Impeaching Bush

Originally Posted by Arainach

Skexis: Where, exactly, does it say that America decides the consequences of violating a UN resolution? If the UN wanted to go to war the UN could have gone to war. Bush deciding to invade Iraq for such a reason is like me shooting a man because he commited murder - it's not my responsibility, nor within my rights, to do so.

America can decide the consequences of violating a UN resolution because it's a soverign state and can do whatever it wants. The US is also the primary financial backer of the UN. So it has a tendency to call it's own shots within the organization.

Originally Posted by Skexis

...just that he cited it as part of the declaration of war.

when was there ever a "declaration of war?" I don't think the US has had an official declaration of war since the 40s. Everything else has been a "military conflict" or "occupation."

Many people love to blame the president for things that he's actually not responsible for ie the economy. Congress has been passing the buck and skipping out of their responsibilities by delegating more power to the president. The president said, "hey, I'm the commander in chief, and I wanna go to war in Iraq. Since I'm in charge of the troops, I'm sending them out. If you guys don't agree, you've got a set amount of time to say so and bring them back." But, they never did. So should the responsibility here fall on the shoulders of a single person? Congress is just as much to blame for the mess of the Iraq War as Bush is because they had the opportunity (and still do) to do something about it.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Paper Crane

Iraq is clearly about oil.

If it was just about oil, then why didn't we steal it from Venezuela first, under the guise of removing a tyrant. They have just as much oil and seizing it would've been twice as easy. Also, gas prices have done nothing but go up since we've been in Iraq. If the goal was to take their oil, you'd think we would've already set up shop over there.

I was talking to a buddy lastnight who fought in Bagdad. He said that things are a mess, but that the US troops have their hands tied over there as far as what they're allowed to do. He said there are times when they can literally watch an insurgent place an IED, but "legally" they aren't allowed to stop him. Insurgents can basically claim sanctuary and run into Mosques where the US troops aren't allowed. He said that he thinks that Iraq really could grow and prosper eventually, but they won't get anywhere as long as they remain powerless to actually deal with the insurgency.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

"Bottom line: Whatever the hell Congress wants.

Couldn't you argue that for anything? Or maybe, "whatever the hell Congress' most influential want?"

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.