of course. Standard excuse for anything that the West might want to claim its chosen Enemies would try to do, however improbable.

The US President now has to protect us from what "could" happen. If that doesn't excuse whatever, I don't know what does.

[pallidin]

No, I didn't lose it first, I said it was an empty threat. Second I wouldn't use a two stage missile I would use a single stage missile. You can destroy almost any major city from just off coast. And if the military would have sunk an oil tanker. What would the liberal press headlines have been. Bush destroys oil tanker and the environment. You chose the coast line.

Hahhahaaa! I get your post(I think) but I must add...

If a strategic missile firing platformed oil tanker was actually also full of oil, that would be doubly stupid. BIG FIREBALL potential !

Edited September 14, 2013 by pallidin

[questionmark]

Hahhahaaa! I get your post(I think) but I must add...

If a strategic missile firing oil tanker was actually also full of oil, that would be doubly stupid. BIG BOOM!

Even if it has only the residues of the oil gases I would not like to see an intensive fire on one of them.

[Frank Merton]

in Iraq you mean? Well, it wasn't just the US, as anyone in Britain would be able to tell you.

Optimally the whole world would deal with such evil; it appears that fewer and fewer nations are willing to take the yoke, including much of the American population. Such selfish short-sightedness will get the reward it deserves in the form of much worse wars later on.

[danielost]

Even if it has only the residues of the oil gases I would not like to see an intensive fire on one of them.

Again niether of you are seeing the whole picture. Remember sadom set fire to quatis oil fields. Why would he care about a fire ball of the coast of the united states. Also remember most of his people believe if they die in war they go to heaven.

[danielost]

They tried appeasement with germany and hitler. So, why hasn't obama learned from history.

Obama should be impeached for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You chooe the enemy he hasn't given aid and comfort to. Republicans don't count.

[Harte]

I read what you say about the Constitution and it's not obsolete, and so long as people don't listen to moronic political comments stating it is, we'll stand a better chance of defending it thanks.

Please quote my post stating that the Constitution is obsolete.

I believe I merely said that declarations of war are obsolete.

In fact, I seem to remember reading that the Founders believed this as well.

Do you recall that it was Thomas Jefferson that ordered military action without a declaration of war in the First Barbary War?

Harte

[lightly]

hm , WW 2 was the last time the U.S. declared war ? ... so , i guess it has fallen out of fashion? Everything since has been "police actions/Korea" and "operations" and what not? So, Harte is right.. for once. ;

[danielost]

Everything since ww2 has been directed by the un. That is up till 9-11. Bush got congressional approvile for his two wars. Obama has gone around congress once andd noww seems. To b e in bed with the enemy.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Everything since ww2 has been directed by the un. That is up till 9-11. Bush got congressional approvile for his two wars. Obama has gone around congress once andd noww seems. To b e in bed with the enemy.

?

[Mr.United_Nations]

Again niether of you are seeing the whole picture. Remember sadom set fire to quatis oil fields. Why would he care about a fire ball of the coast of the united states. Also remember most of his people believe if they die in war they go to heaven.

when did they say that?