Obama's War: Grounds for Impeachment?

[Giambattista]

Obama's de facto war against Libya is bullshit. But so was the war against Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, etc. :shrug:

So are you excusing this, because of wrong precedent in the past?



And a question...


Is this a war yet? Can we call it what it is?

Or is there still a grotesque semantical dance taking place?

Meanwhile, in the last few weeks, reports and rumors of the true nature of these "freedom" fighters for democracy and righteousness... a rebel faction sees fit to engage in mini-genocide of black Africans.
Oh, you see, that's why Gaddafi is so dangerous. He is a bad role model, and monkey see, monkey do. They must have learned their brutal tactics from the guy they oppose.

LIBYA: Rebels execute black immigrants while forces kidnap others

ADDIS ABABA — While much of the world’s attention is focusing on crude oil prices and the Libyan pipelines in the east of the country– human right groups say rebels are committing crimes against humanity.

In east Libya, African hunt began as towns and cities began fall under the control of Libyan rebels, mobs and gangs. They started to detain, insult, rape and even executing black immigrants, students and refugees.

In the past two weeks, more than 100 Africans from various Sub-Sahara states are believed to have been killed by Libyan rebels and their supporters.

According to Somali refugees in Libya, at least five Somalis from Somaliland and Somalia were executed in Tripoli and Benghazi by anti-Gaddafi mobs. Dozens of refugees and immigrants workers from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Nigeria, Chad, Mali and Niger have been killed, some of them were led into the desert and stabbed to death. Black Libyan men receiving medical care in hospitals in Benghazi were reportedly abducted by armed rebels. They are part of more than 200 African immigrants held in secret locations by the rebels.

In many disputes involving Libyan residents and black Africans, the Libyans are turning in the Africans as mercenaries.

Thousands more Africans caught up in this mercenary hysteria are terrified. Some barricaded themselves in their homes, while others hid in the desert. Insulted, threatened, beaten, chased and robbed. Their only crime was being black and therefore treated as “mercenaries” of Gaddafi.

Love this one from the comment section...

mohamed

Gaddafi has to go. The Libyians with the help of the IC must act to bring the insanity of this criminal
leader destroying his people for the sake remaining in power against their will must not be accommodated
indecisively by the responsible world. The sooner he's taken care of the better for a transitional peaceful world order.
Cheers.

Transitional peaceful world order? Someone has New World Order stars in their eyes.

DAN

my sympathy for the Lybian uprising and Arabs in general is eroding. This is atrocious and more henious than what Ghadafi committed... imagine after 9/11 if americans rounded all middle eastern men robbed them of their life saving and executed them in a mob like actions... the whole world would have been outraged.... Where is the African Union? THIS NEEDS TO STOP!!!!!!

Oh.. heh heh. Well, it didn't happen QUITE like that. It was more removed. More through proxy, if that's a proper usage of the word.
But this guy seems to have a better grip on reality than the previous Mohamed commenter.


Libyan rebels massacre black Africans

The opposition forces in Libya attempting to march on Tripoli with the assistance of American, French and British bombs are far removed from the image of innocent civilians fighting for freedom and democracy promoted by the media and political circles.

This is made clear in a March 22 article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung by Gunnar Heinsohn, the author of Encyclopaedia of Genocide (Rowohlt, 1998).

Heinsohn cites a report by the well-known Zimbabwean journalist and documentary filmmaker Farai Sevenzo dealing with barbaric, pogrom-like massacres perpetrated by the so-called “rebels” against black African workers in Libya. The article states:

“Because mercenaries from Chad and Mali are presumed to be fighting for him [Gaddafi], the lives of a million African refugees and thousands of African migrants are at risk. A Turkish construction worker told the British radio station BBC: ‘We had seventy to eighty people from Chad working for our company. They were massacred with pruning shears and axes, accused by the attackers of being Gaddafi’s troops. The Sudanese people were massacred. We saw it for ourselves.’ ”

The genocide authority Heinsohn explains: “It is standard knowledge in genocide research that minorities come under attack in civil wars because at least one party to the conflict accuses them of collaborating with the enemy….

Question for all the gung ho anti-Gaddafi, pro-rebellion Americans et al: what happens if people like this succeed in overthrowing Gaddafi? Would the forecasted genocide on behalf of Gaddafi's forces just give way to another in the making by the freedom fighters?

 

[joepistole]

Most of them are, but that's not entirely the point.
I think the point is not to ever let it become routine. And even if it is, and it is now routine, at least don't look the other way and say, oh, it's become so commonplace, I might as well not even make a whimper this time.

Wrong then, wrong now.

Don't let humanitarian pretenses fool you. Seems odd that most of the wars in the last decade and the spreading of democracy seem to be centered around countries that have oil.

Or better yet. Take a lesson from Egypt.
We've already seen reports of the new "democratic" Egyptian government running roughshod over protesters, and now this.

Egyptian Blogger Sentenced to Three Years​

What we had there was a Mubarak government that received the second largest annual foreign aid package from the US government's largesse, and suddenly overnight they turned on him. They were really eager for democracy to take hold? I have my doubts.

What you want the US government to run Egypt or would you prefer to let civil violence break out in in Middle East? You think oil prices are high now, just wait. You will not like where that will take you.

Two the US has not and has no intentions of putting feet on the ground or exercising direct control of the operations in Egypt. The operation in Libya is a NATO affair and being driven by our European allies.

 

[keith1]

Giambattista's War: Grounds for Coffee?

An unreal dark, watered-down decaf.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

I didn't read the post or comments . I will . I just wanted to comment on the tittle and its implications. People are so quick to speak impeachment now a days. Maybe people always have considering we hold our leaders accountable. I thing is for sure " some leaders have done some bad bad things . Obama I believe is an American and loves his country . He may have smoked to much weed and has some crazy ideas ( Mostly indoctrination just like the rest of us) I think he is doing the best he can given the climate. Living in a reactive society bombarded with information makes everybody confused on which way to go.
I believe we live in uncharted territory because of population of humans being near full capacity. Something new on the time scale of earth. I will let the Man do his job . He is our president and even though I don't agree with some of the bull shit stumping that comes out of his mouth , I stand behind Him because He is My President

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

President Obama has not done anything other presidents have done. Did Ronald Reagan violate the Constitution when he invaded several countries without a declaration of war from Congress?

Why is it the president always carries with him/her something called the football that allows him/her to launch nuclear war at a moments notice?

The fact is the POTUS is also commander in chief of all US military forces per the Constitution and the president does not need to get authorization from congress to utilize the nation's military. This is so in the text of the law as well as history.

Ally North took the fall. Memory fails . Some one else was involved .

 

[keith1]

Ally North took the fall. Memory fails . Some one else was involved .

Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. That's the gist of it.

 

[Giambattista]

Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. That's the gist of it.

Have you seen the one of Rumsfeld sucking off bin Laden while sacrificing a baby?

Meanwhile, via the Rense World 3 Ring Circus...

Libyan rebel has curious Star of David-esque tattoo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26mkvy5q1lA&feature=player_embedded

Israel plays both sides? Money money money $$$$$$$.

 

[Giambattista]

What you want the US government to run Egypt or would you prefer to let civil violence break out in in Middle East? You think oil prices are high now, just wait. You will not like where that will take you.

Yep, if the US Executive branch doesn't un-Constitutionally launch wars from time to time, we wouldn't have any gas. Right.
I have this funny feeling: no matter who is in power in Egypt or elsewhere, $ per barrel is going to continue to climb. Why is that?

And nothing has changed in Egypt. Same package, same destination, but they changed the stamp. No difference. So much for democratic revolution.

Two the US has not and has no intentions of putting feet on the ground or exercising direct control of the operations in Egypt. The operation in Libya is a NATO affair and being driven by our European allies.

Of course they don't have to put people in Egypt, since the military junta is a US run puppet! Like I said, that theatrical stunt of kicking Mubarak to the curb changed nothing. Just ask the protesters who are now getting arrested for continuing to protest this exchanging of the guard.




Michael Scheuer, former CIA, takes CNN bimbos to the cleaners...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMOtC9zGQHI

As well, CIA whistleblower Susan Lindauer agrees with my general take on it: you want to destabilize? You want chaos? Topple Gaddafi, and you're going to get it.

 

[Cowboy]

So are you excusing this, because of wrong precedent in the past?

It's not that I'm excusing it. I've just reached the point where I'm no longer surprised by anything our government does.

 

[joepistole]

Yep, if the US Executive branch doesn't un-Constitutionally launch wars from time to time, we wouldn't have any gas. Right.

WRONG, no matter what we do in the Middle East it is not going to fix our energy issues. It is all a giant deception aimed at appeasing certian special interests groups who have a signficant interest in keeping things the way they are; that would include international oil companies and the all oil exporting nations. Bush I's Iraq War was a complete waste of money and blood.

No matter who controls the oil they are going to seek the highest possible price and keep competitive fuels out of the market. Our government could bust up the oil cartel almost over night and solve the nations energy and employment woes in one stroke. But it would hurt those special interest groups. So it is not going to happen.

I have this funny feeling: no matter who is in power in Egypt or elsewhere, $ per barrel is going to continue to climb. Why is that?

Probably because you are right in this instance.

And nothing has changed in Egypt. Same package, same destination, but they changed the stamp. No difference. So much for democratic revolution.

Of course they don't have to put people in Egypt, since the military junta is a US run puppet! Like I said, that theatrical stunt of kicking Mubarak to the curb changed nothing. Just ask the protesters who are now getting arrested for continuing to protest this exchanging of the guard.

Michael Scheuer, former CIA, takes CNN bimbos to the cleaners...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMOtC9zGQHI

As well, CIA whistleblower Susan Lindauer agrees with my general take on it: you want to destabilize? You want chaos? Topple Gaddafi, and you're going to get it.

Who knows what will happen in Egypt? They may get a democracy but the odds are they will replace one dicator with another. As for chaos and Gadhafi, it is already there. With or without Gadhafi, there will be unrest and chaos in Libya. Let me remind you it was Gadhafi's government that self destructed and caused the current chaos.

The question is do you want to use the opportunity to get rid of a untrustworthy terrorist, Gadhafi? Our European allies are all for it and Obama has agreed on the condition that the Europeans take the lead and responsiblity which they have done.

 

[Odin'Izm]

Well then why didn't Obama send in troops to Iran, Syria and Yemen then, after all the government there was killing its own citizens as well. It just seems very unconstitutional as to how he is going about using the military for only countries he deems as killing their citizens but never has anything to do about stopping other dictators that do the same America helps, like Saudi Arabia as just one example. Now over 200 million just for weapons used has been thrown away as well as a few more million for aircraft downed then fuel should be considered as well to travel to Libys to handle this mess. Without any talks with Congress and no set goals as to what will happen in Libya if Qaddafi doesn't capitulate then he has exceeded his power and should be carefully examined as to how he can get by doing this sort of thing.

The reason they chose Libya over any other is that Quaddafi is easy to scapegoat, and also the fact that Libya has very clean oil, it has a low sulphate count, and is therefore much cheaper to treat in Europe's distilleries than the Saudi oil which over the past few decades has gotten more 'sour' (SR bacteria from sulphates entering wells).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13046127

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12821505

The EU economy does not need this conflictto carry on for a long time, but at the same time it is making a profit from it's existence with rebels running on the battle feild with shinny new FN-FALs and Nato anti aircraft systems. From what I've seen, it was FRANCE, not the US that started to stir this shit up. You see the world from the US news outlet, and I can tell you that the picture here has been rather different. The US has been late on the scene, with their official announcements almost 3 days after the EU started to mobilize (ships were already off the coast of Libya within days to "evacuate foreign nationals". The people running around on this side of the pond and pushing legislation to the security council, selling weapons and giving credit, have been the French, not the US.

http://www.euronews.net/2007/08/02/speculation-over-french-arms-deal-with-libya/

http://www.euronews.net/2011/02/23/foreigners-race-to-flee-violence-in-libya/

The navy is a relatively cheap means of trying to lift the Dollar (which just now is failing), you already had a force in the Med so it was a convenient option, especially as it is cheaper to get rid of tomahawk missiles than to allow them to pass their use-by date. He has effectively used the cheapest means available to increase the dollar's buying power at a time when you need to deal with foreign debts, and get rid of munitions which were not getting used, but rather being paid for to be kept in a state of readiness.

 

[Giambattista]

We need to invent a new award.

Butcher of the Year.

Obama is already nominated for it.

Is that a bad idea?

 

[Giambattista]

Our European allies are all for it and Obama has agreed on the condition that the Europeans take the lead and responsiblity which they have done.

Will they take responsibility as well for any war crimes committed by the peace loving freedom movement?

Butcher of the Year.

Obama is already nominated for it.

Barry "The Butcher" Soetoro. Legendary.

 

[joepistole]

Will they take responsibility as well for any war crimes committed by the peace loving freedom movement?

Got any examples of said war crimes? One generally need a crime to be committed before you start throwing people in jail, unless of course you are a totalitarian.

 

[Giambattista]

Got any examples of said war crimes?

Got any examples of war crimes committed by someone like, say, Saif Qaddafi? After all, the International Criminal Court claimed that he's a war criminal. Then again, they also said they had him in custody...

There have been stories since nearly day one about massacres. If you are really interested... check the top of this page, I reckon. Not that it stops with that.

Of course, we are told to believe whatever the gov tells us about Qaddafi's crimes, but naturally the evidence will need to be massive to prove anything about the opposite side. that's the way it always goes. You oppose the U.S. or some NATO coalition, you are guilty by default.

One generally need a crime to be committed before you start throwing people in jail, unless of course you are a totalitarian.

Unless of course you are NATO. Then again, jail takes too long. Just bomb the F*** out of them usually does the trick.

 

[nirakar]

Who is the last US president who never authorized the US military to attack people in other nations without first getting a declaration of war signed by Congress?

I think undeclared wars should be an impeachable offense because it is the president taking a power assigned to congress as a check on the presidency in the system of checks and balances. The problem is that congress has made it clear that congress wants war and supports war but does not want to have the responsibility of declaring war. How can you impeach the president for taking a power from congress which is a power that the congress wants to give away?

The founders were correct that congress not the president should have this power but congress won't do it's job.

 

[joepistole]

Got any examples of war crimes committed by someone like, say, Saif Qaddafi? After all, the International Criminal Court claimed that he's a war criminal. Then again, they also said they had him in custody...

That is not the issue. You are the one who wants to put people in jail. In order to do that, one ususally needs proof of a crime.

There have been stories since nearly day one about massacres. If you are really interested... check the top of this page, I reckon. Not that it stops with that.

There have certianly been a lot of stories on both sides. But you should still have some evidence before you go around throwing people into jails or worse.

Of course, we are told to believe whatever the gov tells us about Qaddafi's crimes, but naturally the evidence will need to be massive to prove anything about the opposite side. that's the way it always goes. You oppose the U.S. or some NATO coalition, you are guilty by default.

This sounds like a paranoid fantasy to me. One can speculate of many things, but evidence is necessary if you want to throw people in jail - assuming you are not a totalitarian and believe in human rights.

Unless of course you are NATO. Then again, jail takes too long. Just bomb the F*** out of them usually does the trick.

It is a well known fact that Libya (Gadhafi) supported terrorism. He admitted as much when he paid damages for Lockerbee. His erratic actions speak for themselves. And his people, Libyans speak even louder. They are the ones who have been defecting from his government en masse. And they are the ones who have been celebrating in major Libyan cities. And it is the Libyan's who have been shedding their blood to defeat Gadhafi, not Europeans or Americans.

 

[Pinwheel]

If Obama is looking for a new spin doctor, I think joepistole is an excellent candidate.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

After the experience in Iraq of what happens if you have no post war plan, surely there is a Libya post war plan.
Surely a "We need change", sharp as a knife, basket ball playing President like Obama wouldn't make that dumb mistake.
There is a plan, isn't there?

Curious coincidence.
Cost of sending a Tornado on a single sortie, about £30,000, just for the fuel!
(Bombs are extra)
Number of Air Missions in Libya to date, 30,000
Estimated number of Civilian deaths, 30,000

Whoa. Good shot, Obama! Straight into the casket.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The founders were correct that congress not the president should have this power but congress won't do it's job.

Congress??? How about the shit-for-brains bloody-useless Supreme Court? It's their job to make sure everyone respects the Constitution. Since the beginning of this endless Rooseveltian Era, the Constitution has been nothing but toilet paper and the Supremes just sit on their butts and watch it happen.