Not to change the subject but the problem is the US acted independantly of the UN when it invaded. So you cant use security council resolutions as a justification for invasion. Look at it this way a man is suspected of having commited murder, there is circumstantial evidence to back up the suspicions but nothing really substantial so the police want to investigate further before taking action. A rogue cop with a history of bad relations with the suspect claims to "know" the man is guilty so he goes out on his own hunts him down and shoots him.

The rogue cop cant then claim that because the police where investigating but not taking action he was justified in shooting the man. Only the UN would have had authority to take action against Iraq the same way only the police department would have the authority to take action against criminals. You can't enforce the rule of law by breaking the law, the same way you cant enforce the will of the UN by going against the will of the UN.

Regarding this topic though I'm going to have say that i wish them luck. I don't think anything fruitful will come of this for the simple fact that nothing sticks to these people. If anyone else pulled half the things these guys pulled they'd have been drawed and quarteres yet for some reason these guys keep on getting away with things.

Throw in the fact that we've got a Republican controlled congress and you've got a no win situation for any movement to impeach. These people have stood by the president through thick and thin. What makes anyone think they're going to back down now and let something like this through?

I fear you are right boogyman...but we can hope. The next best thing would be if they were charged with crimes against humanity!

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Not all soldiers are dumb as dirt and programmed. And some of them actually know and respect the law.

Be very proud of your rhetorical comment above, especially the boldened part, k?

As a vet to another vet, it seems that your continuing to play vets against vets, huh, ECK?

The divide just keeps getting further and further apart. Your doing an exceptional job in furthering that divided. Great work.




seekerof

[edit on 1-4-2005 by Seekerof]

How is he dividing? Because he doesn't feel that a crook should run this country? I don't recall people being nearly as upset when Clinton was going through it and frankly what he did doesn't compare to what Bush and Cheney pulled. By getting Bush impeached you will only bring the country back together and mend the great divide that he has created.

You a vet Indy?
IF not, obviously you are not aware of what 'we' vets are talking about, eh?



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
You a vet Indy?
IF not, obviously you are not aware of what 'we' vets are talking about, eh?

seekerof

Yeah, Indy, didn't you read the rule about not having an opinion unless you're a vet?

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning

Originally posted by Boatphone
He can only be impeached for "high crimes".

Hah! So let me get this straight. Getting a "BJ" by an intern is considered a "high crime", but taking the country to an illegal, immoral and unnecessary war, which has killed thousands and thousands on both sides, not to mention is costing a bundle, while making a fortune for family, friends and business colleagues is not a "high crime?"

I dunno but that is some f'cked up logic from where I sit.

Its not the BJ its lying to Congress under oath, you should really avoid doing that if you are The President of the United States of America.

Bush and Cheney have only been lying everywhere except to the Congress?

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

It ain't going to happen. Everything done by the administratoin was done with the approval of Congress and the UN.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Not all soldiers are dumb as dirt and programmed. And some of them actually know and respect the law.

Be very proud of your rhetorical comment above, especially the boldened part, k?

Those who KNOW and RESPECT the LAW, I am very proud of. Those who do not, and those who sow disinformation are traitors. But thanks for commenting, just the same.

As a vet to another vet, it seems that your continuing to play vets against vets, huh, ECK?

I call it, you respond to my thread, DISAGREE with my assertion and then CLAIM that I am playing vet off vet. I'm sorry you see it that way.

The divide just keeps getting further and further apart. Your doing an exceptional job in furthering that divided. Great work.

The TRUTH is becoming more and more known. If I have something to do with that, then I am thankful.

Originally posted by Boatphone
Its not the BJ its lying to Congress under oath, you should really avoid doing that if you are The President of the United States of America.

Yo Boatphone.. (I'm no fan of Clinton) but I will give him this: At least he was man enuff and intelligent enuff to sit down BY HIMSELF before the grand jury, UNDER OATH and answer his own questions. Little Dubya had to take Uncle Dick with him into the 9-11 commission - on one condition - that it would NOT be under oath!

It's absurd.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

When the VFW or American Legion request this then you have news. When some[one - nygdan]who likely served only in the continental states say something, I care less. Talk to a majority of those who have seen combat, experienced combat and suffered wounds in combat. Most if they will talk about it, will tell you war is hell but sometimes necessary. Our cities were bombed! We could have sit around and waited for the UN to screw things up more or we could teach these satanic disciples there are consequences for screwing with the USA. What did they think Bush would just toss a few cruise missles and tell them what bad boys they are like Clinton did? That would be like placing a kick me sign on your back.

These [sorts - nygdan] trivialize the deaths of those who died in Iraq. I am sorry to have to massage some brains but they did not die for foolishness or wrong reasons. They died so that those Vets(sic) can walk around and whine. They died for our families and our safety. Yes, we could have just nuked the whole country and saved all those American lives. We try not to kill innocents, we leave that to the beheading demons until we can locate and destroy them.

[edited out and altered flammage - nygdan]

[edit on 8-4-2005 by Nygdan]

Why do I get the feeling that the republicans on this board want desperately for military service to be available only to republicans?

Ive been here for a while now, but nothing has shocked me more than hearing republican ATS Mil veteran members defame and ridicule fellow vets purely because they excercise the rights they themselves have fought to protect.

Shame.

You are all so divided now it is frightening to observe from the outside. To the point where I would not be surprised to hear of a bunch of Repub soldiers fragging a Liberal soldier out in the field.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by cargo]

Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest
Most if they will talk about it, will tell you war is hell but sometimes necessary. Our cities were bombed! We could have sit around and waited for the UN to screw things up more or we could teach these satanic disciples there are consequences for screwing with the USA.

Yes, sometimes war is necessary. As a last resort. In the case of Iraq, it was completely contrived.

War crimes have been committed. Not one single person in a leadership position (in this administration) has been held accountable. In my opinion, these so-called leaders are every bit the satanic disciples as their Saudi, Pakistani or Chinese counterparts are.

Iraq posed NO threat to the USA. Heads should roll.

ECK, I tend to agree that the government gets the US into war under dubious circumstances.
Was there any 20th century war where the US government was up-front
WWI...no WWII....nyet Korea....nada Vietnam....no way
Why should the government be any different this time around?
And, btw, the US people weren't always 100% behind the government, either. They were generally more benevolent to the troops, well, except in Vietnam.

The mythology around the bombing of pearl harbor is the worst. Americans were not about to go off and get into another foreign conflict after WW1. FDR knew that and developed a 7-point plan to bait the Japanese into attacking us. He knew pearl harbor was going to be hit. And he let it happen. That was a travesty.

Well he knew Japan was likely to attck US possesions in the Pacific, but I don't believe anyone thought Pearl Harbor was a likely target, except perhaps for sabotage. It's easy to forget in 2005 how audacious and unexpected the Pearl Harbor attack was in 1941. The lessons of Taranto had not really sunk in, the idea that a major fleet could be destroyed by air power alone was seen with a great deal of skepticism.

The US expected to be attacked in the Phillipines, not Hawaii. Until Pearl Harbor was actually attacked, few in the US government or military believed that a carrier-based strike could be so effective.

I've never bought the "FDR knew" theory - while Roosevelt certainly felt that US involvement in WW2 was inevitable, and knew that a Japanese attack was likely, sacrificing the bulk of the US Pacific Fleet's battleline was not an auspicious way to start the war. Remember that in 1941, it was still believed by most that the battleships would still be the decisive factor in any naval engagement. Sacrificing them would never even be considered as an option.