Its time to Impeach Obama.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]What facts? You complained about a list I provided, while providing nothing of your own. Danm_999

There was huge support for the invasion of Iraq, as there is for the no-fly zone in Libya. A previous poster said there is only support for the latter, which I said was incorrect, as AGAIN, there was support for both.

That being said, if you're considering your OPINION as FACT, then I guess that's all there is to say.

YellowOneKinobi

The UN's stance and "international support" are not the same thing.

YellowOneKinobi

If nobody is vetoing Libya, and the vote for Iraq is so dire the USA doesn't even bother to take it to the Security Council, one is more supported internatiionally than the other.

But I get the sense at this point your tactic is to just say "that's your opinion" to any argument.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] Just so I get this correct, you're opinion is better than mine, despite anything to substantiate it?

YellowOneKinobi

If you presented persuasive facts that the majority of the international community opposed action in Libya; to a greater extent than they did in Iraq, you're argument would be more persuasive.

That'd be hard though; the only countries that criticised the no fly zone in Libya I know of are part of the Arab League, and they also criticised the invasion of Iraq, making that point basically moot.

That being said, if you're considering your OPINION as FACT, then I guess that's all there is to say.

There was NOT Huge Support for the War in Iraq - not from the Permanent UN nations.

The US was forced to withdrawl the resolution before bringing it to a vote becuase it would have failed to pass. It never even made it to a vote.

Bush attacked Iraq without UN support because he could not prove that attacking Iraq was a measure of self-defense. In fact, he was so deperate to wage war, he tried to get in on a technicality based on Saddam's refusal to allow UN inspectors to look for WMDS, which never existed in the first place - still was not grounds for war. But Bush wanted to attack Iraq with almost a bloodlust.

Hell, Bush did everything except PLANT EVIDENCE to justify going to war in Iraq. (I would not put it past his administration to try it either...)

To look at this any other way shows pure bias against Obama based on political views and nothing rational or logical.

How many nations have dedicated troops/equipment to Libya to date?

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] How many nations have dedicated troops/equipment to Libya to date?

Danm_999

39 countries had troops physically on the ground in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] How many nations have dedicated troops/equipment to Libya to date?

YellowOneKinobi

39 countries had troops physically on the ground in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

Where does it say on that page 39 countries where involved in the invasion?

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] 16.

Danm_999

39 countries had troops physically on the ground in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

Where does it say on that page 39 countries where involved in the invasion?

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"] 16? France, England, United States, which other ones? To my knowledge, Spain, Qatar and Belgium have "supported" the operation, but have not physically been involved.

39 countries had troops physically on the ground in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

YellowOneKinobi

Where does it say on that page 39 countries where involved in the invasion?

From the same wiki article:

"The original list of coalition members provided by the White House ([7])included many nations that had no intention to participate in any actual fighting. Many of them do not even have an army, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. The government of one country, Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition was apparently unaware of any such membership. In fact, they promptly denied it."

LOL

Try again.

If Bush was not impeached it is ridiculous that Obama is impeached.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]If Bush was not impeached it is ridiculous that Obama is impeached.YellowOneKinobi

You might not like what they do, but neither deserves impeachment.

From the same wiki article:

"The original list of coalition members provided by the White House ([7)included many nations that had no intention to participate in any actual fighting. Many of them do not even have an army, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. The government of one country, Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition was apparently unaware of any such membership. In fact, they promptly denied it."

LOL

Try again.

Netherscourge

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

From the same wiki article:

"The original list of coalition members provided by the White House ([7)included many nations that had no intention to participate in any actual fighting. Many of them do not even have an army, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. The government of one country, Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition was apparently unaware of any such membership. In fact, they promptly denied it."

LOL

Try again.

YellowOneKinobi

We could do that, but we'd be pretending that's everybody who's willing to go, which was the case with Iraq, when it just isn't with Libya. The current forces have it covered. They don't need other nations.

Despite Albania's pledge to support.

Despite Australia's.

Despite Sweden's.

Despite the United Arab Emirates.

Despite Romania. And Bulgaria. And Croatia.

Despite the Netherlands.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

From the same wiki article:

"The original list of coalition members provided by the White House ([7)included many nations that had no intention to participate in any actual fighting. Many of them do not even have an army, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. The government of one country, Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition was apparently unaware of any such membership. In fact, they promptly denied it."

LOL

Try again.

Danm_999

We could do that, but we'd be pretending that's everybody who's willing to go, which was the case with Iraq, when it just isn't with Libya. The current forces have it covered. They don't need other nations.

Despite Albania's pledge to support.

Despite Australia's.

Despite Sweden's.

Despite the United Arab Emirates.

Despite Romania. And Bulgaria. And Croatia.

Despite the Netherlands.

So, in other words, it's not 16 countries. We had the "invasion" covered too, just as an FYI.

YellowOneKinobi

Also, how can you inflate the Iraq numbers to more than they were when obviously some nations involved already didn't have standing armies, or know they were on the list?

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

So, in other words, it's not 16 countries. We had the "invasion" covered too, just as an FYI.

Danm_999

Also, how can you inflate the Iraq numbers to more than they were when obviously some nations involved already didn't have standing armies, or know they were on the list?

It was someone else who disregarded nations that supported the Iraq operation IF they weren't physically involved.

You're debate, at the moment, isn't with me.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

So, in other words, it's not 16 countries. We had the "invasion" covered too, just as an FYI.

YellowOneKinobi

Also, how can you inflate the Iraq numbers to more than they were when obviously some nations involved already didn't have standing armies, or know they were on the list?

It was someone else who disregarded nations that supported the Iraq operation IF they weren't physically involved.

You're debate, at the moment, isn't with me.

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] It was 16 countries on the list you provided (which just excluded those countries I mentioned because you're list only counted active participants, not those who had forces ready but hadn't been called up). That sort of goes to show how horrible that source was, and how it doesn't show Libya was far more supported than Iraq.

Also, how can you inflate the Iraq numbers to more than they were when obviously some nations involved already didn't have standing armies, or know they were on the list?

Danm_999

It was someone else who disregarded nations that supported the Iraq operation IF they weren't physically involved.

You're debate, at the moment, isn't with me.

Fact is though Bush had congressional approval for both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can say what you want about the justification for the war, but the fact is if there is blame to go around, then it is congress which is to blame.

Obama does not have congressional approval for his private war in Libya. Congress did not vote to authorize any action in Libya. Obama is costing us billons and putting our troops in harms way, bogged down in another war that has nothing to do with the War against Terorism.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

It was someone else who disregarded nations that supported the Iraq operation IF they weren't physically involved.

You're debate, at the moment, isn't with me.

YellowOneKinobi

[QUOTE="YellowOneKinobi"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] You're the one who cited the list of nations which included those who didn't participate in Iraq, but wouldn't of those who didn't in Libya, so my debate is you with. Unless you want to repudiate your source.Danm_999

Fact is though Bush had congressional approval for both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can say what you want about the justification for the war, but the fact is if there is blame to go around, then it is congress which is to blame.

Obama does not have congressional approval for his private war in Libya. Congress did not vote to authorize any action in Libya. Obama is costing us billons and putting our troops in harms way, bogged down in another war that has nothing to do with the War against Terorism.

Tangmashi

Obama did not declare war in Lybia - he's upholding a UN resolution for a cease-fire and a no-fly zone, both of which Gaddafi violated.

Lately Americans, against Barack Obama, have been screaming, "Impeach Obama," because he used military armed forces without the concent or notification of Congress.

Actually taking military action and going to war are two different things.

It's time to get Americans updated on the Constitution since they like to through it around so much.

Have you ever heard of the WAR POWERS ACT (WPA)!

That's the Act that President Bush used to INVADE Iraq. The problem with that is, America is still in Iraq well beyond the time limit used for the WPA.

Research... it's only aclick away.

Congress has the right to declare war....durr

1. The President does not need congressional approval to use American troops to enforce a UN resolution.

2. The President ONLY needs congressional approval if American troops are to be committed to an all-out war, in which an invasion or occupation is required by US troops.

So far as we know, the only thing the United States did was fire Tomahawk missiles and launch a handful of fighter jet sortes into Lybia at military assets and Gaddafi's compound. There are no US ground troops in Lybia. So far as I understand it.

Unless Obama is planning on sending several hundred or several thousand US troops and military assets INTO Lybia, for a sustained campaign, he does not need any approval from congress.

Regean did the same thing in Lybia, as did Clinton in Serbia. Neither was impeached.

/thread

Canadian here and you all probaly dont want me intruding, but this arguemet is hilarious. Obama seems to be getting lots of hate because of problems he faces, but These actually had started during bush's term (Recession, ending war in Iraq, the war in afgahnistan, terror, U.S debt e.t.c). Secondly, they are acting on behalf of a UN resolution in these strikes, something he does not need to go to congress to do. This is not an all out war yet

so... ya...

1. The President does not need congressional approval to use American troops to enforce a UN resolution.

2. The President ONLY needs congressional approval if American troops are to be committed to an all-out war, in which an invasion or occupation is required by US troops.

So far as we know, the only thing the United States did was fire Tomahawk missiles and launch a handful of fighter jet sortes into Lybia at military assets and Gaddafi's compound. There are no US ground troops in Lybia. So far as I understand it.

Unless Obama is planning on sending several hundred or several thousand US troops and military assets INTO Lybia, for a sustained campaign, he does not need any approval from congress.

Regean did the same thing in Lybia, as did Clinton in Serbia. Neither was impeached.

/thread

Netherscourge

this

Lately Americans, against Barack Obama, have been screaming, "Impeach Obama," because he used military armed forces without the concent or notification of Congress.

Actually taking military action and going to war are two different things.

It's time to get Americans updated on the Constitution since they like to through it around so much.

Have you ever heard of the WAR POWERS ACT (WPA)!

That's the Act that President Bush used to INVADE Iraq. The problem with that is, America is still in Iraq well beyond the time limit used for the WPA.

Research... it's only aclick away.

lowkey254

Wrong.

The Iraq Resolution is what gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq.

The Iraq Resolution was passed by the House 297-133and then by the Senate 77-23.

The bill gave Bush broad authority to use military force against Iraq "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Obama has no such authority and the UN has no authority over the US in how we use our military.

1. The President does not need congressional approval to use American troops to enforce a UN resolution.

2. The President ONLY needs congressional approval if American troops are to be committed to an all-out war, in which an invasion or occupation is required by US troops.

So far as we know, the only thing the United States did was fire Tomahawk missiles and launch a handful of fighter jet sortes into Lybia at military assets and Gaddafi's compound. There are no US ground troops in Lybia. So far as I understand it.

Unless Obama is planning on sending several hundred or several thousand US troops and military assets INTO Lybia, for a sustained campaign, he does not need any approval from congress.

Regean did the same thing in Lybia, as did Clinton in Serbia. Neither was impeached.

/thread

Netherscourge

The president does not have to consult with congress for military action up to 90 days, after that time all action must cease or war must be declared by congress.

[QUOTE="lowkey254"]

Lately Americans, against Barack Obama, have been screaming, "Impeach Obama," because he used military armed forces without the concent or notification of Congress.

Actually taking military action and going to war are two different things.

It's time to get Americans updated on the Constitution since they like to through it around so much.

Have you ever heard of the WAR POWERS ACT (WPA)!

That's the Act that President Bush used to INVADE Iraq. The problem with that is, America is still in Iraq well beyond the time limit used for the WPA.

Research... it's only aclick away.

Tangmashi

Wrong.

The Iraq Resolution is what gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq.

The Iraq Resolution was passed by the House 297-133and then by the Senate 77-23.

The bill gave Bush broad authority to use military force against Iraq "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Obama has no such authority and the UN has no authority over the US in how we use our military.

Exactly - which is why Obama did NOT declare war on Lybia. He only used some military assets to enforce a UN resolution, which had no vetos or nay votes.

He didn't need congressional approval for the military action he took, because he did not committ US troops to war.

[QUOTE="lowkey254"]

Lately Americans, against Barack Obama, have been screaming, "Impeach Obama," because he used military armed forces without the concent or notification of Congress.

Actually taking military action and going to war are two different things.

It's time to get Americans updated on the Constitution since they like to through it around so much.

Have you ever heard of the WAR POWERS ACT (WPA)!

That's the Act that President Bush used to INVADE Iraq. The problem with that is, America is still in Iraq well beyond the time limit used for the WPA.

Research... it's only aclick away.

Tangmashi

Wrong.

The Iraq Resolution is what gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq.

The Iraq Resolution was passed by the House 297-133and then by the Senate 77-23.

The bill gave Bush broad authority to use military force against Iraq "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Obama has no such authority and the UN has no authority over the US in how we use our military.

Why? So we can elect another useless politician to the same position only to complain about him 2 years into his presidency?

No, **** that. Let Obama run his course.

I notice the thread starter abandoned his own topic long ago, so I'll write this off as a joke since he can't man up to his original "allegation"

Impeach? Seriously? I'm sorry, but that is completely absurd, especially since there's past precedent for the President authorizing military action without Congress. I smell a troll...

I think the OP is another individual who needs to actually read the constitution before whining about people violating it, ignorance based politics don't help anybody.

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

Once again? w/o using 24 hours and google tell us what all he has done please.

I don't smell a troll but something stinks.

[QUOTE="superfive9"]

'The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.'- Obama

In his own words

00-Riddick-00

I somehow doubt that you feel Ronald Reagan should have been impeached for "Operation Urgent Fury", even though there was no congressional authorization there either.

IMPORTANT NOTE: "operation urgent fury" is an excellent euphemism for going to the toilet.

I'm pretty sure he's acting with the UN.

And I heard that Canada, Britain, Italy, France, Spain, Denmark, and Belgium are enforcing the no-fly zone.

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]Eh? I'm studying American politics and i've reached the conclusion that most voters vote on the candidate rather than the party, which is the opposite of the UK where its very partisan in support. Odd. Pretty much the most important thing for a candidate to win is money, not party allegiance i thought.Ilovegames1992

Oh well that sucks then. Pretty much the same as over here. You either vote Tory or Labour depending on where you live. Sad really. Well thats a year of studying wasted thanks man. :D

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[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

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

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Why do you loath Obama?

SilentSoprano

It's actually spelled "loathe." Loath is an adjective.

everyone on GS should stop acting like they know what they're talking about.

No it's just time to vote him out of office.