Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls For Draft

Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:17 am » by **Iamcare**

I gotta say I agree with Red on this one. I'm equally liking and cursing whats going on in Lybia because the will of the people is that foreign states intervene, Ghadaffi has been armed, trained then hung out to dry in the same way Saddam Hussein was.

The problem with this is its giving tptb a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of the people, the next time they do launch an illegal war, be it against Korea, Iran or China, they will have the good grace of the people behind them, beleiving they have changed for the better and only use the military for humanitarian purposes.

I am against intervening in revolutionary proceedures in any country without the obvious and express will of the majority of the country. Everyone on this planet has to learn to stand the fuck up for themselves and realise that if they ask other to conduct a revolution for them, then they are only inviting a different tyranny. The only worthwhile revolution for the masses is one conducted by the oppressed masses, as was shown in egypt, and if the people of Lybia truly want revolution then they vastly outnumber the armed forces, so it will happen of their own accord.

Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:24 am » by **Redwoodrick**

am against intervening in revolutionary procedures in any country without the obvious and express will of the majority of the country. Everyone on this planet has to learn to stand the fuck up for themselves and realise that if they ask other to conduct a revolution for them, then they are only inviting a different tyranny. The only worthwhile revolution for the masses is one conducted by the oppressed masses, as was shown in Egypt, and if the people of Lybia truly want revolution then they vastly outnumber the armed forces, so it will happen of their own accord.

well said

Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:26 am » by **Whiteknight2000**

US looks to hand over reins of Libya campaign as NATO baulks

THE United States was trying to hand over command and control of the military operation in Libya today, with speculation that Britain and France could take the lead role within days.
Senior NATO officials agreed a military plan to enforce a UN arms embargo on Libya at a meeting in Brussels, the BBC reported early today, but stopped short of throwing their weight behind enforcing a no-fly zone.
The embargo will involve using alliance aircraft and ships to prevent weapons reaching Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
Turkey formally blocked a plan for the 28-nation military alliance to take over responsibility for enforcing the no-fly zone while Germany, which abstained at a UN Security Council vote, reiterated its concerns over the military intervention, The (London) Times reported.
US Defence Secretary Roberts Gates said the US would not play a "preeminent role" in military action.

"I think there is a sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating a NATO umbrella," he said. "And so the question is if there is a way we can work out NATO's command and control machinery without it being a NATO mission. And without a NATO flag and so on.
"We expected in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility ... We will continue to support the coalition, we will be a member of the coalition, we will have a military role in the coalition. But we will not have the preeminent role."
It is now thought the responsibility for the military intervention will fall to Britain and France, according to The (London) Times.
Early today, the BBC reported that Qatar had decided to send four planes to join the coalition military campaign - the first Arab country to do so.
The news came, however, as more cracks appeared in the pact underpinning the action in Libya.
The Arab League, which had supported military action, said Western attacks on Libyan forces had gone beyond the objective of implementing the no-fly zone.
Amr Moussa, the Egyptian head of the league, reflected unease in the Arab world and beyond over what critics there depicted as another "neo-colonial" US-European offensive to change an Arab regime. Criticism also came from India, Russia, China and Venezuela.
Mr Moussa called for an emergency session of the 22-nation league to review the military operation, which he said had "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians".

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/us ... z1HCReshnR

Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:34 am » by **Tgwusauk**

"What is the United Nations? The United Nations is basically a World Government."
The UN is owned by the UK,the only member state with more than 1 vote, UK has 57 or 59 votes, so has full controlling interest in the operation. So blaming USA is not the answer, they have no option.

Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:37 am » by **Neilglfc**

harbin wrote:http://blacklistednews.com/Obama-Starts-Another-Illegal-War%2C-Rangel-Calls-For-Draft/13129/0/5/5/Y/M.html

What balls! What hubris! What hypocrisy! What happened to America?

Once again, America has preemptively attacked a sovereign nation that posed no threat to her without a declaration of war from the people's representatives. Apparently the U.S. president now gets permission from the U.N. to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on unprovoked wars and outright murder. Isn't it still called murder when killing is not done in self-defense? Okay, just checking to make sure I haven't lost my mind.

Nobel Peace prince Obama launched his liberation of the good people of Libya with his own shock-and-awe bombing campaign appropriately on the eighth anniversary of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. This tyrannical intervention is so naked, so brazen in its hubris that whatever shred of goodwill America had left is completely gone. America is officially the most murderous, anti-democratic, terrorist nation the world has ever known.

And get this, on the very same day of this unconstitutional act of war, ethically-challenged Charlie Rangel reintroduced his National Service "Draft" bill. Rangel pointed out in his announcement that the government lied us into the Iraq war that ultimately resulted in the deaths of over 4,400 servicemen with over 32,000 injured. He claims this is the reason we need a draft:

Based on false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction and involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the unfunded war in Iraq has cost our nation not only $800 billion dollars, but the lives of more than 4,400 brave American patriots. Over 32,000 U.S. soldiers have also been seriously wounded in the war we should not have been in the first place.

It is because of these devastating statistics and the commitment our nation must make to sharing in duty and service that I reintroduced the Universal National Service Act, commonly known as the draft bill.

You can't make this stuff up. So, our government lies us into wars for profit and oil, thrusts our brave young men and women in harms way against poor nations who in their wildest dreams couldn't threaten America, and puts off paying for them as long as the banks and China get their interest payments at gunpoint from the taxpayer. And now you want to force all of our kids to take part in this sociopathic behavior?

Rangel continues:

Currently the burden of defending our nation is carried by an increasingly smaller segment of our population. Only 1 percent of the American population currently makes the sacrifice of laying down life and limb for our country.

Far too many are being forced into repeated tours of duty, sometimes as many as six deployments. This repeated combat exposure to our troops is why 25 percent of America's active duty military personnel suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It is why the Army's current suicide rate is far above the civilian rate at 22-per-100,000. The rate for the Marine Corps is even higher.

Boy, Rangel is a first-rate salesman. Who could resist the idea of forcing their children into repeated tours of duty and a 1-in-4 chance of getting ruined by PTSD? Or, making them so miserable that they think suicide is better than killing poor brown people for Big Oil profits and their pocket-change politicians -- all while bankrupting the country and their home towns in the process?

Rangel's pitch that a draft would alleviate these problems is ill-conceived, as he even pointed out: "Having a draft does not necessarily mean that everyone called to duty would be required to serve in the Armed forces." Who in their right mind would choose the Armed forces in this corrupt imperial climate if given a choice of community services?

Of course, liberals like to think Rangel's hidden argument is that a draft would actually discourage war by making the people pay more attention to the wars enough to protest. Wake up! We can't even get Congress to vote for these wars anymore! The notion that the decision makers will actually give a shit about the people's will is laughable. Besides, we all know how they handle peaceful protesters these days, despite their lofty rhetoric of fighting for people's rights in foreign countries.

At this point, it seems the only thing that can stop these conquistadors is when soldiers start refusing to fight en masse. They, and they alone, have the power to end this insanity. As Albert Einstein said "Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war." God help them find the courage and moral compass to end this tyranny.

Rangel buying into the good graces of his elite New York constituents.

i think youll find it was france

Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:36 am » by **Disorganizer81**

Definition of war: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea or AIR.

A state or period of armed hostility or active military operations.

It's a war. And it is illegal. Because no matter how much you NWO COmmies hate it, the constitution trumps UN law, for the constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.

Good to see the avoidance of the whole "bring the draft back" debate.

Usually it takes decades or longer for history to repeat itself. Tptb have it down to such a craft they only need 8 years.

Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:51 am » by **Redwoodrick**

disorganizer81 wrote:Definition of war: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea or AIR.

A state or period of armed hostility or active military operations.

It's a war. And it is illegal. Because no matter how much you NWO COmmies hate it, the constitution trumps UN law, for the constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.

Good to see the avoidance of the whole "bring the draft back" debate.

Usually it takes decades or longer for history to repeat itself. Tptb have it down to such a craft they only need 8 years.

I wont parse semantics with you.I agree with part of your point as far as calling it a "war",but I think you will find that participation in UN resolutions for emergency humanitarian issues does not require congressional assent.I am rather sure the US administration did its homework before finally agreeing to be a part of this.Plus they are deferring operations and charter command to another nation,to avoid the false appearance of exactly what has been suggested in this baseless, fearmongering thread.

Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:55 am » by **Disorganizer81**

Nothing in the constitution about bypassing article1 section 8 due to "humanitarian emergencies." Don't ask me to show compassion, I have none. Matter of fact, I am willing to wager a perma ban bet that Libya goes shiara if the rebels win.

Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:58 am » by **Nihilgeist**

Oh of course, because the US is profiting from Iraqi oil and an Iraqi puppet government so much these days. :roll:

Hmmm, I also seem to remember people calling the Iraqi War illegal because although Congress voted to go to War, the UN was never included within the pretext and therefore never approved of it.

Now you same people are citing the lack of Congress approval but the UN Vote. How convenient.

Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:03 am » by **Disorganizer81**

Same people?