Menu
Start a Thread Start a Poll All Polls
Should Obama be impeached over Libya action?
Mar 29, 2011 23:11
  • JIMMYB
  • Points:
  • Join Date: Feb 7, 2007
  • Status: offline
Voting without time limit
Exclusive Vote
  1. 17 vote(s)
  2. 16 vote(s)
See All Voter(s)
Note: Guest voter(s) are not displayed here.
Representative Dennis. J. Kucinich has raised the possibility of impeaching Obama for ordering aggressive air strikes against Libya. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican presidential candidate has said the policy shows the commander in chief to be “tentative, indecisive, timid and nuanced”, according to New York Times.

Is it possible that Obama will be impeached over Libya action?
Mar 29, 2011 23:34
#1  
GUEST51073 If you think Obama should be impeached over Libya, then for sure Bush and Cheney should have been imprisoned for what they did in Iraq.
Mar 30, 2011 01:24
#2  
  • CHERRY07
  • Points:
  • Join Date: Mar 23, 2008
  • Status: Offline
Do not forget that Obama is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. How could he win the prize?
Last edited by CHERRY07: Mar 30, 2011 01:25
Mar 30, 2011 04:53
#3  
  • SUNNYDAY
  • Points:
  • Join Date: Jul 29, 2010
  • Status: Offline
Quote:

Originally Posted by CHERRY07

Do not forget that Obama is the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. How could he win the prize?


It's so satiric.

I hate wars. Haven't human beings suffered enough from the natural disasters? Why do they still man-make disasters?
Mar 30, 2011 07:29
#4  
  • DODGER
  • Points:
  • Join Date: Jul 15, 2007
  • Status: Offline
Jimmy, unfortunately you are reading too much propaganda.
And as we both know, I can say little else.
Dodger.
Mar 31, 2011 15:07
#5  
GUEST50219
The entire "Let's Cause Problems for Obama!" campaign being waged by the conservatives would be almost funny... if it wasn't so serious and hateful.

First, the Republican conservatives demanded that Obama get involved with the Libyan situation. For a week+ they cried and complained that the president wasn't doing anything to help the Libyans. Then, when Obama (after careful consideration and exemplary statesmanship/diplomacy) did get the US involved, the Republicans cried and complained that it was "too little, too late." Now, of course, after Obama's actions have helped the rebels fight against Gadaffi, the conservatives are crying and complaining that Obama never should have gotten involved at all.

Do you see a trend here? ; )
Apr 2, 2011 23:26
#6  
  • BOBERT
  • Points:
  • Join Date: Jan 1, 2009
  • Status: Offline
Obahma was forced into an impossible situation. He should have seen it coming and reacted early. By leaving it so late he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.

Persoanlly I'm of the view that Libya is engaged in a civil war and both sides should be left to their own devices, as lopsided as that is. There is no guarantee that the victory bloodbath wont be equally horrific nomatter which side wins so supporting one side over the other is problematic at best. At worst, it's deliberate regime change.

How would Jefferson Davis have reacted during the US civil war if Great Britain had chosen to support the north and attack the souths ships? What would Abraham Lincoln have done if France had aligned with the south and bombarded the northern capital? I think both would have quite rightly insisted that this war is nobody's business but ours and nobody has a right to interfere.

Incidentally, it is generally acknowledged that 620,000 Americans died during the US civil war so intervening in Libya from a humanitarian viewpoint is slightly hypocritical.
Last edited by BOBERT: Apr 2, 2011 23:28
Apr 11, 2011 21:12
#7  
GUEST1707 Incidentally, it is generally acknowledged that 620,000 Americans died during the US civil war so intervening in Libya from a humanitarian viewpoint is slightly hypocritical.

Well said! It's nobody's business but Libyan's. NATO and US have no right to interfere in their civil war. Iraq and Afghanistan are the best example.
Apr 11, 2011 22:01
#8  
  • BOBERT
  • Points:
  • Join Date: Jan 1, 2009
  • Status: Offline
It is now, and always has been all about oil. The estimated death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan now stands at 919,000. Iran is next on the hitlist.

http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
Apr 11, 2011 22:28
#9  
GUEST1707
Quote:

Originally Posted by BOBERT View Post

It is now, and always has been all about oil. The estimated death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan now stands at 919,000. Iran is next on the hitlist.

http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html


Then do not claim they join the war for "humanity". I don't think Iran will be defeated easily like Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has its own nuclear technology. It is easy to make nuclear weapons. The president said in an speech recently that Iran should export its nuclear technologies.
Apr 11, 2011 23:58
#10  
  • BOBERT
  • Points:
  • Join Date: Jan 1, 2009
  • Status: Offline
Quote:

Originally Posted by GUEST1707



Then do not claim they join the war for "humanity". I don't think Iran will be defeated easily like Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has its own nuclear technology. It is easy to make nuclear weapons. The president said in an speech recently that Iran should export its nuclear technologies.


You must be reading different newspapers to me. Humanitarian reasons (excuses) are the ONLY ones I have seen used. The United Nations claim a mandate to "protect civillians by enforcing a no fly zone". If that's not "claiming they join the war for "humanity" then what is it?

Iran is no match for the combined military power of The US, Europe and Israel. You are dreaming.
Page 1 of 3    < Previous Next >    Page:
Post a Reply to: Should Obama be impeached over Libya action?
Content: ( 3,000 characters at most, please )
You can add emoticons below to your post by clicking them.
characters left
Name:    Get a new code