Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

If Obama Strikes should he be impeached?

400 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

CyberKen

It isn't the Executive's constitutional role to declare war. Please don't talk about the Constitution; it's embarrassing.

Obama ran to the U.S. Congress for approval because:

The United Nations told Obama to get lost

Great Britain voted and said : No

France said : Yes but will only contribute Coffee & Donuts

The fall back plan is to hope congress gives Obama a way out. Vote : No

Then Obama can blame congress.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

yes, Bush only committed the military to action for a short time, didn't he.....

:innocent:

In your fantasy.

Bush commited nothing whatsoever militarily until he had the approval of Congress.

Harte

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

In your fantasy.

Bush commited nothing whatsoever militarily until he had the approval of Congress.

Harte

Which is what I am trying to tell these blokes for almost 8 years now, Bush violated no law in doing what he did. Doing something reproachable is not always against the law, and doing something immoral is mostly not against the law (except in Louisiana and Mississippi).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

It isn't the Executive's constitutional role to declare war. Please don't talk about the Constitution; it's embarrassing.

What's embarassing is your inability to read with anything resembling reasonable comprehension. For example, who stated there would be any formal declaration of war?

In the Marine's Hymn, do the words "...to the shores of Tripoli" mean anything to you?

Where is the formal declaration of war with Lebanon?

The Marines went in and kicked ass, without any formal declaration of war. Also, Jefferson had already committed short term military responses prior to seeking approval from Congress.

Sound familiar?

I hope so.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

.

Extensive bombing of the Army of a Sovereign nation*.....is a declaration of war in my book..

Kerry today in London, in a stern raised voice....'We're not going to war'

Yeah right, John Kerry....

*except now he is trying to sell it as 'an unbelievably small strike'

I wish they would make up their minds.... :rolleyes:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/kerry-small-strike-syria/2013/09/09/id/524493

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

In your fantasy.

Bush commited nothing whatsoever militarily until he had the approval of Congress.

Harte

This is getting somewhat off the subject, but are you really holding up that moron's adventure as an example? That's hardly the most encouraging precedent, is it.

Anyway, if it proves anything it proves how stupid politicians are, or certainly, were then, in being swayed by all the lies that Bush and his cronies spewed. Really the fantasy is in the minds of anyone who still tries to believe that Bush had any kind of case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

What's embarassing is your inability to read with anything resembling reasonable comprehension. For example, who stated there would be any formal declaration of war?

In the Marine's Hymn, do the words "...to the shores of Tripoli" mean anything to you?

Where is the formal declaration of war with Lebanon?

The Marines went in and kicked ass, without any formal declaration of war. Also, Jefferson had already committed short term military responses prior to seeking approval from Congress.

Sound familiar?

I hope so.

Harte

I think that refers to the anti-piracy campaign of 1805. As such, it's hardly a very relevant example nowadays, is it. the word of global geopolitics has moved on a bit since then.

Interesting how aggressive the responses are getting from the more gung-ho elements.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I think that refers to the anti-piracy campaign of 1805. As such, it's hardly a very relevant example nowadays, is it. the word of global geopolitics has moved on a bit since then.

Interesting how aggressive the responses are getting from the more gung-ho elements.

The relevance is that it was done without consulting Congress. The reasons are secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

What's embarassing is your inability to read with anything resembling reasonable comprehension. For example, who stated there would be any formal declaration of war?

In the Marine's Hymn, do the words "...to the shores of Tripoli" mean anything to you?

Where is the formal declaration of war with Lebanon?

The Marines went in and kicked ass, without any formal declaration of war. Also, Jefferson had already committed short term military responses prior to seeking approval from Congress.

Sound familiar?

I hope so.

Harte

Tripoly was a declared war, which ended just as the marines landed on the shore. We were at war with barbery pirates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

It isn't the Executive's constitutional role to declare war. Please don't talk about the Constitution; it's embarrassing.

I'm not even an American and I know that that part of the Constitution is obsolete. You need to go back to school. War declaration is not what Obama has asked for anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

That those who wish to do something wrong can support their actions with legislation does not make their actions any less wrong. It only suggests the legislation was written specifically to allow wrong to be done by those who wrote it.

Playing the "it's legal" game only plays into the hands of those who write wrong laws.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Playing the "it's legal" game only plays into the hands of those who write wrong laws.

This is why there are so many lawyers in countries with "the rule of law." They are the ones who really like such a setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

The relevance is that it was done without consulting Congress. The reasons are secondary.

the world of politics and the way that government could be effectively run was rather different in 1805 than it is now, so it's hardly relevant as any kind of precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

The "hardly relevant" argument holds no weight. Especially when you people keep referring to a document drafted in the 1700's whenever you are trying to make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Tripoly was a declared war, which ended just as the marines landed on the shore. We were at war with barbery pirates.

The war not really, the sending of the warships and the first skirmishes, in fact there was a special act passed that reads: [the frigates] 'shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.'

Congress never even considered declaring war , they just authorized the prezz to 'capture and seize all merchant vessels of the Barbary states and "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.".

See Dawn like Thunder by Glenn Tucker.

That was probably the first undeclared war of the US of A.

Edited by questionmark
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

That was probably the first undeclared war of the US of A.

Interesting. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Interesting. Thanks.

Now, before you go jumping up and down, Daniel is partially right, the second Barbary war of 1815 (ten years later) actually was declared and not just authorized by Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

The "hardly relevant" argument holds no weight. Especially when you people keep referring to a document drafted in the 1700's whenever you are trying to make a point.

That is indeed what I've often said, that the whole basis of the American political system could do with rethinking, but that's probably wandering from the point once again.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

The "hardly relevant" argument holds no weight. Especially when you people keep referring to a document drafted in the 1700's whenever you are trying to make a point.

Now, that is a very surprising attitude for someone who claims to have been in the military....

When you join the military, you take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Did, you forget that or were they merely empty words?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

In your fantasy.

Bush commited nothing whatsoever militarily until he had the approval of Congress.

Harte

Saucy! We don't even have a written agreement with Pakistan over the drone strikes on Pakistan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Obama ran to the U.S. Congress for approval because:

The United Nations told Obama to get lost

Great Britain voted and said : No

France said : Yes but will only contribute Coffee & Donuts

The fall back plan is to hope congress gives Obama a way out. Vote : No

Then Obama can blame congress.

Good points, and he already tried dumping Syria off on "the world" to no-good effect. More than anyone else, I think We the People are what pushed him to go to Congress, and that's how it's supposed to work. In the end an executive might choose to get away with whatever and all that we let him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

What's embarassing is your inability to read with anything resembling reasonable comprehension. For example, who stated there would be any formal declaration of war?

In the Marine's Hymn, do the words "...to the shores of Tripoli" mean anything to you?

Where is the formal declaration of war with Lebanon?

The Marines went in and kicked ass, without any formal declaration of war. Also, Jefferson had already committed short term military responses prior to seeking approval from Congress.

Sound familiar?

I hope so.

Harte

What will solve your confusion is very simple: An attack is an act of war.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

What will solve your confusion is very simple: An attack is an act of war.

The question at debate is: Is it only impeachable when Obama attacks without Congress or should that apply to the framers too? (See first Barbary War).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

Well....how about this?

If a President commits a criminal act of war...is that an impeachable offense?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Well....how about this?

If a President commits a criminal act of war...is that an impeachable offense?

Yes, but a preemptive attack, according to American law, is not a criminal act of war. (It may be by some UN convention that the US has never ratified though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.