Impeach or not?

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Nah, such an admittedly salivating spectacle, which could never succeed given the current hamstrung divisions of the Congress, would only serve through its failure to even further embarrass the Congress along with the critics of the Administration while rallying the already discredited Republicans. It is just another opportunity for the Democrats to drop the ball and implode and risks putting the next presidency into the equally culpable hands of whomever becomes the Republican candidate. We really cannot afford four more years of the same cementing the disasterous Bush legacy forever.

Better to ensure that the next president is not a Republican, who as a party has had too much hidden and invested in protecting the current regime, and then have the next clean-slate administration uncover and reveal every dirty withheld secret and partisan machination of the defunct Bush Administration to the public, except this time Bush and his cohorts will not have the key executive branch levers which they have been currently manipulating in order to evade and obstruct rightful government oversight. The Democrats, who shrilled over reigning in the Imperial Presidency, will find it dangerous not to follow through, while the Republicans, who will now find themselves on the unhappy side of the blunt executive bludgeon they have foolishly crafted, will out of necessity join in the same. The balance of power will be restored.

I suppose we could send them off to the Hague then, but somehow guillotines on the Washington Mall would be much sweeter. What is the current number of total military and civilian casualties on all sides in Iraq now? What is now the current record price of oil and the all-time high profits of the oil companies? How large are our national deficits and debts today? The numbers are staggering, and we have led into a trap of the Administration's making.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[gabry85 2]

Impeach! All of 'em! Now!!!

[krbe 193]

Is it only the happy amateurs who convicts someone in an impeachment trial? All 435 (?) representatives?

We have the same in Denmark and Norway. However, in Norway, politicians cannot be members of the court; it is composed of five judges from the High Court, and six others chosen from a special comittee. In Denmark, there are up to 15 judges from the High Court and the same number of members of parliament on the bench.

Usually a no-confidence motion is used by the opposition if one wants to remove somone (the cabinet or individual members of it). Or the government may call a vote of confidence to force the opposition to accept a piece of legislation (possible in Denmark and Norway because of numerous minority governments).

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: justintime ...Is it just me, or do we need a 2nd revolution?

BTW, I voted Kerry.quote>

It's not just you.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Regardless if we impeach anyone or not, the damage has already been done.  It's far too late to even consider an impeachment, simply because the government would likely draw out the process until the next election, and acquit them.

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, look, I hate Bush and Cheney as much as th next guy, but there's something that needs clearing up here:

George Bush did not intentionally "lie" to the American public about Iraq. He merely gave them an oversimplification of the real reasons so they could understand it better. WMDs were only part of the Iraq issue. The real trouble is that because of Sadaam's iron-fistednes, the place was basically an intelligence black hole. We didn't know whether or not there were WMDs there. We didn't know whether or not terrorists were training there. We knew basically ugatz. And that was the problem. Iraq was the devil we didn't know. Besides, I'll remind you that when the Iraq war was first proposed, a lot of the American public was a lot more in favor of it than they are now. But they then saw how bad the situation got and started saying, in hindsight, "oh, we should have never gone there". Even people who staunchly supported going there. A lot of people like to conveniently forget that was the case, though. Besides, the UN weapons inspectors cataloged the existence of WMDs after the Gulf War, and in early 2003 a lot of Americans would never have thought that we'd go there and not find any. We knew they existed, right? And there's the issue. It's not safe to assume that since we didn't find them that that means Sadaam simply destroyed them like he was supposed to. The question is begged: okay, we didn't find them in Iraq, so what the hell happened to them? This was a scarier prospect originally, though. Now it seems more likely that he either hid them somewhere (like Syria) or ditched them out in the middle of the desert or the gulf where no one will ever find them in anticipation of our attack. Because if he had offloaded them on terrorists, they probably would have at least attempted to use them against us by now, and they haven't, and we have no evidence suggesting they even possess such things at the moment. The key mistake people always make is looking at the issue as black and white. Real life issues are almost never such. Yes, our involvement in Iraq is problematic, but it's impossible to say whether or not we'd be better off leaving in the long run, as that has some dire potential consequences, too. This is not a "stay bad, leave good" situation. It's a "stay bad, leave bad" situation. There is no good answer there anymore.

That said, you people are absolutely right about all his other failures. And the whole NSA wiretapping thing was definitely a line crossed.

The other big failure that hasn't been mentioned is that after 9/11, there was a period of time when America was willing to do basically anything Bush told us to. What probably would have been best would have been to call for a removal of dependency from Middle Eastern oil, since by buying it, we're supporting the problem financially while we fight it violently. Of course, there's this little thing called "Haliburton", so Bush wasn't about to propose anything which could hurt the oil industry. So what did we get told instead? "Buy crap! Fly places! Support the economy and be patriotic!" And as such an enormous amount of potential initiative was wasted.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Considering the kind of public dirty-laundry washing that is needed to impeach anyone in the Executive of the United States government, I would say that it is far too late.  He'll be out of office in less time than the impeachment proceedings would take.

Besides, hasn't the Senate something better to do with its time?

[coolotter88 2]

House of representatives*

[GreekMan 246]

some of you have been brainwashed by the media.................

that's why ou think of all of this. and congrads on getting 20 bad things on bush!

The media my friends puts negative ideas, thoughts or what every you want to call it, about the war and bush

they give it to you and then you hate the pres.

THAT"S THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gabry85 2]

You mean the same media which fooled the Americans to go to Iraq? Such as Fox?

[MrCinatit 30]

While I honestly believe this is the worst and most corrupt administration in my lifetime (and I was alive during the Nixon era), an impeachment process of either would be a huge step backwards this country presently does not need.

Our representatives need to focus on the needs of the American people - soaring gas prices, a collapsing housing market, a crippling drought, broken borders, corrupt politicians/lobby reform (ie, make lobbying illegal), a disappearing middle class, a woefully bad educational system, and a war which - in the long run - will do our nation and planet more harm than good...those need to be our focuses.

An impeachment process would be nothing but a political ploy. Perhaps abolishing the partisan system would be best, so our representatives will represent the people instead of their party and special interest groups.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: 6underground

TO ALL: name 10 things that are wrong with the pres of the US!quote>

1) Violated United Nations Charter - Confirmed by Kofi Annan 

2) Invaded Iraq under the guise that it was harbouring terrorists (when, America had previously supported Saddam's rule and it was known that Saddam and Bin Laden did not like each other)

3) Utterly ruined America's image across the world to citizens of other countries(Foreign relations)

4) Supplied inaccurate and misleading data to the U.K that claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (still nothing has been found).

5) Barely articulate

6) Member of the "New American Century" (as well as much of his cabinet), who's sole purpose is to enforce American sovereignty across the world.

7) Largely ignored climate change and the need to act with the international community to tackle the problem.

His government was highly ineffective after the turmoil of Hurricane Katrina.

9) Consistently opposes gay civil unions (by proxy denying the rights of individuals and a minority).

10) Borrows billions of U.S Dollars that could be better spent elsewhere to fight an enemy that can't be killed with weapons (terrorist ideology).quote>

 

1) Kofi Annan was an incompetent crook. He was profiting off of his own corrupt 'oil for food' scheme.

2) Iraq's ties to international terrorism are well documented

3) Who cares what the rest of the world thinks...they have their own embarrassments.

4) The WMD intel was much better-corroborated than we have been told. Israel's Mossad even found where it went in the opening days of the war- Syria!

5) Anyone from Chicago can tell you, Mayor Daley is the same way, and he's been in office for over 20 years. Bush has an MBA from Harvard, I believe him to be literate, at least.

6) Another shadow group? Every pres since Kennedy has been CFR, yada yada.

7) Kyoto was a joke, and there are many of us who don't believe the sky is actually falling. I don't want the government to jump on every bandwagon before the jury is in.

The Federal Gov't is never effective, and even less so in an emergency.

9) Oh, c'mon...do you really expect a Christian conservative to be for gay rights? Let's keep some perspective.

10) That's just Monday-morning quarterbacking.

No, I'm not a Bush fan, but l thought somebody had to respond. There's an awful lot of non-Americans who seem to know how we 'should' do things. OK, then I get to tell your population/gov't what to do. Deal? 

War crimes trial? Let me tell you something, if Clinton got away with perjury to a grand jury and taking 'campaign donations' from the Chinese gov't, then a war crimes trial for Bush is absurd. 

Any foreign troops trying to enter the country to arrest our president would be met with the deadliest of force. UN troops have only demonstrated their ability to watch people get murdered, a'la Bosnia and Rwanda.

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: MrCinatit Perhaps abolishing the partisan system would be best, so our representatives will represent the people instead of their party and special interest groups.quote>

That might actually make our government something to be proud of instead of something to make excuses for and fume about.  To my eye, Republicans and Democrats are the same creature and neither are anything more than glorified thieves and liars.  Our 2 party system seems to be failing the American people.  It's not good for anything but perpetuating itself.  On the other hand, it's not really realistic to think that these institutions will just give up their power and wealth just because it's the right thing to do...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[6underground 11]

Barb is correct, but to go further:

1) Kofi Annan was an incompetent crook. He was profiting off of his own corrupt 'oil for food' scheme.quote>

Kofi Annan was democratically elected MANY times by the international community for the EXCELLENT job he did at the U.N. He didn't profit at all from the oil for food scandal, infact he wasn't even involved with it, his son was. All of that, as Barb rightly pointed out is besides the point. The U.N charter, which your government effectively peed on, was violated and instead of seeking international co-operation at the U.N, your government choose to defile the sacred oath previous presidents of the U.S adhered to (to avoid any other world war) in pursuit of revenge.

2) Iraq's ties to international terrorism are well documentedquote>

like Weapons of Mass destruction could be launched against the U.K within 45 seconds documented? Provide this documentation then?

Additionally, if they were so massively against terrorism, then why did your government support Saddam's regime to begin with?

3) Who cares what the rest of the world thinks...they have their own embarrassments.quote>

The U.S cannot exist on its own two legs, it is dependent on the good faith of its neighbours and allies, you annoy and upset the people of those nations, then you can expect their populace to adopt non-US friendly governments. I for one care.

4) The WMD intel was much better-corroborated than we have been told. Israel's Mossad even found where it went in the opening days of the war- Syria!quote>

Then where are they? The war has gone on for years and still.... Nothing. Are you really that blind, not to see that a catalyst that supposedly threatened the west has now somehow disappeared?

5) Anyone from Chicago can tell you, Mayor Daley is the same way, and he's been in office for over 20 years. Bush has an MBA from Harvard, I believe him to be literate, at least.quote>

Mayor Daley doesn't have a book dedicated to "Bushisms". Where his constructed sentences are an absolute mess and often contradictory/irregular.

6) Another shadow group? Every pres since Kennedy has been CFR, yada yada.quote>

I'm not talking about CFR, I'm talking about NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. Look at the article, principally the cabinet and draw attention to middle eastern positions, I think thatimplies alot of activity and agenda, don't you?

7) Kyoto was a joke, and there are many of us who don't believe the sky is actually falling. I don't want the government to jump on every bandwagon before the jury is in.quote>

Why does your opening statement imply that climate change = catastrophe. Perhaps you've been reading too much right-wing propoganda on the issue. The fact of the matter is, human population is increasing not decreasing, logic dictates that more pollution is proportionate to that increase. Ergo, we need to adapt our industries to be less polluting.

The Federal Gov't is never effective, and even less so in an emergency.quote>

So... You elect a government that is ineffective... my my. Perhaps you should question yourself and where your vote goes.

9) Oh, c'mon...do you really expect a Christian conservative to be for gay rights? Let's keep some perspective.quote>

Religion has no place in government, there is a reason for separation of state and government,

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I guess I rattled some cages! Really, I don't like Bush, and I never watch Fox news (yes, it's too heavy-handed for me). I just think a lot of leftist hand-wringing only muddies the waters of what's wrong. I also think that people are expecting a level of service from the US gov't that is unrealistic, historically speaking. Obviously, they screwed up Katrina. But the Fed isn't the first responder anyways. The entire chain failed, from the city level all the way up the chain to the top.  Mayor Ray 'Montel' Nagin will still have his job, after Bush leaves office. I heard no denigration of him when he said that Katrina happened because God was mad about the Iraq war. Which is abject silliness.

I'll bet you'd change your tune on personal beliefs in gov't if the president happened to agree with you. 

How I love analogies, here's another. The judges and judiciary of the the Third Reich were just following the law, instead of personal belief. If the law is flawed to such a degree, you're better off with some personal beliefs to mitigate the damage. We all agree that our system is deeply flawed, but our personal beliefs is how we arrive at that conclusion and what should be done about it. 

My point about foreign troops on US soil may put me out-of-step with the Global Unity types, but only an American court should be able to try an American president for any crimes. I wouldn't even allow it for Clinton, were it brought to light that that he had committed some sort of international offense. It's true, we built the International Court structure and held its hand diplomatically along the way, but the rule was, they could never try an American. They had to defer to our established legal system. Now they want the rules changed. I say, too bad. The papers have been signed, so to speak.

As for the opinion of the rest of the world, there's always someone out there hating America for something. But I don't see many people risking their lives to get into those countries like they do here.  Do you realize how many American inventions are involved just in the posting of a forum thread? The pc, modem, microprocessors, telephones, etc. We have our issues, to be sure. But we have elevated the entire planet, even those who hate us. And we never get a thank you, just a lecture from those who don't even live here. 

Whew, long post. I didn't mean to upset anybody, please keep in mind that all opinions expressed are exactly that...my opinion.

[6underground 11]

As for the opinion of the rest of the world, there's always someone out there hating America for something. But I don't see many people risking their lives to get into those countries like they do here.  Do you realize how many American inventions are involved just in the posting of a forum thread? The pc, modem, microprocessors, telephones, etc. We have our issues, to be sure. But we have elevated the entire planet, even those who hate us. And we never get a thank you, just a lecture from those who don't even live here. quote>

I beg your pardon?!

The Telephone's origin/invention is in dispute, It may have been Scottish: Alexander Bell, German: Johann Philipp Reis,  Italian: Antonio Meucci or American: Elisha gray.

This is also true for computers.

Need I go on? Please don't play the "America is responsible for all this technology", as a blanket argument for everything. It's like if the U.K developed a cure for cancer then nuked India.

ALL is forgiven though because we have a cure for cancer! Is that what you are saying? Because, you are responsible for SOME technological advancements, means you are infallible and not privvy to any kind of criticism. Is this correct, or have I misinterpreted?

Additonally, it's not wise to somehow believe that your nation has been responsible for all/much technological developments, because I think you'll find much of it is actually spread globally, especially Japan.

btw: British brains dominate list of geniuses

Have you thanked us for them yet? Or, do we have to wait a little while longer? On the subject of  gratitude, how about the aid the European Union sent to you in the aftermath of Katrina or the millions of Euros andother currencies from other nations sent to the U.S? Did you thank those too?

You see,it's a two way process. You seem to be under the impression that your government/nation holds up the rest of the world and are responsible for nearly every kind of discovery and advancement. I sincerely recommend you get out there and look outside your borders, you'll find a vastly different story where every nation is advancing in different ways. It sounds arrogant to me (sorry) to assume otherwise and probably the reason why so much anti-Americanism has prospered everywhere because ignorance robs people of their pride while you claim it as yours.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: 6underground

6) Another shadow group? Every pres since Kennedy has been CFR, yada yada.quote>

I'm not talking about CFR, I'm talking about NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. Look at the article, principally the cabinet and draw attention to middle eastern positions, I think thatimplies alot of activity and agenda, don't you?quote>

Could you find a source to cite this other than Wiki?  When even the wiki community is debating the neutrality of one of their articles on political stuff, that's as good as a red flag saying "I'm not a credible citation."

7) Kyoto was a joke, and there are many of us who don't believe the sky is actually falling. I don't want the government to jump on every bandwagon before the jury is in.quote>

Why does your opening statement imply that climate change = catastrophe. Perhaps you've been reading too much right-wing propoganda on the issue.quote>

Actually, climate change = catastrophe isn't right-wing propaganda.  It's about as left-wing as you can get.

The Federal Gov't is never effective, and even less so in an emergency.quote>

So... You elect a government that is ineffective... my my. Perhaps you should question yourself and where your vote goes.quote>

Welcome to the great quandry of democracy.  The people who want to run for office are the people you don't want in there, and the people you really want in there don't want the office.

10) That's just Monday-morning quarterbacking.quote>

Tell that to your grandkids when they are still paying off the debts...quote>

Please don't tell me that you honestly think that we'd get the debt paid off in even a hundred years if Bush hadn't been elected.  Sure, he added to it, but no one's done a thing about the debt at all - Republican or Democrat, and no one will.

UN troops have only demonstrated their ability to watch people get murdered, a'la Bosnia and Rwanda.quote>

As for Bosnia and Rwanda, this was principally due to the U.N mandate being out-of-date, which is why the U.N is currently being reformed.quote>

That is REALLY passing the onus off quite easily.  If the US had done that, we'd never hear the end of it.  If some Rwanda-like incident had happened in Europe, the UN would have been dissolved (which, imho, would be a pretty sweet thing, but I digress).  Why then let them off the hook so easily?  The UN has proven that they're really nothing more than a colossal waste of time and money.  They haven't really accomplished a single thing that they set out to do.

[6underground 11]

Could you find a source to cite this other than Wiki?  When even the wiki community is debating the neutrality of one of their articles on political stuff, that's as good as a red flag saying "I'm not a credible citation."quote>

try this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

As for wiki, it's only been tagged since may after the entires about Clinton were added, not before. See, talk page.

additionally, it isn't as good as saying this "isn't credible", it actually says the neutrality of the article is being questioned, which is vastly different Voar.

Actually, climate change = catastrophe isn't right-wing propaganda.  It's about as left-wing as you can get.quote>

Actually, I was refering to the typical response from right-wingers when anyone mentions climate change = "The sky is falling!" *sarcasm* (with no ability to take the issue seriously).

Welcome to the great quandry of democracy.  The people who want to run for office are the people you don't want in there, and the people you really want in there don't want the office.quote>

So... In essence, you also vote for an ineffectual government?

Please don't tell me that you honestly think that we'd get the debt paid off in even a hundred years if Bush hadn't been elected.quote>

You misinterpret (obviously thinking i'm a "filthy liberal"), It doesn't  matter if it were a republican or a democrat, it all boils down  to the choices made by that person. In this case, your grandchildren will be paying off the debts from this war for many, many years to come.

Sure, he added to it, but no one's done a thing about the debt at all - Republican or Democrat, and no one will.quote>

Aside from the pessimism, added to it, is like saying I added $80 to your $40 debt.

That is REALLY passing the onus off quite easily.quote>

I REALLY don't see how, The mandate hasn't been revised since it was made effective in the 40's. The World has SIGNIFICANTLY changed since then.

If the US had done that, we'd never hear the end of itquote>

The difference is, the U.N has no army, is not a country and is completely dependent upon the contributions from it's members. It's an organisation akin to a forum. It has no powers in itself, only through its members.

If some Rwanda-like incident had happened in Europe, the UN would have been dissolved (which, imho, would be a pretty sweet thing, but I digress).quote>

I completely disagree in your latter statement (but  am not surprised, since many Americans don't seem to value it at all), secondly... The U.N wasn't  disolved when the Bosnia crisis occured, last time I looked that happened in Europe (genocide also happened there).

Why then let them off the hook so easily?quote>

Why blame an organisation that is dependent on YOU?

The UN has proven that they're really nothing more than a colossal waste of time and moneyquote>

Probably why your nation hasn't lived upto it's promises and owes the U.N milions of dollars. I doubt you'd be saying that  if you saw the starving Africans dying of starvation without U.N aid.. That's just for starters...

They haven't really accomplished a single thing that they set out to do.quote>

Really? las

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: 6underground

Welcome to the great quandry of democracy.  The people who want to run for office are the people you don't want in there, and the people you really want in there don't want the office.quote>

So... In essence, you also vote for an ineffectual government?quote>

No, I vote for the lesser of two evils.  There's a difference.  Voting for ineffectual government means you're condoning it.  Voting for the lesser of two evils means you hate both of the people running, think they're both grossly unfit for the job, but there's not a thing you can do about it because you have a moron in office and a moron running against him.

The reason why this is considered democracy's quandary is because a person running for office obviously has some reason why he or she wants that post, which means, you have to wonder what that reason is.  Very few of the people who get voted into a democracy in most modern nations ran just because they wanted to reform the office.  A lot of them had ulterior motives, which is why it's been said that you should be suspect of electing anyone to an office they want.

Please don't tell me that you honestly think that we'd get the debt paid off in even a hundred years if Bush hadn't been elected.quote>

You misinterpret (obviously thinking i'm a "filthy liberal"), It doesn't  matter if it were a republican or a democrat, it all boils down  to the choices made by that person. In this case, your grandchildren will be paying off the debts from this war for many, many years to come.

Sure, he added to it, but no one's done a thing about the debt at all - Republican or Democrat, and no one will.quote>

Aside from the pessimism, added to it, is like saying I added $80 to your $40 debt.quote>

Well, besides the fact that there is no such thing as a "filthy liberal," my grandkids would have been paying it off anyway, as will I.  Now, while I'm at it, the wording may convey that to you, but to me, it still means billions and trillions.

That is REALLY passing the onus off quite easily.quote>

I REALLY don't see how, The mandate hasn't been revised since it was made effective in the 40's. The World has SIGNIFICANTLY changed since then.quote>

I see how.  The UN has a grossly outdated mandate, and instead of blasting them like what would happen if the mandate belonged to the US, the response is basically "oh, they're revising it."

If the US had done that, we'd never hear the end of itquote>

The difference is, the U.N has no army, is not a country and is completely dependent upon the contributions from it's members. It's an organisation akin to a forum. It has no powers in itself, only through its members.quote>

Which is why the UN is pretty much powerless.  It can't really do anything unless you can get everyone to agree on it.

If some Rwanda-like incident had happened in Europe, the UN would have been dissolved (which, imho, would be a pretty sweet thing, but I digress).quote>

I completely disagree in your latter statement (but  am not surprised, since many Americans don't seem to value it at all), secondly... The U.N wasn't  disolved when the Bosnia crisis occured, last time I looked that happened in Europe (genocide also happened there).quote>

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefanIraq's ties to international terrorism are well documentedquote>

I already discussed this. See above.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks...they have their own embarrassments.quote>

That's a rather immature attitude to take. The saying "no man is an island" exists, for a reason you know.

The WMD intel was much better-corroborated than we have been told. Israel's Mossad even found where it went in the opening days of the war- Syria!quote>

While the issue of what happened to the WMDs is an important one, it's not one we really know the answer to. They might be hiding in Syria. But we don't know that for sure.

Bush has an MBA from Harvard, I believe him to be literate, at least.quote>

The "barely articulate" type comments focus on hyperbole. There are several examples (which we have film of) of Bush blundering and stumbling with grammar. He's perfectly literate, his problem is that he's lacking in the department of being able to speak on the fly with the cameras on him. Notice how he perfectly delivers eloquently written speeches, but gets clumsy when asked questions. I amount it  to stage fright more than anything else, myself. He's not confident enough to come up with things on a moment's notice.

Kyoto was a joke, and there are many of us who don't believe the sky is actually falling. I don't want the government to jump on every bandwagon before the jury is in.quote>

Here's the issue- so far as the scientific community is concerned, there is zero question that climate change is occuring and few of them doubt humans contribute to it. The trouble is that you have a lot of very loud skeptics (who are not scholarly or scientific) that grab a lot of attention. And then there's just plain old human denial. It is "inconvenient", after all.

Besides, the potential consequences are dire, and there really aren't any downsides towards taking preventative measures. In fact, even ignoring global worming, there are still economic reasons for being green. If you're more efficient you save on costs. This is something which needs action taken ASAP. We can't afford to wait until every nutty skeptic removes their head from their rectum.

The Federal Gov't is never effective, and even less so in an emergency.quote>

Don't be so dismissive. Just because it isn't, doesn't mean it can't be. And improvement should be easy considering where we're starting.

Oh, c'mon...do you really expect a Christian conservative to be for gay rights?quote>

No. And that's exactly why a fanatic who puts his religion before common sense is unfit to lead. Religion has no place in our government. Someone who is heavily religious should therefore have no part in it.

War crimes trial? Let me tell you something, if Clinton got away with perjury to a grand jury and taking 'campaign donations' from the Chinese gov't, then a war crimes trial for Bush is absurd. quote>

Except Clinton was impeached for denying that he'd been having an affair. The fact that it was "under oath" is irrelevant. Clinton should have been honest about that, but he did not deserve to be impeached over it. I don't think the president's sex life is really of any concern to anyone but him and his partner(s) anyway. The whole thing was blown way out of proportion. Accusing Bush of "war crimes" is a bit rash, but the Iraq war is not the offense in question here. What we're looking at is his gross invasion of privacy with unwarranted wiretapping. Not only

[6underground 11]

No, I vote for the lesser of two evils.  There's a difference.  Voting for ineffectual government means you're condoning it.  Voting for the lesser of two evils means you hate both of the people running, think they're both grossly unfit for the job, but there's not a thing you can do about it because you have a moron in office and a moron running against him.quote>

Unless you're Australian, you aren't forced to vote. If neither side is deserving of your vote, then why vote for either?

I would have guessed it to be rather straight forward?

Well, besides the fact that there is no such thing as a "filthy liberal,"quote>

Not true, if you're the infamous Bill 'O Rielly, or one of his ilk! haha

my grandkids would have been paying it off anyway, as will I.  Now, while I'm at it, the wording may convey that to you, but to me, it still means billions and trillions.quote>

which was exactly my point to begin with. The difference is, now you have more debt to pay off than ever before, dare I say, much less to pay, had the war never happened.

I see how.  The UN has a grossly outdated mandate, and instead of blasting them like what would happen if the mandate belonged to the US, the response is basically "oh, they're revising it."quote>

Did you not see the condemnation after Bosnia then Voar? There was widespread condemnation of the U.N after the failure during Bosnia. Hence it propogated the reform process.

Which is why the UN is pretty much powerless.  It can't really do anything unless you can get everyone to agree on it.quote>

Not everyone, Democratic Majority. Now, if you don't respect democratic majority or the processes behind that, then perhaps you shouldn't live in a democratic nation?

DEATH TOLLS:

Bosnia:  90K - 125K

Rwanda: ~1,000K

While all loss of life is tragic, by the numbers, you can't validly compare the two.quote>

uh... Voar, let me requote you:

That is REALLY passing the onus off quite easily.  If the US had done that, we'd never hear the end of it.  If some Rwanda-like incident had happened in Europe, the UN would have been dissolved (which, imho, would be a pretty sweet thing, but I digress).quote>

So you're saying that the U.N wouldn't be dissolved if 150,000+ died in Europe during a genocide, but would if it was Rwanda (1,000) lives?!

Secondly, the issue wasn't even about comparisons (no idea where y got that from), your point was that a genocide happened in Europe (much more notable there than Africa supposedly), then the U.N would be dismantled.

Which IS incorrect,because Bosnia IS IN EUROPE. The fact of the matter is, that unlike your "prediction", European members pushed to reform the U.N despite its failing because it see's the good the U.N has done for the world rather than scrap it completely.

*I think you got your figures the wrong way round, don't rush wiki*

Why let an organization that claims to be more than it really is get away with talking big about stuff it can't do?quote>

And where exactly is evidence of this then? The U.N doesn't speak as one cohesive voice, it speaks with everyone's.You cannot blame an organisation for the failures of its members. To use an allegory, if two boy scouts out of 100 steal a chocolate bar from another scout, is it the failing of the entire Scouts, or the behaviour of two of them?

[Micah 16]

As for the opinion of the rest of the world, there's always someone out there hating America for something. But I don't see many people risking their lives to get into those countries like they do here. Do you realize how many American inventions are involved just in the posting of a forum thread? The pc, modem, microprocessors, telephones, etc. We have our issues, to be sure. But we have elevated the entire planet, even those who hate us. And we never get a thank you, just a lecture from those who don't even live here.quote>

Not to be rude, but I think that's another reason why Europeans hate us. Statements like that make us seem stuck-up. After all, the conversation shouldn't be about "you need us!"; it should be about how we need each other.

Anyway, wasn't this thread about impeachment?

[Cob92 360]

What real power does the U.N. have to prevent wars? If some dictator wakes up tomorrow and feels like taking over the world, what will the U.N. do? I'm sure that they will "condemn" his actions and "turn the international community against him". Only problem is, strong words can't stop bullets. That's why genocide and chaos continue to reign in Africa and Myanmar's military dictator can do whatever he wants. If the U.N. was really out to solve something, they'd form a competent military and use it to overthrow corrupt rulers and stop mindless killing.

Being an American, I thought I'd just give my two cents on som issues:

It is clear to me that entering Iraq was a mistake and even though we can scream at Bush all day for it, that won't solve anything. I beleive that the U.S. exit strategy needs to hinge on creating just enough order so that Iraq's military can hold things up on its own.

The biggest problem with American politics today is the two-party system. Although I lean just slightly towards the Republicans, I often get the feeling that the nation is being ruled by a minority of proactive special interest groups. While I oppose Bush, I don't think that the things he has done, bad as they are, are sufficient cause to impeach him. What Americans refer to as torture (CIA interrogation practices) pales in comparison to the brutality of al-Qaida torture methods (blunt knife beheadings, etc.). Interrogations need to have enough muscle to squeeze information out without being plainly cruel.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: 6underground

No, I vote for the lesser of two evils.  There's a difference.  Voting for ineffectual government means you're condoning it.  Voting for the lesser of two evils means you hate both of the people running, think they're both grossly unfit for the job, but there's not a thing you can do about it because you have a moron in office and a moron running against him.quote>

Unless you're Australian, you aren't forced to vote. If neither side is deserving of your vote, then why vote for either?

I would have guessed it to be rather straight forward?quote>

You have guessed incorrectly though.  Democracy is rule the by people.  If everyone chooses not to vote, who's running the country?  Answer - someone who assumes the power to do so unless laws allow them to stay in there until voted out.  Then you don't have democratic representation.

Well, besides the fact that there is no such thing as a "filthy liberal,"quote>

Not true, if you're the infamous Bill 'O Rielly, or one of his ilk! hahaquote>

Technically, he'd be a filthy conservative, but I get your point.

my grandkids would have been paying it off anyway, as will I.  Now, while I'm at it, the wording may convey that to you, but to me, it still means billions and trillions.quote>

which was exactly my point to begin with. The difference is, now you have more debt to pay off than ever before, dare I say, much less to pay, had the war never happened.quote>

OK, I see where you're coming from, and I agree.

I see how.  The UN has a grossly outdated mandate, and instead of blasting them like what would happen if the mandate belonged to the US, the response is basically "oh, they're revising it."quote>

Did you not see the condemnation after Bosnia then Voar? There was widespread condemnation of the U.N after the failure during Bosnia. Hence it propogated the reform process.quote>

Yes, I remember that.  Maybe the coverage was worse for it over there, but over here, I've seen the US get ripped about as bad for Bush making a retarded policy decision in which no one got killed as things got for the UN after Bosnia.

Which is why the UN is pretty much powerless.  It can't really do anything unless you can get everyone to agree on it.quote>

Not everyone, Democratic Majority. Now, if you don't respect democratic majority or the processes behind that, then perhaps you shouldn't live in a democratic nation?quote>

The problem with the UN, as we've already seen, is that even if the Democratic Majority thinks one way, there's not a thing they can do to stop the actions of anyone unless it's some small country no one really fears, or enough of them are willing to go along with it.  I promise you that if you took away everyone's veto powers, this problem would be much more visible.  The thing is though, right now, powerful nations can veto it before it even gets where the Democratic Majority can step in, thereby saving the UN considerable humiliation.

DEATH TOLLS:

Bosnia:  90K - 125K

Rwanda: ~1,000K

While all loss of life is tragic, by the numbers, you can't validly compare the two.quote>

uh... Voar, let me req

[6underground 11]

You have guessed incorrectly though.  Democracy is rule the by people.  If everyone chooses not to vote, who's running the country?  Answer - someone who assumes the power to do so unless laws allow them to stay in there until voted out.  Then you don't have democratic representation.quote>

I didn't say everyone, I just said you.

Yes, I remember that.  Maybe the coverage was worse for it over there, but over here, I've seen the US get ripped about as bad for Bush making a retarded policy decision in which no one got killed as things got for the UN after Bosnia.quote>

Probably over there, but the Bush' policy, of say, Patriot act didn't recieve as condemnation here as the Bosnia Crisis.

The problem with the UN, as we've already seen, is that even if the Democratic Majority thinks one way, there's not a thing they can do to stop the actions of anyone unless it's some small country no one really fears, or enough of them are willing to go along with it.quote>

Like what Voar?!

As I already explained, IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE UN to attack/conquer/invade or otherwise endorse UN coalition forces to attack another member state on the request of one other member state. It s a place of comprimise, mutual agreements and co-operation in a unipolar world.

I promise you that if you took away everyone's veto powersquote>

Who is everyone?! Only 5 member states have the power to Veto. I believe the5 permanent members should no longer have these benefits,  since they insisted upon them when the UN was founded, NOT the UN.

The thing is though, right now, powerful nations can veto it before it even gets where the Democratic Majority can step in, thereby saving the UN considerable humiliation.quote>

Likewise, silencing views and opinions too

Either you forgot what the Rwanda situation was like, or you don't know what 1,000K means.quote>

Or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about?

97,000+ Bosnia

800,000 + Rwanda

Perhaps you should actually be a little bit more careful where you get your info from and not jump the gun? Imagine that if i were Bosnian or Rwandan, i'd be very annoyed with your right now.

But again, why on Earth are you comparing them?

  Rwanda was, statistically speaking, six to ten times as bad as Bosnia (1,000K = 1,000,000).  The point is that the UN made a vastly bigger blunder, and little was done.  The reason - it happened somewhere else.quote>

Again, you're statistically incorrect, as is your latter argument (If not highly offensive).  You imply that the UN was forgiven because Rwanda didn't happen in Europe? If so, perhaps you should re-evaluate  your humanity,  they are not statistics or just numbers. The  U.N  cares  for all creeds, numbers do not factor in it and as I said,  the  U.N  couldn't do anything because the mandate  DIDN'T  ALLOW  THEM TOO. They could  ONLY  Peacekeep  in the nation.

Unless the Google results were wrong, my figures were fine.quote>

Again, wrong.

Just to give you an example, the UN ran an ad over in the US during whatever they're last major anniversary was (I'm thinking 60th) touting themselves as<

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

One of the fun things about these kinds of threads is where they'll lead. Is the discussion really ended? The topic of impeaching Bush inevitably leads to these international discussions. 

The reality is that no entity has the competence, moral standing, or record to call for the deposing of our president. It is all just a tempest in a teapot. 

The press in this country is definitely part of the problem, both right and left. They lie and sensationalize on both sides, and ignore the truth when it's inconvenient to the picture they want to present. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the networks are all guilty to the same degree. Even internet news is biased. 

The UN discussion rightly focuses on its failings, of which there are many. I don't happen to think the UN is useful to any degree, it's just a club where the world's 'leaders' get together to hate the US. Personally, I would like the US to not only exit the UN, but kick them off American soil. Let them meet in Brussels, or somewhere else that shares their anti-American views. 

That's just my opinion. But to say it's responsible for a lack of large wars in Europe lately ignores NATO's role, which is far more peace-producing than the UN.

This doesn't mean I hate other countries or their populations. They vote for incompetent and corrupt leaders as often as we do. And their press lies to them, just as ours does to us. 

[pjmch7 1]

They should have done it about 5 years ago.

[panthersimcity4 162]

On a personal level, I don't hate Bush because I don't know him personally.

However, I hate him because he's dumb and he makes us look dumb.

This is why more people need to go out and vote! If half the country doesn't vote, that leaves the majority to the radical evangelical voters, who will probably vote for some Fascist party next year.