The President and NATO can't make up the rules as they go along. The sixty some participants in the recent meetings from the Middle East are organizing to defeat IS/IS/L.
There is no basis for any country to invade Syria other than Iraq. This is a Syrian civil war that spilled over the Syrian border. Iraq has no significant military and/or government so what does anyone expect. Every other country in the area is secure. There has been no problem with other countries.
Americans traveling abroad is their right. If there is concern about Americans traveling to Syria and fighting a war that is treason by constitutional definition and they can be jailed and tried.
...According to the U.S. code, (click here) any citizen who "enlists or enters himself, or hires or retains another to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people as a soldier or as a marine or seaman ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." But a court ruling from 1896 involving U.S. citizens who fought with Cuban revolutionaries against Spanish colonial rule interpreted this to mean that it was only illegal for citizens to be recruited for a foreign army in the United States, not to simply fight in one. (Note to Libya's National Transitional Council: It probably wouldn't be wise to set up a recruiting station on the UCLA campus in hopes of attracting more fighters.)...
The difference with Syria is the USA took actions to remove chemical weapons from Syria. At this point a jihadist from the USA who claims to be fighting in Syria on behalf of the people but at the same time killing in the methodology of genocide is not only acting against USA policy but international law.
21-year-old university student from Los Angeles, has had quite the summer vacation. He informed family and friends that he was heading off to Cairo, but then crossed into Libya and spent the last few weeks fighting with the anti-Qaddafi rebels.
Any structured government has stamps when a traveler passes into their country. Entrance to the USA from overseas requires a walk through customs and otherwise. There is no reason why Homeland Security cannot stop travelers and check their passport for the entrance pass to countries where flight allows travelers to enter Syria, Libya or any other jihadist area.
In order for the Executive Branch and/or Congress can authorize American soldiers to war they have to have damn good reason not simply political dogma.
The media has been pushing war so intensely even Rand Paul states it may be a good idea to send USA military into Syria. That was amazing.
This push for American war is due to the potentials of the 2016 elections. The political environment is better for Republicans, ie: November 2014, if there is war or the threat of war. This so called 'reason to war' is a media war against the President and his party. It is all political so long as the American people perceive danger to their lives. It is long well known the USA media prefers Republicans in office.
In a Friday post, (click here) American Prospect blogger Paul Waldman didn’t predict who will win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, but he did predict that two potential candidates, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, won’t....
...Jeb's problem is that the party's threshold keeps moving right, and the very fact of his Bushness, plus the fact that he is indeed (at least in people's perception) the "establishment candidate," means that he'd probably have to campaign in a tricorner hat and get a picture of Sarah Palin tattooed on his neck to convince Tea Partiers they can trust him. I could be wrong, but I just don't think he has it in him.
Rove has been running the same game against Democrats that he and Bush/Cheney did at the time of 911.
One of the reasons the post 911 propaganda worked so well is because the people of the country were chronically bombarded by contradictory messages.
"The USA is under threat, but, go enjoy the country and vacation and spend money with abandon." Same exact thing and the Democrats fell for it. Basically, the Democrats are indulging in politics rather than policy. They are being hazed into political positions and then having the tables turned on them.
...On Oct. 10, 2002, Hoeffel voted in favor of the invasion. (click here) Within a year, he wished he had voted the opposite way.
His son is already out stumping for him. P. Bush is a land supervisor or some darn thing in Texas, what is he doing addressing the Latin American group in Tennessee?
Just because Great Britain, as an ally, is deciding to war with Syria/Iraq doesn't mean war mongering doesn't fit into their politics either.
There is no basis for any country to invade Syria other than Iraq. This is a Syrian civil war that spilled over the Syrian border. Iraq has no significant military and/or government so what does anyone expect. Every other country in the area is secure. There has been no problem with other countries.
Americans traveling abroad is their right. If there is concern about Americans traveling to Syria and fighting a war that is treason by constitutional definition and they can be jailed and tried.
...According to the U.S. code, (click here) any citizen who "enlists or enters himself, or hires or retains another to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people as a soldier or as a marine or seaman ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." But a court ruling from 1896 involving U.S. citizens who fought with Cuban revolutionaries against Spanish colonial rule interpreted this to mean that it was only illegal for citizens to be recruited for a foreign army in the United States, not to simply fight in one. (Note to Libya's National Transitional Council: It probably wouldn't be wise to set up a recruiting station on the UCLA campus in hopes of attracting more fighters.)...
The difference with Syria is the USA took actions to remove chemical weapons from Syria. At this point a jihadist from the USA who claims to be fighting in Syria on behalf of the people but at the same time killing in the methodology of genocide is not only acting against USA policy but international law.21-year-old university student from Los Angeles, has had quite the summer vacation. He informed family and friends that he was heading off to Cairo, but then crossed into Libya and spent the last few weeks fighting with the anti-Qaddafi rebels.
Any structured government has stamps when a traveler passes into their country. Entrance to the USA from overseas requires a walk through customs and otherwise. There is no reason why Homeland Security cannot stop travelers and check their passport for the entrance pass to countries where flight allows travelers to enter Syria, Libya or any other jihadist area.
In order for the Executive Branch and/or Congress can authorize American soldiers to war they have to have damn good reason not simply political dogma.
The media has been pushing war so intensely even Rand Paul states it may be a good idea to send USA military into Syria. That was amazing.
This push for American war is due to the potentials of the 2016 elections. The political environment is better for Republicans, ie: November 2014, if there is war or the threat of war. This so called 'reason to war' is a media war against the President and his party. It is all political so long as the American people perceive danger to their lives. It is long well known the USA media prefers Republicans in office.
In a Friday post, (click here) American Prospect blogger Paul Waldman didn’t predict who will win the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, but he did predict that two potential candidates, Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, won’t....
...Jeb's problem is that the party's threshold keeps moving right, and the very fact of his Bushness, plus the fact that he is indeed (at least in people's perception) the "establishment candidate," means that he'd probably have to campaign in a tricorner hat and get a picture of Sarah Palin tattooed on his neck to convince Tea Partiers they can trust him. I could be wrong, but I just don't think he has it in him.
Rove has been running the same game against Democrats that he and Bush/Cheney did at the time of 911.
In February, (click here) Republican strategist Karl Rove chastised President Barack Obama for ignoring “his own Bowles-Simpson deficit commission” and making “no effort to reduce the long-term debt burden.”
Now Crossroads GPS, the political group for which Rove serves as senior adviser, is running advertisements attacking Democrats who did support Simpson-Bowles. It is an unsurprising but depressing episode of political opportunism — and an apt illustration of why hard things don’t get done in Washington.
One of the reasons the post 911 propaganda worked so well is because the people of the country were chronically bombarded by contradictory messages.
"The USA is under threat, but, go enjoy the country and vacation and spend money with abandon." Same exact thing and the Democrats fell for it. Basically, the Democrats are indulging in politics rather than policy. They are being hazed into political positions and then having the tables turned on them.
...On Oct. 10, 2002, Hoeffel voted in favor of the invasion. (click here) Within a year, he wished he had voted the opposite way.
It turned out Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. It turned out Bush and Cheney, along with their high-profile civilian and military advisers, had misled Hoeffel and the rest of the U.S. citizenry. Countless Americans and Iraqis and human beings from other nations would die over the next decade because Hoeffel and his fellow politicians had authorized an invasion based on specious grounds.
In the introduction to his book, Hoeffel admits: "I was both misled and wrong." Then, in unambiguous language, he explains why he has published a book, years after leaving the House, and with a Democrat in the White House.
"I don't want George W. Bush and his people to get away with it," he writes. Citing recent public statements by Cheney about a desire to invade Iraq again, Hoeffel wants truth to prevail circa 2014. In addition, Hoeffel wants to counteract, however minimally, the book-length memoirs by Bush administration decision-makers parading "their absolute refusal to admit that they distorted and manipulated the intelligence [from Iraq] to bolster their case for war."...
It is all about Republican politics and their culture of fear.
Waldman’s peg was a Wall Street Journal report that Jeb’s “closest advisers” have asked GOP donors and operatives to “avoid committing to other possible presidential candidates until [Jeb] decides” after the midterms whether he’s going to run.
Has Jeb decided?
George P. Bush, (click here) the son of former Florida governor Jeb Bush and grandson of former President George H.W. Bush, will speak at a Latino Memphis event Tuesday.It is all about Republican politics and their culture of fear.
Waldman’s peg was a Wall Street Journal report that Jeb’s “closest advisers” have asked GOP donors and operatives to “avoid committing to other possible presidential candidates until [Jeb] decides” after the midterms whether he’s going to run.
Has Jeb decided?
His son is already out stumping for him. P. Bush is a land supervisor or some darn thing in Texas, what is he doing addressing the Latin American group in Tennessee?
Just because Great Britain, as an ally, is deciding to war with Syria/Iraq doesn't mean war mongering doesn't fit into their politics either.
LONDON: RAF Hercules aircraft (click here) dropped 14 tonnes of food and water on the besieged Iraqi town of Amerli on Saturday night, the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, has said as he confirmed that Britain is keeping open the option of joining US air strikes against Isil militants.
Fallon, who pointed out that the RAF has transported arms to Kurdish forces fighting jihadists from Isil, said Britain welcomed the US air strikes and said ministers would consider any request from the Iraqi government to join in further action.
The British government has decided to rule out definitively sending combat ground troops to Iraq, a position ministers are making clear in public. But they are leaving the door open to joining air strikes against Isis forces by saying they have no plans to do so at the moment and have not received a request to do so.
