8-Nov-14 World View -- Obama escalates U.S. in Iraq

[John]

8-Nov-14 World View -- Obama sharply escalates U.S. involvement in Iraq war

Chechnya refugees now fighting the Russians in Ukraine

** 8-Nov-14 World View -- Obama sharply escalates U.S. involvement in Iraq war
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e141108



Contents:
U.S. is doubling number of troops in Iraq, but it's not 'mission creep'
The comeuppance election
U.S. cannot confirm claim that Russian tanks are entering Ukraine
Chechnya refugees now fighting the Russians in Ukraine


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Iraq, Anbar province,
Ukraine, Russia, Chechnya, Syria

[NoOneImportant]

Perfect analysis John.

He is putting US troops into danger in small enough quantities to get them all slaughtered at once, not unlike Dien Bien Phu. You just can't trust him to listen to the military's advice, or anyone else's advice for that matter.

[Guest]

Can the President legally declare 35 million illegals US citizens or grant them Greeen cards without congressional approval? Is that constitutional?

[NoOneImportant]

Guest wrote:

Can the President legally declare 35 million illegals US citizens or grant them Greeen cards without congressional approval? Is that constitutional?

You are under the misapprehension that Obama gives a damn about the US Constitution. The making of Law in America has for roughly 225 years been well defined. A bill originates in either house. If the Law is different in either of the two houses the differences are hammered out in a conference committee between the two houses. The unified version is then sent back and voted on in both houses. If passed in both houses the bill is sent to the President for signature, or veto. If signed it becomes Law, if not (Congressional override aside) it does not.

None of the three parties in this process is permitted to alter, unilaterally, the verbiage (content) of the bill without going through the entire process again. Once the bill has become law it is the Presidents sworn duty to administer the Law as enacted. He does not have the discretion to unilaterally alter the Law's provisions, time tables, or requirements without going back through the entire Legislative process to alter the content of the Law. Obama has unilaterally altered (illegally I might add) by dictate, dozens of the provisions of Obamacare. Additionally Obama has declared that he will not enforce certain standing Laws. In short Obama is Nixon on steroids... he just doesn't think that the law applies to him, or perhaps more importantly so long as he can depend upon a corrupt Attorney General, and a pliant ambivalent populace he doesn't care whether the law applies to him or not. The US Constitution means nothing to such a venial man.

Until and unless there is someone present to hold the President's feet to the fire, to make him feel real jeopardy for his illegal actions, he may do as he pleases. And he may do it without regard to the US Constitution or anything else until indicted or sued.

[gerald]

Guest wrote:

Can the President legally declare 35 million illegals US citizens or grant them Greeen cards without congressional approval? Is that constitutional?

You are under the misapprehension that Obama gives a damn about the US Constitution. The making of Law in America has for roughly 225 years been well defined. A bill originates in either house. If the Law is different in either of the two houses the differences are hammered out in a conference committee between the two houses. The unified version is then sent back and voted on in both houses. If passed in both houses the bill is sent to the President for signature, or veto. If signed it becomes Law, if not (Congressional override aside) it does not.

None of the three parties in this process is permitted to alter, unilaterally, the verbiage (content) of the bill without going through the entire process again. Once the bill has become law it is the Presidents sworn duty to administer the Law as enacted. He does not have the discretion to unilaterally alter the Law's provisions, time tables, or requirements without going back through the entire Legislative process to alter the content of the Law. Obama has unilaterally altered (illegally I might add) by dictate, dozens of the provisions of Obamacare. Additionally Obama has declared that he will not enforce certain standing Laws. In short Obama is Nixon on steroids... he just doesn't think that the law applies to him, or perhaps more importantly so long as he can depend upon a corrupt Attorney General, and a pliant ambivalent populace he doesn't care whether the law applies to him or not. The US Constitution means nothing to such a venial man.

Until and unless there is someone present to hold the President's feet to the fire, to make him feel real jeopardy for his illegal actions, he may do as he pleases. And he may do it without regard to the US Constitution or anything else until indicted or sued.

The next two years could get interesting. Especially if some do as they have said, since the election.

[Trevor]

Now that we've got 3,000 troops in Iraq and many of them are now deploying to where most of the fighting is going on, it's only a matter of time before a couple of our soldiers get killed or captured. What are we going to do then? Leaving them is out of the question, but we wouldn't be able to rescue them without sending more troops.

This is reminding me of the Vietnam War, the difference being that we're in a crisis era and not an awakening era. By the time the next president takes over, regardless of whether it's a Democrat or Republican, I would expect us to have a lot more troops there. About 15,000 were in Vietnam when Kennedy was assassinated and I don't expect this to be a short conflict, especially not with the way we're bungling it.

Assuming of course the world isn't on fire by that time.

[NoOneImportant]

I Wrote:

The US Constitution means nothing to such a venial man.

Should have been: The US Constitution means nothing to such a venal man.

[gerald]

I Wrote:

The US Constitution means nothing to such a venial man.

Should have been: The US Constitution means nothing to such a venal man.

big difference --- venal is correct

[NoOneImportant]

What a difference an i makes, just one little i. Agreed, big difference.