bombing libya.. impeachable offense?

DPrival78

we learned in social studies that only congress can declare war, as per the constitution. obama went on his own, with no debate and with no congressional authorization, and ordered the attack on libya.

is this an impeachable offense?

(not that i would ever expect it to happen.. just curious about what people think)

Jason P

And I learned by watching Bill Clinton that being impeached really doesn't mean a whole lot.

sparky_fry

DPrival78 wrote:

we learned in social studies that only congress can declare war, as per the constitution. obama went on his own, with no debate and with no congressional authorization, and ordered the attack on libya.

is this an impeachable offense?

(not that i would ever expect it to happen.. just curious about what people think)

He never declared war its just an enforcement of a no fly zone, and its a UN voted mission, backed by the Arab league. Also the U.S weren't the first nation to fire, as that was the French. You make it seem as its only the U.S who is participating when its a collation of forces carrying out the U.N mission.

tinkerbell

sparky_fry wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

we learned in social studies that only congress can declare war, as per the constitution. obama went on his own, with no debate and with no congressional authorization, and ordered the attack on libya.

is this an impeachable offense?

(not that i would ever expect it to happen.. just curious about what people think)

He never declared war its just an enforcement of a no fly zone, and its a UN voted mission, backed by the Arab league. Also the U.S weren't the first nation to fire, as that was the French. You make it seem as its only the U.S who is participating when its a collation of forces carrying out the U.N mission.

Exactly. This is not an American run strike, it is the international world helping civilians to defend themselves against a tyrant.

markin ball

Yes it is.

Newch91

sparky_fry wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

we learned in social studies that only congress can declare war, as per the constitution. obama went on his own, with no debate and with no congressional authorization, and ordered the attack on libya.

is this an impeachable offense?

(not that i would ever expect it to happen.. just curious about what people think)

He never declared war its just an enforcement of a no fly zone, and its a UN voted mission, backed by the Arab league. Also the U.S weren't the first nation to fire, as that was the French. You make it seem as its only the U.S who is participating when its a collation of forces carrying out the U.N mission.

This.

The last time we declared war on a country was in 1942.

tinkerbell

markin ball wrote:

Yes it is.

Shall we all sit idle and watch another dictator slaughter his people? I think not. Bombing Libya is not the right way to term what is happening, Libya bombing it own people would be closer.

DPrival78

sparky_fry wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

we learned in social studies that only congress can declare war, as per the constitution. obama went on his own, with no debate and with no congressional authorization, and ordered the attack on libya.

is this an impeachable offense?

(not that i would ever expect it to happen.. just curious about what people think)

He never declared war its just an enforcement of a no fly zone, and its a UN voted mission, backed by the Arab league. Also the U.S weren't the first nation to fire, as that was the French. You make it seem as its only the U.S who is participating when its a collation of forces carrying out the U.N mission.

if lobbing 120 tomahawk cruise missiles on a country isn't an act of war, i don't know what is.

and since when does the president of the united states take orders from the UN?

i wonder if this had happened 2 years ago, would people look at it differently..

CH156378

markin ball wrote:

Yes it is.

maybe when dennis kucinich is done impeaching olive pits he will look into it for you.

DPrival78

tinkerbell wrote:

sparky_fry wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

we learned in social studies that only congress can declare war, as per the constitution. obama went on his own, with no debate and with no congressional authorization, and ordered the attack on libya.

is this an impeachable offense?

(not that i would ever expect it to happen.. just curious about what people think)

He never declared war its just an enforcement of a no fly zone, and its a UN voted mission, backed by the Arab league. Also the U.S weren't the first nation to fire, as that was the French. You make it seem as its only the U.S who is participating when its a collation of forces carrying out the U.N mission.

Exactly. This is not an American run strike, it is the international world helping civilians to defend themselves against a tyrant.

that sounds nice, but i don't think libya is the only country with a ruthless tyrant. i think the fact that they are sitting atop a whole lotta oil may have something to do with it.

sparky_fry

DPrival78 wrote:

sparky_fry wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

we learned in social studies that only congress can declare war, as per the constitution. obama went on his own, with no debate and with no congressional authorization, and ordered the attack on libya.

is this an impeachable offense?

(not that i would ever expect it to happen.. just curious about what people think)

He never declared war its just an enforcement of a no fly zone, and its a UN voted mission, backed by the Arab league. Also the U.S weren't the first nation to fire, as that was the French. You make it seem as its only the U.S who is participating when its a collation of forces carrying out the U.N mission.

if lobbing 120 tomahawk cruise missiles on a country isn't an act of war, i don't know what is.

and since when does the president of the united states take orders from the UN?

i wonder if this had happened 2 years ago, would people look at it differently..

The missiles were launched to destroy air defenses in Libya so that more innocent civillians didn't die. Its not like the missiles were launched randomly in the country. The U.S is a part of the U.N in case you didn't know, they're not taking orders from the U.N. The U.S along with other countries voted in favor of the no-fly zone. Could the U.S do this mission itself? Sure. But with a U.N supported mission the costs are distrubted amongst coutries and it is seen as a International coallition instead of another U.S attack on a eastern country.

tinkerbell

sparky_fry wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

He never declared war its just an enforcement of a no fly zone, and its a UN voted mission, backed by the Arab league. Also the U.S weren't the first nation to fire, as that was the French. You make it seem as its only the U.S who is participating when its a collation of forces carrying out the U.N mission.

if lobbing 120 tomahawk cruise missiles on a country isn't an act of war, i don't know what is.

and since when does the president of the united states take orders from the UN?

i wonder if this had happened 2 years ago, would people look at it differently..

The missiles were launched to destroy air defenses in Libya so that more innocent civillians didn't die. Its not like the missiles were launched randomly in the country. The U.S is a part of the U.N in case you didn't know, they're not taking orders from the U.N. The U.S along with other countries voted in favor of the no-fly zone. Could the U.S do this mission itself? Sure. But with a U.N supported mission the costs are distrubted amongst coutries and it is seen as a International coallition instead of another U.S attack on a eastern country.[/quote]

Exactly

tinkerbell

DPrival78 wrote:

tinkerbell wrote:

Exactly. This is not an American run strike, it is the international world helping civilians to defend themselves against a tyrant.

that sounds nice, but i don't think libya is the only country with a ruthless tyrant. i think the fact that they are sitting atop a whole lotta oil may have something to do with it.

So is that an excuse not to help?

davecfp

Blind leading the blind. It must be right because he's a Democrat. It would clearly be wrong if he were a Republican. Barack O..find yourself another country to be a part of.

DPrival78

tinkerbell wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

tinkerbell wrote:

Exactly. This is not an American run strike, it is the international world helping civilians to defend themselves against a tyrant.

that sounds nice, but i don't think libya is the only country with a ruthless tyrant. i think the fact that they are sitting atop a whole lotta oil may have something to do with it.

So is that an excuse not to help?

it likely has nothing to do with it. if we're doing it to help people, why aren't we bombing half of africa?

and whether it's a just cause or not, obama still had no authority to do it. do we really need to be involved in yet another war? afganistan, iraq, pakistan, libya.. where does it end?

CH156378

davecfp wrote:

Blind leading the blind. It must be right because he's a Democrat. It would clearly be wrong if he were a Republican. Barack O..find yourself another country to be a part of.

i remember my second post.

gimmesometruth27

davecfp wrote:

Blind leading the blind. It must be right because he's a Democrat. It would clearly be wrong if he were a Republican. Barack O..find yourself another country to be a part of.

when was the last time impeachment was on the table for a sitting republican president?

oh wait, that only happens to democratic presidents with republican controlled congresses... :roll:

gimmesometruth27

if obama is breaking the law then impeach him. it is that simple. come on dennis k, man up and enforce that law..

BinauralJam

I dont want to defend Obama, but since he was out of the country and the pressure from the rest of Nato was on, he made the desicion, if he was in D.C. at the time, this would have been put through Congress.

tinkerbell

DPrival78 wrote:

tinkerbell wrote:

DPrival78 wrote:

that sounds nice, but i don't think libya is the only country with a ruthless tyrant. i think the fact that they are sitting atop a whole lotta oil may have something to do with it.

So is that an excuse not to help?

it likely has nothing to do with it. if we're doing it to help people, why aren't we bombing half of africa?

and whether it's a just cause or not, obama still had no authority to do it. do we really need to be involved in yet another war? afganistan, iraq, pakistan, libya.. where does it end?

Obama did have authority. The UN and world leaders met about this with the Arab league and it was agreed that if the no fly zone was to be breached then the UN (with the majority of help coming from the US & UK) would step in. Do we all need a lesson in what the UN and NATO are there for? If other countries had the capability to help then they may have, alas no other country in the world has spent trillions of dollars in boosting their military. If I lived in Libya (or Zimbabwe or Ethopia or Iran) I would hope that the rest of the world would help my people if we needed it.

CH156378

BinauralJam wrote:

I dont want to defend Obama, but since he was out of the country and the pressure from the rest of Nato was on, he made the desicion, if he was in D.C. at the time, this would have been put through Congress.

not to mention the pressure of a slaughter on his hands. the world community called for action on this loud and clear.