The only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran

Thankfully SOMEONE Has something to say!

During a speech on the House floor on Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) declared that "impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran." The 2004 presidential candidate, who is running again in 2008, told RAW STORY that his House floor statement "speaks for itself."

"This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power," Kucinich said on the floor today. "The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies."

This man, is the first person in a long long time to stand up and say the god damn truth

Kucinich noted that since the US "is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world," and Article II states that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," then "even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal."

that was perfect, someone in the cirlce has agreeed, what we did is ILLEGIAL when considered in terms with the charter that governs world peace.

rawstory.com...

No doubt, a man like this, speaking words such as these will be brandashed a traitor, a coward.. a defeatist....

Un-American... Anti American.. Anti-Israeli... what ever it is people get labeled these days for speakin ill of the president and his war...

"Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran," Kucinich said today.

We sat on our hands once before.. and look how Iraq is going..

are we prepared to sit on our hands again?

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
A republican, of all people...... has this to say about the great commander in chief.

Psssst......

Rep. means Representative as in "House of"

The "D" means democrat.

and by the way while we're at it.....

OH means Ohio, a state that went for Mr. Bush in 2004.

[edit on 3/15/2007 by darkbluesky]

You have voted darkbluesky for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Thank you.

Lex

Ahhh thankyou good fellow!
updated and edited.

doesnt change the mood but!

but I like the way WATS are given out for picking up Gramatical errors.

or was it simply because he faulted the big bad anti american?

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Agit8dChop]

"what ever it is people get labeled these days for speakin ill of the president and his war... "

I think the term you are infact looking for is Liberal Pot Smoking Islamo Communist Nazi Facist.

Lets stay on topic folks.

I may be wrong, but I don't see Bush being impeached. With the coming elections so far away I am amazed at the uproar and politickin' that is starting this early. It's already ugly and looks like it can only go downhill from here.

Thats just my take on it though, early and ugly politics.

A republican is being critical of the push for war with Iran and the Neo-Cons.

His name is Ron Paul, he is also running for president.

If this were a free country the election would be Paul vs Kucinich and freedom would win either way.

Ugly politics is needed when ugly administrations make drastically haneous moves.

Lets hope more talk like this comes out in the house. Bush's supporters are becoming thinner and thinner, especially inside the whitehouse.

what happens when its only a hand ful of them left...

Republicans would lose the election if the peoples vote count....

... if... the peoples votes count.

I dont think the Republicans will worry about loosing too much, they have that pyscho whore Hilary ready to send more young men to their deaths any given time.

Im amazed she came out the other day saying if she wins, then the occupation will remain.


Thats political suicide when you look at the numbers against the war...

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Im amazed she came out the other day saying if she wins, then the occupation will remain.


Thats political suicide when you look at the numbers against the war...

Tell me...If the "numbers" are so against the continued involvement of the US in Iraq, why won't, or why can't the Democrat majority in Congress show some sack and cut funding for the military commitment to Iraq, or pass a binding resolution requiring a date certain withdrawl of US forces from Iraq?

I'll tell you why.

Despite what you hear from the non stop polling results, most clear thinking Americans realize the Iraq people will suffer tragically if we leave before the Iraqi government and army are capable of maitaining some degree of order and safety

Lol yeah Agit she even voted for the "Patriot" Act but basicaly if any candidate actually comes forward saying they want an immediate pullout theve basicaly lost the vast majority of their funding, theres just far too much money to be made by the likes of Haliburton and Lockheed with a long term occupation. Its a total sham thats the only reason this war keeps going on as long as it has, to make money for those mental corporations.

If however you said all this "yeah yeah war sure, lets srew the a-rabs and take the damned oil" but then when you get into power........"Oi, you cant pull out now, you signd that bit of paper saying your soul was ours asshole" youd get elected president on friday an get assassinated on saturday pretty much.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Starvald]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Despite what you hear from the non stop polling results, most clear thinking Americans realize the Iraq people will suffer tragically if we leave before the Iraqi government and army are capable of maitaining some degree of order and safety

I'm pretty sure the Iraqi people have suffered greatly with an US occupational force slaughtering hundreds a day. We've done enough thanks, its time for us to leave.

As for the Iraqi state, it was only CREATED after World War I as a British Mandate because they were deemed too uncivilized to rule by themselves. They are not a real country in the traditional sense. The Brits needed an ally in the Middle East, so why not create a country that has no political unity (Kurds, Sunni's Shi'ite s have no real ties with each other).

Good way of creating political disorder by creating a false country under ridiculous circumstances.

I don't see how you got a WATS for a post like your first geez...

Originally posted by biggie smalls

I'm pretty sure the Iraqi people have suffered greatly with an US occupational force slaughtering hundreds a day. We've done enough thanks, its time for us to leave.

You show us some evidence to support your claim that US forces are slaughtering Iraqis by the hundreds every day.

US Army Soldiers and Marines patrol daily to keep the militias from killing each other and abducting or terrorizing citizens of the wrong religious and/or politcal persuasion. When they come under attack they defend themselves. When they encounter known insurgent forces operating outside the bounds of Iraqi law they attempt to sieze them, when they resist violence ensues.

Come on...give us some evidence of indescriminant slaughter.

I don't see how you got a WATS for a post like your first geez...

As Agit said, likely because the poster who threw me the vote is sick of the uninformed dribble that comes from so many posters around here. I'm not naming anyone mind you, just in general.

Hilliary probably said that they would stay in Iraq because we've built to many permanent bases over there; the occupation could last a decade or longer.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Im amazed she came out the other day saying if she wins, then the occupation will remain.


Thats political suicide when you look at the numbers against the war...

Tell me...If the "numbers" are so against the continued involvement of the US in Iraq, why won't, or why can't the Democrat majority in Congress show some sack and cut funding for the military commitment to Iraq, or pass a binding resolution requiring a date certain withdrawl of US forces from Iraq?

I'll tell you why.

Despite what you hear from the non stop polling results, most clear thinking Americans realize the Iraq people will suffer tragically if we leave before the Iraqi government and army are capable of maitaining some degree of order and safety

Because the democrats dont want to cut funding for the troops.. how is that going to help the situation?
Just abandon them there with what theyve got ?>
Bush will Veto anything.

The polls clearly show bush's support base is what, 30%
and the % base for keeping troops in iraq is below 50%?

Do you honestly believe more than half of america is DUMB enough to continue believing in this sham?

Some maybe yes, but more than half? 150,000,000.00 people? I dont think so.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by biggie smalls

I'm pretty sure the Iraqi people have suffered greatly with an US occupational force slaughtering hundreds a day. We've done enough thanks, its time for us to leave.

You show us some evidence to support your claim that US forces are slaughtering Iraqis by the hundreds every day.

US Army Soldiers and Marines patrol daily to keep the militias from killing each other and abducting or terrorizing citizens of the wrong religious and/or politcal persuasion. When they come under attack they defend themselves. When they encounter known insurgent forces operating outside the bounds of Iraqi law they attempt to sieze them, when they resist violence ensues.

Come on...give us some evidence of indescriminant slaughter.

I don't see how you got a WATS for a post like your first geez...

As Agit said, likely because the poster who threw me the vote is sick of the uninformed dribble that comes from so many posters around here. I'm not naming anyone mind you, just in general.

Well, we are driving around 'THEYRE' country in our hummmeers, shooting anyone that feels they have a right to defend theyre home against a foreign invader..
or is this wrong in your mind?

How dare they stand up for there country.

BUT BACK ON TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Darkbluesky, do you support strikes against Iran?

Originally posted by Agit8dChopThe polls clearly show bush's support base is what, 30%
and the % base for keeping troops in iraq is below 50%?

Do you honestly believe more than half of america is DUMB enough to continue believing in this sham?

Some maybe yes, but more than half? 150,000,000.00 people? I dont think so.

You don't understand or appreciate American politics. Congressmen and women are worried about only one thing...their next campaign, unless they don't plan to seek re-election, then they vote based on a myraid of reasons ranging from personal financial gain, spite, revenge, cronieism, etc. If they are seeking re-election they consitently vote with their internal polling trends.

If a majority controlled Dem Congress cant pass legislataion to get US forces out of Iraq, it tells me a mojority of registered voters are against the idea.

[edit on 3/15/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Darkbluesky, do you support strikes against Iran?

No.
Sorry for the one liner.

"US Army Soldiers and Marines patrol daily to keep the militias from killing each other and abducting or terrorizing citizens of the wrong religious and/or politcal persuasion"

LOL, no they dont, they patrol daily to stop insurgents bombing forward bases and taking pot shots at their troops. Look the vast majority of what U.S forces do in Iraq is escort/gaurd civilian contractors and maintane security up and down the countrys oil infrastructure. Forget its all one big peace keeping effort cause its bull#. And see all this religious nonesense thats another sham, Sunni's are funded, trained and supplied by Saudi and Shi'ites indirectly by Iran. Do you really think America isnt fuelling this little sectarian war? of course they are, America/Saudi want control of that oil as much as Iran does.

"If a majority controlled Dem Congress cant pass legislataion to get US forces out of Iraq"

I have a vague idea of how a republic works but ill admit i dont know much behind the actualy process of that. Can you explain to me how Congress would go about creating a legislation, how it is representative of the people in your nation and how they pass it please.