"The Answer Is Impeachment" ... "There's No Running Away From That."

1246

Comments

  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    the primary basis for impeachment is that this president and his administration purposefully lied to congress and the american public in order to engage the country in a war with a sovereign country ...

    I am not trying to defend anyone here, but if he lied and they accepted it (congress I mean) without checking the facts themselves, are they not also responsible?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    my2hands wrote:
    so this writer's opinion is that the Afghanistan War is "illegal" so that makes it illegal?
    did you even read it?
    how about in your own words why the invasion was illegal? or maybe expand on "sovereign entity that we invaded illegally"
    the article expands what I meant by it, I don't need to repeat anything.
    They planned, coordinated, and launched an attack on this country from their base of operations in Afghanistan, all while being protected and harbored by the government of Afghanistan.
    The government of Afghanistan was not provided with any proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 like they asked from the U.S. The United States told Afghanistan "give us Bin Laden or you'll get bombed." Not to mention the fact that Osama bin Laden is not even on the FBI wanted list...
    If you kill 3,000 people and i hide you out at my house, i would expect to get my door kicked in...
    terrible analogy.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    _outlaw wrote:
    Not to mention the fact that Osama bin Laden is not even on the FBI wanted list...
    Hey, you're right. They're not looking for Osama bin Laden, they're looking for the totally different Usama Bin Laden. Man, that guy must be really bad if he knocked Osama off the list.

    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm
    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    RainDog wrote:
    Hey, you're right. They're not looking for Osama bin Laden, they're looking for the totally different Usama Bin Laden. Man, that guy must be really bad if he knocked Osama off the list.

    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm
    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm
    "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

    where's the mention of 9/11?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    _outlaw wrote:
    "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

    where's the mention of 9/11?
    But who cares? Contrary to your post, he is on the list.

    Besides, why wouldn't Afghanistan surrender him on the grounds that he's responsible for the deaths of the 200 people actually mentioned?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    RainDog wrote:
    But who cares? Contrary to your post, he is on the list.

    Besides, why wouldn't Afghanistan surrender him on the grounds that he's responsible for the deaths of the 200 people actually mentioned?
    On my post, I meant wanted for 9/11, not in general.

    1. Afghanistan asked for proof.
    2. It infringes on Afghanistan's sovereign right to invade them for someone living there.
    3. Since when was the U.S. the world police? why should Afghanistan have to turn him over to the U.S.?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    _outlaw wrote:
    On my post, I meant wanted for 9/11, not in general.

    1. Afghanistan asked for proof.
    2. It infringes on Afghanistan's sovereign right to invade them for someone living there.
    3. Since when was the U.S. the world police? why should Afghanistan have to turn him over to the U.S.?
    1. Osama's organization taking responsibility was proof enough.
    2 & 3 . It has nothing to do with being the world police, and calling a nation sovereign doesn't remove that nation from the possibility of war with other nations. Plain and simple, Osama's organization attacked us, that organization was based in and working with the Taliban, we responded.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    I am not trying to defend anyone here, but if he lied and they accepted it (congress I mean) without checking the facts themselves, are they not also responsible?

    no doubt congress is partly responsible for this clusterfuck ... but the buck starts at the oval office ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    RainDog wrote:
    But who cares? Contrary to your post, he is on the list.

    Besides, why wouldn't Afghanistan surrender him on the grounds that he's responsible for the deaths of the 200 people actually mentioned?

    for the same reason why the US won't release terrorists who have "acted" on behalf of US interests ...
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    RainDog wrote:
    1. Osama's organization taking responsibility was proof enough.
    2 & 3 . It has nothing to do with being the world police, and calling a nation sovereign doesn't remove that nation from the possibility of war with other nations. Plain and simple, Osama's organization attacked us, that organization was based in and working with the Taliban, we responded.
    uhh... being sovereign and thinking you're a world police does make a difference, so that post that you consider a response is just you moving away from the bigger picture to suit whatever you want to prove (I assume it's that the war on Afghanistan was legal?)...

    how about you answer this: if the U.S. wanted a terrorist like Bin Laden, and he was in China, would they go to war with China?

    Oh, and your "working WITH the Taliban" comment is pretty ridiculous. there's no proof of that either.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    polaris wrote:
    for the same reason why the US won't release terrorists who have "acted" on behalf of US interests ...
    Fair enough. I think we should be more responsive to the world community in that regard.

    Still, there's no doubt that those who want the extradition of "U.S. terrorists" would come and get them if they could.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    polaris wrote:
    for the same reason why the US won't release terrorists who have "acted" on behalf of US interests ...
    excellent point...
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    _outlaw wrote:
    uhh... being sovereign and thinking you're a world police does make a difference, so that post that you consider a response is just you moving away from the bigger picture to suit whatever you want to prove (I assume it's that the war on Afghanistan was legal?)...
    You can argue that the war with Afghanistan was right or wrong - but it was legal.
    _outlaw wrote:
    how about you answer this: if the U.S. wanted a terrorist like Bin Laden, and he was in China, would they go to war with China?
    "What if" questions like this cannot be answered concretely. In my opinion, it could go either way.
    _outlaw wrote:
    Oh, and your "working WITH the Taliban" comment is pretty ridiculous. there's no proof of that either.
    The Taliban might not have been directly involved in 9-11, but bin Laden had a long working relationship with the them. There's plenty of proof of that.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    RainDog wrote:
    Fair enough. I think we should be more responsive to the world community in that regard.

    Still, there's no doubt that those who want the extradition of "U.S. terrorists" would come and get them if they could.

    absolutely - but that isn't gonna happen ...
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    RainDog wrote:
    You can argue that the war with Afghanistan was right or wrong - but it was legal.

    but legal under what body? ... legal in an american court of law which afghanis do not subscribe to?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    RainDog wrote:
    You can argue that the war with Afghanistan was right or wrong - but it was legal.
    No, it wasn't.
    The Taliban might not have been directly involved in 9-11, but bin Laden had a long working relationship with the them. There's plenty of proof of that.
    No proof that anything they did was illegal.

    Sorry, but the war was not legal. The military intentionally bombed many civilian infrastructure, resulting in plenty of deaths... no, it's not "collateral damage" either.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    no doubt congress is partly responsible for this clusterfuck ... but the buck starts at the oval office ...


    That may be but I think with the whole system of checks and balances in this case one branch of government can't really do anything without the others approval. And it would seem pretty hypocritical for congress to impeach the president for something that they were totally a part of.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Kel Varnsen wrote:
    That may be but I think with the whole system of checks and balances in this case one branch of government can't really do anything without the others approval. And it would seem pretty hypocritical for congress to impeach the president for something that they were totally a part of.

    uhhh ... i'm not sure if you get the reason for impeachment - it is for lying to congress ... and although i'm not exactly sure about this - congress did NOT actually declare war on Iraq which is what is supposed to happen according to law in the US however, there was some semantics involved with a resolution passed that allowed bush to take the country to war unilaterally from the UN ...

    but in any case - at the end of the day ... it boils down to whether you think lying to congress and the american public is an impeachable offense or not ...
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    polaris wrote:
    but legal under what body? ... legal in an american court of law which afghanis do not subscribe to?
    Yeah, pretty much. We also had international support to back us up. Besides, most nations didn't recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan anyway.

    The truth is, though, questions of legality in regards to warfare are grey at best.
  • Kel Varnsen
    Kel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    polaris wrote:
    uhhh ... i'm not sure if you get the reason for impeachment - it is for lying to congress ... and although i'm not exactly sure about this - congress did NOT actually declare war on Iraq which is what is supposed to happen according to law in the US however, there was some semantics involved with a resolution passed that allowed bush to take the country to war unilaterally from the UN ...

    but in any case - at the end of the day ... it boils down to whether you think lying to congress and the american public is an impeachable offense or not ...

    I think lying to congress is an impeachable offense, but I don't like the idea of the people who would handle this impeachment are the same people who 1) approved the invasion and its funding in the first place and 2) in the least didn't practice due diligence by double checking his claims to see if he was lying or not. To me ignorance and a "we didn't know" isn't really a good excuse since to me it should be their job to find out. It would be like if a mob boss was arrested and at his trial, the 12 people on the jury are all the guys who work for him.

Categories