For all of you 'Merikan FUCKTARDS that think your country serves you...

[lukep]

Something HUGE happened in congress today... Live On C-SPAN, and there is no denying the consequences of the US Military will never be the same:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNwOeyuG84]Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube[/ame]

For those who don't know those two people; Senator Sessions is the republican senator from Alabama and is on the Committee on Armed Services. In 2005 he supported the Iraqi war fervently. -He's no friend of liberty.

Leon Panetta is our Secretary of Defense, (The CEO of the DoD) also known as the #2 guy in the military, right under the POTUS. He spends all his time in the Pentagon telling Generals what he wants them to do.

If you watched this video to the end then you heard pretty much the very most startling revelation ever to be allowed to be heard by the citizen of the USA: The president only controls our troops when our wars are DEFENSIVE. (Which to my knowledge has never happened.)

ALL of our offensive wars, at least starting after WWII, were basically NOT under control of the USA... They were initiated by the UN or NATO!

Think about this treasonous shit for just one minute here... The US Military does NOT serve the US, it primarily serves NATO and the UN, doing their bidding when they want it to. Panetta is basically getting all of his authority from NON-US powers, and it's conceivable that they might not have our best interests at heart.

That's so unconstitutional that I'm halfway expecting to hear about a military coup on the news any minute now!

Holy mother of god!

Dr. Paul needs to start preaching about the evils of this RIGHT NOW.

 

[IceToEskimos]

if OP had a political blog, I would read it every day.

 

[lukep]

I'm just getting most of this shit from Daily Paul, but thanks!

Can you fucking believe this shit? I think the r3VOLution might be delayed at this point for something a bit more violent...

 

[schockergd]

Quite a few people took note of what transpired with Panetta.

 

[geomark]

Luke might find this interesting. Here in Thailand when I ask well informed Thai people what they think of all the wars and invasions around the world they often attribute it to the evil intentions of NATO, and mention the U.S. only as an after thought or as a part of NATO not as the primary driver. Perhaps they are better informed than I am being that I'm a brainwashed American and never saw it before.

 

[jorarulit]

Sometimes I wonder if some of these high-standing political figures are possessed by the devil.

 

[igl00]

sure but NATO serves US.
and then USA was build from UK bankers in past like rest of world.
it US that like to go on all this wars and make the calls, not others.

mainly - nothing really changes there than going official.

 

[WingAndAPrayer]

ALL of our offensive wars, at least starting after WWII, were basically NOT under control of the USA... They were initiated by the UN or NATO!

That's interesting, considering the UNSC didn't authorize the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan...

UN Secretary General Said Iraq War was illegal: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

Afghanistan:
The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the September 11 attacks, and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information; and urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism. ...
The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men – 15 from Saudi Arabia – did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.

— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild

 

[amateursurgeon]

Something HUGE happened in congress today... Live On C-SPAN, and there is no denying the consequences of the US Military will never be the same:

Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube

For those who don't know those two people; Senator Sessions is the republican senator from Alabama and is on the Committee on Armed Services. In 2005 he supported the Iraqi war fervently. -He's no friend of liberty.

Leon Panetta is our Secretary of Defense, (The CEO of the DoD) also known as the #2 guy in the military, right under the POTUS. He spends all his time in the Pentagon telling Generals what he wants them to do.

If you watched this video to the end then you heard pretty much the very most startling revelation ever to be allowed to be heard by the citizen of the USA: The president only controls our troops when our wars are DEFENSIVE. (Which to my knowledge has never happened.)

ALL of our offensive wars, at least starting after WWII, were basically NOT under control of the USA... They were initiated by the UN or NATO!

Think about this treasonous shit for just one minute here... The US Military does NOT serve the US, it primarily serves NATO and the UN, doing their bidding when they want it to. Panetta is basically getting all of his authority from NON-US powers, and it's conceivable that they might not have our best interests at heart.

That's so unconstitutional that I'm halfway expecting to hear about a military coup on the news any minute now!

Holy mother of god!

Dr. Paul needs to start preaching about the evils of this RIGHT NOW.

How come this is a surprise to you? The US uses NATO & UN to give its imperialism a figleaf of legitimacy. That's why they do it that way. NATO is pretty much controlled by the US.

 

[clyde]

How come this is a surprise to you? The US uses NATO & UN to give its imperialism a figleaf of legitimacy. That's why they do it that way. NATO is pretty much controlled by the US.

This.

I was gonna ask who controls NATO/UN and if the US controls NATO, then, in what way? how?

 

[kingfish]

The fuck...

 

[lukep]

Quite a few people took note of what transpired with Panetta.

Got any linx? Love to hear it talked about in the MSM... If no other reason for the lulz.

Luke might find this interesting. Here in Thailand when I ask well informed Thai people what they think of all the wars and invasions around the world they often attribute it to the evil intentions of NATO, and mention the U.S. only as an after thought or as a part of NATO not as the primary driver. Perhaps they are better informed than I am being that I'm a brainwashed American and never saw it before.

I believe that totally... Until today, at least, I doubt more than a handful of americans could see it though, mainly because if it became widely known than our Soldiers would feel betrayed and without clear leadership... So they HAD to keep americans stupid about this fact just to keep peace here.

Ruh-roh. I think this just made the US Military 200% more likely to commit some kind of a coup at any point going forward after today. Things are getting worse around here really fucking fast. :crap:

sure but NATO serves US.
and then USA was build from UK bankers in past like rest of world.
it US that like to go on all this wars and make the calls, not others.

mainly - nothing really changes there than going official.

I wondered about this... There certainly is no clear chain of command with one person or country fully at the top... Only the MIC benefits the most.

Here's how I see it:

1. The MIC was built up from WWII, and becomes very powerful, as Ike stated.

2. The MIC wanted to spread it's market around the globe, so it started lobbying NATO and the UN to get those organizations involved in lots of wars.

3. The POTUSes, each only being a member of the UN and NATO get a vote in the decisions but don't have the full say... Sometimes they just follow orders from the whole.

The conclusions is inescapable. If a MIC rep says: You must go start a fight with XYZ, and can get the other NATO member nations on board with that fight, then even if XYZ is a good friend to the USA and the US Citizens love XYZ, we will send our military to go destroy them despite the will of the people... Just takes a little propaganda from what I can see. :crap:

 

[lukep]

The {UN} did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.]

Of course it's Illegal according to the US constitution. Every war since the Korean war has been so, and few would argue that. On the world stage, afghanistan was likely made "legal" by NATO... But I don't really know for sure.

How come this is a surprise to you? The US uses NATO & UN to give its imperialism a figleaf of legitimacy. That's why they do it that way. NATO is pretty much controlled by the US.

The surprising part is hearing it being admitted by the head of our military.

Think about what that sounds like to all 1.5 Million Active US soldiers who swore an oath to the Constitution... As if they weren't having enough problem with that stance before... Now it's downright impossible for them to believe they are keeping their oath.

 

[advive]

LOL @ OP, way to take shit out of context.
What they are saying is if someone attacks US, the president has the power to act. If US wants to invade some other country they like to have support of some international body before they attack to make it seem "legal".

 

[lukep]

LOL @ OP, way to take shit out of context.

You gotta learn to read between the lines, bro. "Legality" means nothing inside those meetings.

...If US wants to invade some other country they like to have support of some international body before they attack to make it seem "legal".

While this is true, try looking deeper here. The Idea of legality on that level is laughable. You're literally talking about a board room full of men who are full of themselves. The word legal itself is something they probably have a good laugh over when it gets uttered amongst them.

When people like that can do whatever they want behind closed doors and the result is called "Legal," then what you have is clearly a complete farce.

 

[Rage9]

I always thought NATO was pretty much ran by the US, thus making it a US organization.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394646/august-15-2011/susan-rice-pt--1

 

[lukep]

I always thought NATO was pretty much ran by the US, thus making it a US organization.

Although the US is the most influential country in it, someone has yet to tell the other 27 member countries this.

 

[jenzkc]

stuff like this should make it obvious it doesn't matter who is president. those in control are outside the administration.

 

[ly2 from WF]