15 Mar 03
Originally posted by legionnaireCould the same be said for Clinton in Kosovo as there was no declaration of war and no congressional approval? He may have had UN approval, but I don't think that is mentioned in the consititution. Kirk
There actually is an interesting case for impeachment is Bush decides to go to war. The constitution states that the president may issue a directive to begin a war, only with the consent of the congress, and there has been subsequent legislation allowing the president a discretionary period of 60 days before he has to do so, so that he can rapidly mobil ...[text shortened]... tand in violation of the constitution, which would legitimately warrant an impeachment.
-mike
16 Mar 03
Originally posted by kirksey957Good question. I don't know the answer, though it's worth investigating. I also don't know if the Kosovo campaign lasted longer than the 60 day provision that allows for discretionary use of force, nor do I know whether it applies to US forces committed to a larger allied strategic effort, which Kosovo was. If I remember correctly, it was actually a NATO force which went into the Balkans, even if a large contingent of that force was from the US military.
Could the same be said for Clinton in Kosovo as there was no declaration of war and no congressional approval? He may have had UN approval, but I don't think that is mentioned in the consititution. Kirk
-mike
16 Mar 03
Originally posted by kirksey957Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't his position exist to work towards what the people want? Maybe I'm just one of those old fashioned folk who think the US was supposed to be a ....what was that called......democracy. Call me crazy. 😲
An unpopular action or being down in the polls is not grounds for impeachment. Kirk
16 Mar 03
Originally posted by OmnislashNo you are not crazy, but many people assume that an elected official is bound and obligated to do what they said they were going to do. In a representative republic, which is what we have, you elect someone to office and like it or not they can do what they want within reason and the law. Kirk
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't his position exist to work towards what the people want? Maybe I'm just one of those old fashioned folk who think the US was supposed to be a ....what was that called......democracy. Call me crazy. 😲
16 Mar 03
Originally posted by genius
[/b].if we don't take action against iraq, surely other countries will break
international law, and nothing will happen?[/b]
The country that has brocken most internatinal laws is America!!!! what would you suggest doing there?. This war has nothing to do with breaking internatinal laws it has to do with the americans wanting to build there Americana (the ...[text shortened]... he strings of the american political and media system will let them troups withdraw....
Alexis
16 Mar 03
Originally posted by Omnislash
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't his position exist to work towards what the people want? Maybe I'm just one of those old fashioned folk who think the US was supposed to be a ....what was that called......democracy. Call me crazy. 😲
remeber only 24% precent of americans vored for the oil war manger eh i mean bush
16 Mar 03
"The country that has brocken most internatinal laws is America!!!! what would you suggest doing there?. This war has nothing to do with breaking internatinal laws it has to do with the americans wanting to build there Americana (the ...[text shortened]... he strings of the american political and media system will let them troups withdraw...."
well, shouldn't the U.N. take action against the united states then?
16 Mar 03
Originally posted by Black LungTranslation: "How can the UN take action against the fascist Americans when there are so many whores and strippers in New York?" Kirk
How can the UN take action againsts the fascist americans when its head offices are in New York?
And does't the US owe the UN millions in outstanding membership fess and the like??