I Hate War

Of course they aren't free now given the U.S. quite cowardly (Democratic Congress) refused to help them after claiming they would.

 

ummm what? i'm sorry but an anonymous posting proves nothing and most of his case laws had nothing to do with what he said they did so please read a real book or i don't know go outside what the heck is a wage slave? handed over to who? the treasury i'm sorry but no one belongs to the treasury most of what those case laws allowed were the end of the gold standard paving the way for inflation

 

Great benefit to the USA?

What does that even mean, bro?

 

That was the wrong link try this...Subject: .The Bankruptcy of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are
official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt
entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth
hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is as
coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has
been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,
Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and
insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint
Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause
dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official
capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and
Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal
Government exists today in name only.


The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International
Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now
operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.
With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the
receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the
United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an
established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This
act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office
of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International
Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part:
"The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing
the United States."
http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_bankruptcy.htm

 

have you ever noticed how we never speak out against the dictators in south east asia? how us bases litter the pacific and indian oceans? after ww2 when japan liberated the region from britain many new ethnically diverse countries were born Myanmar (burma) Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, etc when the US backed Chiang Kai-shek over the populist communist Mao zedong we alienated china a major power player in the region, Both the korean war and the vietnamese wars were proxy wars faught between china influence based and us influence based regional powers where the out was trade economic development and untapped rich collections of natural resources and large populations. we needed to fight in vietnam to show our interest in the region was more than fleeting and would have backed anyone willing to oppose china, notice how despite an ongoing war against communist (Iran-Contra) we were willing to abandon our allies in vietnam after friendlier relations were established? we were there not to fight communism as people were told but to fight the rising tide of chinese regional influence

 

ok this one makes more sense i have a semantics issue it says the United nations but at the time it was called league of nations. and it's not like people are uninformed its just that its really confusing so most people don't get this country has no real value attached to its currency and we are all exchanging promises for real value thereby inflicting greater debt, propaganda and disinformation have convinced people to go farther into debt and forsake other things but i disagree with why it was done. The federal reserve created this type of currency because they realised that with an unregulated free economy the cycle of great depression the resurgence would just continue ie boom and bust so this was created to fool the people into thinking the economy could be fixed and that their democracy was still the same as before

 

War between civilized states for rational reasons is a classic example of a collective action failure.

If both sides could work together and be realistic they would realize that there's a far more pragmatic solution to their problem than warfare.

With that being said, collective action failures have proven impossible to manage at the international level. It's just not something humanity is capable of. So until we find a solution to that, we will have war, and it behooves all nations to be good at it.

 

I believe it merely requires the fiscal responsibility of wartime tax rates for the use of wartime powers; would we even have our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, if our federal Congress had to justify wartime tax rates for them.

 

Wars tend to be fought because of the twin motives of "fear" and "optimism".

 

Peace is preferable.

 

The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first…The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: "It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war." Then the few will shout even louder…Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it ... Next, statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
-Mark Twain

 

Two buildings (four if you include the two US embassies on Clinton's watch) down repeated attacks and attempted attacks on US soil and you ask that dumbass question as if nothing has happened since the1990? And you wonder why I accuse you of ignoring reality???

 

Calling things like "war on drugs" a "war" is just political marketing at its worst.
Drugs are not fighting the police, that's not their goal, to destroy law enforcement.

Even the "war on terror" is mainly just marketing. It's more of a war in the sense that it involves two armed factions squaring off. But I don't think it qualifies by the Clausewitzian or Sun Tzu definition of war as a contest between 2 or more states, or within one state as a civil war.

Bottom line, war happens. It is the work of nations and the contest of the elite for the limited resources of the planet.

 

Exactly; and, an public policy constitutes an public use; there should be an accounting for alleged war spending by that Body politic delegated the social Power to Tax the People for Any extra-Constitutional spending.

 

A very ignorant response on mulitple counts.

First and foremost the death of an "American" does not represent a threat to "America" as the first relates to a person and the second refers to the nation. Islam does not represent a threat to the nation but Christianity certianly does.

Next is your accounting practices when it comes to the death of individuals. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Muslims have died because of the orders given by "Christian" presidents that sent the US military to wars around the world in the last 30 years. Roughly six million innocent people world-wide have died because of the wars that "Christian" US presidents have waged since WW II.

Finally the Islamic attacks on the United States were in response to wars of interventionism by the United States against Muslim nations.

But that is not the threat to America I refer to. It is the invidious passage of laws based upon the "Bible" as opposed to the "Rights of the Person" that represents the true threat of America as it undermines the secular nature of our nation. The social conservative "religious-right" attempts to impose a sectarian government upon the American People and that represents the greatest religious threat against our nation.

Those that believe we are "One Nation Under God" as opposed to "One Nation Under the Constitution" are the religious threat to America and they are Christians.

 

It is most certainly the "contest of the elite for the limited resources of the planet" but to assume war must happen is wrong. War doesn't need to happen.

It is also true that the "War on Terror" was a marketing campaign that used a limited definition of what terrorism is. A M1-A1 Abrams tank is a weapon of terror far more so than it is just a combat weapon. Few things are more terrorizing than to see an M1-A1 Abrams coming down the street with it's cannon pointed at you. The tacit of "shock and awe" employed by the US military is exclusively about instilling terror in the hearts of the enemy. In truth war is the ultimate form of terrorism.

The first target of the "War on Terror" would be "War" itself because war is the greatest form of terrorism there is.

 

War is hell.

But it exists as long as there is a profit to be made from it:



http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/



excerpt:




"If more members of Congress or the business and media elite had had children in uniform, the United States would probably not have gone to war in Iraq.
“It is no secret that in subtle ways, many of these top leaders begin positioning themselves for their second-career employment during their final military assignments,” Webb wrote in A Time to Fight. The result, he said, is a “seamless interplay” of corporate and military interests “that threatens the integrity of defense procurement, of controversial personnel issues such as the huge ‘quasi-military’ structure [of contractors, like Blackwater and Halliburton] that has evolved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and inevitably of the balance within our national security process itself.” I heard assessments like this from many of the men and women I spoke with. The harshest ones came not from people who mistrusted the military but from those who, like Webb, had devoted much of their lives to it.

A man who worked for decades overseeing Pentagon contracts told me this past summer, “The system is based on lies and self-interest, purely toward the end of keeping money moving.” What kept the system running, he said, was that “the services get their budgets, the contractors get their deals, the congressmen get jobs in their districts, and no one who’s not part of the deal bothers to find out what is going on.”"



Arrogant warmongers like Cheney and Bush love war for that treason ... woops, I mean reason.

 

I think it is impossible to find world peace until all nations agree to some form of world order/laws, or, we simply need to wait another 500 years for humans to evolve beyond barbarism. For example, what would happen if AZ decided to attack CA? This aggression would be snuffed out immediately by the federal government, and yes, it might require some military force. But once the aggression is stopped there are a million other options to control and/or punish AZ instead of destroying AZ and killing/injuring thousands over multiple years of war. I would like to see this same scenario at the world level.

Lastly, as long as many nations hold nuclear weapons, other WMD's, and spend inordinate amounts of treasury developing and producing more lethal weapons, the world will continue the barbarism...

 

War doesn't need to happen indeed, but it will always happen.

As I stated earlier, war is a collective action failure. And as long as there's human society, there will be collective action failures.

 

Quite the accusation when no evidence exists that Cheney or Bush has ever profited from a war.

 

That war is much different than the non-conventional wars we have today. I am a 'new age' soldier of the OEF and OIF era. Our guys, we don't really understand the combat scenarios you had. Even in Iraq, it was still unconventional.

Thank you for your service.

-A

 

Operation Shock and Awe was designed to pound the enemy into submission before the initial invasion. It did not succeed as planned, as many of the targets fled to underground locations days in advance. This operation is not new. This is a tactic used by many countries in many battles/wars.

 

Why doesn't AZ attack CA? Why doesn't the USA attack the Dominican Republic? Why doesn't Great Britain attack India? Why doesn't 98% of the world's nations attack other nations? Seems to me in the grand scheme of things, most humans are peace-loving people and most governments are not into military wars. It seems silly to me that if 98% of the world's nations are peaceful, and desire and demand peace, why these 98% allow the 2% to cause so many problems? Even without some form of world order/laws, the 98% agree to similar definitions of unacceptable aggression. When one nation shows unacceptable aggression, seems there are two choices; stop the aggression and control and allow the current government to run that nation or remove that government from power. Which ever choice the actions should only take a few days or weeks to complete...not months and years and decades. Instead, world nations allow unacceptable aggression to go on forever as long as it doesn't directly effect them...like what we do in Africa. Let them kill and destroy each other as long as it doesn't effect us. If these scenarios were nipped as soon as they started, we would not have the problems and atrocities we have today. As long as we have single rogue nations, like the USA, flexing their military might around the world, we will continue the status quo...

 

Those wars don't happen cause they wouldn't be rational.
The costs (financial, social, political, international image etc etc) outweigh the benefits (what exactly do you get from the occupation of the Dominican Republic?).

It's nice that we've at least evolved to the point where wars are only waged when they pass the cost benefit analysis, even if it's only benefit for a small interest group, like with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

What your describing is how the military is nowadays as well. Iraq, we saw combat. But not nearly anything like Korea and Vietnam. However, that said, Iraq combat is scary because it's urban, but you are fighting an enemy who lives in that urban development. They hide amongst civilians.

There is a lot of traveling these days. A lot of non-combat tours, a lot of training overseas...etc. You are right about the friends. You never forget the brotherhood you formed since the day you stepped foot at basic, to the day you ETS.