Give me control of a nations money supply and I care not who makes its laws

[deleted]

Yeah, I think they all said it in unison.

I couldn't remember the guy who actually said it but they've all kept a good job of upholding that quote

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Jews?

I heard they where Christian

Jews, Xtians, Islamics; what's the difference? They all worship the same made-up "G_d" who's just a re-hash of older myths.

You might as well base your life on being a Democrat or Republican, another false duality.

There's a huge difference and if you don't know it you need to learn it because it WILL affect you personally. They aren't Christians. If you define "Jewish" as a religion they aren't Jews either. They are Luciferians and they are very serious about it.

How many times do I have to say it? All this "Luciferian" crap is a holdover from the 80s Satanic Panic. It is black propaganda designed to shift a measure of focus away from the moral culpability of the Abrahamic religions. Anyone who holds power and is actually a follower of a Left Hand Path gets smeared by the establishment sooner or later.

It's amazing to me that you people buy into some of the most obvious black propaganda.

If you are unable or unwilling to see what those people are - Luciferians - you're never going to have a clue what's really going on, what the plan is, and where their plan is headed.

And you clearly have no idea what a Luciferian is. At all. Even the idea of "Luciferians" being evil is ridiculous. Stop getting your bullshit information from sources that reference the Bible or Jesus.

Yeah whatever. Have fun being ambushed by reality in the form of war.

Read what you're writing to me. Just read your own words.

Now, point me toward one Luciferian. Do it. Past or present, doesn't matter.

There's a really good reason for why they all sound alike.

Their fucking satanists, but it doesn't matter if what they believe is real or not; what matters is what lengths they would go to in order to satisfy their convictions.

[deleted]

Cranberry? http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Mayer.Amschel.Rothschild.Quote.8BED

Or apple? http://rense.com/general79/tril.htm

[deleted]

Just like any sensible person should

Lol, are you for real?

Nice quote, it has nothing to do with attacking a country that didn't attack you (the Bush Doctrine).

lol you sure?

The U.S. federal government does not give two shits whether something is illegal or not.

The U.S. federal government does not give two shits whether something is illegal or not.

Oh they care if what someone else is doing is illegal or not, they just don't care if what they are doing is illegal.

Exactly. The US uses "herbicide". Other people use "chemical weapons". In the US, it's "enhanced interrogation". Elsewhere, it's "torture". etc. etc.

[deleted]

Oh! I see something! I better snitch out of irrational, programmed fear say something

If we use a different word, it stops being the thing that is offensive!

Unless of course that someone else is paying them enough money. That is ok too.

They do illegal things all the time if you are here you should know that

no country does unless it has to.

This basically hits the nail on the head. When you hold all the cards (see U.S. Military) you get to do what you want and rationalize it after the fact. Doesn't make it right but it's the cold reality. The UN is a shell institution with no ability to enforce it's decisions, and the U.S. government doesn't take any foreign/institutional body seriously unless it has a credible threat of force behind it's statements.

I have no idea why the rest of the world allows the US to participate in the UN. 100% of American's view the UN as a joke. I just wish our government would follow it's own laws.

First I'd like to say I don't support any attacks on Syria, or any of the ongoing bullshit anywhere else in the middle east.

But legal? Since when did someone else get to decide whats legal for us?

Since when is "the law" what decides right and wrong? Laws do not define morality. I realize that the two have slowly become interchangeable in America, but that isn't how it should be, and it shouldn't be the basis for any moral arguments.

As for why laws exist, I don't agree. I think if we look back very far that we're more likely to find laws designed to keep the little people in line, rather than the ruling powers. Laws exist to give the big guys "official" power; to make it seem "fair" that they dictate our actions. In fact, I think there are plenty of laws that exist to give the big guys official excuses to abuse their power.

[deleted]

Laws and resolutions have no power if there isn't anyone to enforce them.

As far as the UN goes, its just more of the big guns doing what they want, what they've always done.

After WWII the UN was founded, precisely to avoid the use of big guns against small countries without its mandate. The 5 victors of WWII compose a council that must agree to military action anywhere.

We (the big guns) decide that nobody can do anything unless we want them to...is exactly what happened before the UN just without the paperwork making it seem like the big guns are always the good guys.

It's what Germany did before the UN existed.

Its what we do now, except we're the council so we say its OK. Germany had big guns so it could do that. It basically took all the other big guns in the world to stop them. Now we have more (non-nuclear) big guns than basically the rest of the world combined. It wouldn't go down the same way.

[deleted]

And while in the US the police shows up and arrests you if you disregard or break the law, there is no international police to take care of this.

The UN was actually founded to keep the great powers from fighting each other, not to to protect the lil guys

If the US bulldozes the authority of the UN

You mean it already hasn't? Legality is moot. It's all subjective to bureaucrats and their interpretations.

The UN has no authority other than possessing the big guns.

Look at Latin America and tell me with a straight face that big countries haven't been invading small ones this whole time right in plain sight.

Before World War II there were no international treaties regarding retaliation and military action. Germany had big guns, so they did whatever they wanted.

Now the US has big guns and does what it wants. The UN didn't change that.

The 5 victors of WWII compose a council that must agree to military action anywhere.

How's that worked out so far?

We must not bulldoze the UN because as bad as it is, it is the only thing keeping things somewhat in order.

How do you know? As far as I can see, it hasn't kept the US in check at all. It's not axiomatic that more government is good and less government is chaos.

Before World War II there were no international treaties regarding retaliation and military action.

League of Nations

I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure that it is true. In fact, I believe that nothing that the UN says or does is binding. The powers granted by the People to Congress and the Executive via the Constitution are not subject to UN authority.

There might be an argument that whatever treaty the US ratified which granted us membership in the UN did it. But I doubt that there is any provision that basically forbids military action without UN approval.

This is an interesting topic. Aside from the concept that 'might makes right', does anybody know more?

The Constitution is a set of laws limiting their power, unfortunately that's pretty much stepped on everyday.

[deleted]

You're correct, but you're not going to find any lawyers here in this reactionary hotbed.

Sort of ironic that the very problem of disregard for legal stipulation is shared by the conspirators & the conspiracy detectives.

Morality should define laws, or at least guide people to make just laws.

I agree that wars of aggression, outside of genocide conventions, violate international treaties and the Nuremberg principles (UN Charter, Section IV/13). The most important talking-point for this instance however is probably the Section 8 War Powers clause of the US Constitution, since it would unite the anti-war Left and Right.

The question is how do we turn this into a movement IRL.

Dunno, it sounds to geeky.

Screw the UN. How about Congress instead?

Only covers us law, not international.

Echoing sentiments from above:

The UN can go fuck itself.

Pretty much. The federal governemnt and congress will always do what they belive is in the best intrest for the united states. Even if its against International law.

Too bad there is no one to enforce punishing these criminals.

And lets also make it perfectly clear that unless Congress votes on it and approves it THE WAR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Which means all you soldiers taking an "oath to upohold the U.S. Constitution" don't have to go.

In fact according to your oath it's your duty NOT to go.

since when has that stopped anyone?

Let's be clear here, an provoked attack without UN approval is immoral. The UN is not a global authority.

What does the un have to do with morality?

Exactly

You are right that the UN is not a global authority, but the US government has signed multiple treaties together with other UN members in which they declare they will not start such wars without UN approval. Going to war means violating the terms of treaties they signed, hence it is illegal.

Amazing to watch the illiterate, ignorant morons who LOVE One World Government when it's transnational corporations owning the U.S. Government but downvote any comment like yours that shows an understanding of the fact that the UN is the OPPOSITE of a One World Government.

The US uses the UN when it's convenient, like sighting how Saddam violated UN sanctions prompting invasion, and them declare them useless if they disagree. The US simply acts like a spoiled child always thinking it should get its way.

But, I just heard Boehner is challenging this new Syrian invasion. Let's hope the voice of sanity can still survive in Washington DC.

Just curious: according to what? Is there some UN resolution that says this? Is there some treaty that the US has signed which says this?

Kellog-Briand Pact

UN Charter

Nuremburg Principles

US Constitution (if without approval by Congress)

Interesting, thanks!

Where in the UN charter can i find this

Article 2(4) Articles 39, 41, 42, 51

see also: http://www.tni.org/article/illegality-war

Thank you!

UN approval doesn't change anything. Do you support world government?

The U.S. government, owned by transnational corporations that have zero loyalty to any nation, is more of a "One World Government" that the UN could ever hope to be.

Too bad Christian eschatologists aren't concerned with corporate fascism, and in fact prefer that Antichrist.

We can oppose both

The U.S. government, owned by transnational corporations that have zero loyalty to any nation

This also applies to the UN. Those corporations/foundations take their marching orders via the UN.

[deleted]

Saddam Hussein: "No, it says right here in Iraq's rule books that you cannot attack us."

George Bush: "Aww man...I was totally going to kick your ass but I guess we'll all just go home."

~Fin

[deleted]

Corollary: It is never convenient.

If its done without congressional approval, its also illegal.

[deleted]

Actually it's not. Since 1973 the President only needs to inform Congress of his intention to attack 48 hours before doing so and must not extend the fighting over 60 days (except for a one time 30 day extension that can be taken without congress approval).

Not True; Had our Constitutional-scholar-in-Chief actually read (or had it put on his teleprompter) the War Powers Act;

50 USC § 1541 - Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of > the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective > judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

...he would have known it doesn't have any provision for aggressive wars, which is what Syria will be.

You're right. A constitutional lawyer with an army of lawyers certainly doesn't know the law. Which is why I rely on Reddit, for all my legal advice. Specifically /r/conspiracy where agendas and bias do not exist.

OK, you've said exactly nothing.

1. Which numbered subparagraph above authorizes an attack on Syria, where Syria hasn't attacked the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces?

2. What authorization has been passed by Congress pursuant to sub (2)? What declaration of war has been passed, like sub (1) requires?

3. How is quoting an actual law "relying on Reddit for legal advice"?

I think someone besides me needs to examine their "biases".

it's still not a declaration of war which i think farting_flowers was referring to. regardless, since the US is part of the UN it is subject to international law making it illegal to strike. i believe if the UN acknowledges (key word) that Syria did in fact use gas (WMD) on their own then i believe the UN is bound to action. i'm rusty on international relations but i'm pretty sure that's how it works. kind of like the same deal with Rwanda and the term "genocide". no one wanted to call it that because no one wanted to get legally involved.

since the US is part of the UN it is subject to international law

Wrong. US doesnt give up its sovereignty to an unelected group of people because we are members of that group. That concept violates our declaration of independence.

sovereignty isn't relinquished just because of the UN or else no one would be part of it. the US did ratify the UN charter though so in one way or another we agreed upon the terms of the UN. the ICC on the other hand is something we never ratified and not subject to it.

so in one way or another we agreed upon the terms of the UN.

No "we the people" did not agree to be part of the UN and the govt doesn't have the ability to sign away anyone's rights, including right to sovereignty. That would make the UN agreement unlawful and void in any American court.

international law isn't applied to "we the people". and we the people did ratify the UN charter. so international law (treaties, air space, etc) does apply to the united states government. we also don't handle international law in american courts.

Ha. The UN operates within sovereign country borders all the time. Lets say the UN passes a mandate stating that all countries that receive aid need to have their elections overseen and their citizens drug tested....

They have already signed this mandate by the way.

This is only if there is an imminent attack on US soil or the US has been attacked and the president 'needs' to take action immediately. On foreign soil, congress much approve.

Don't they just call those police actions, humanitarian actions, or some such, and not need congress approval? They simply come up with a different word to excuse killing a bunch of people, without saying we declare war.

Technically, they write the law and interpret it so really they can say and do anything until people stop them, but if you want to follow the law, he has to go to congress unless there is an imminent attack.

So 90 days.

That is seriously just not true. The UN created R2P which stands for right to protect after the whole Rwanda fuck up. R2P was the justification used by the UN to allow foreign intervention in Afghanistan. The reason the Iraq war was illegal was because it wasn't deemed to be considered an R2P case. Syria however, might be able to be considered a R2P case if it turns out that illegal chemicals were used agains civilians. I'm not saying I agree with this law or anything but OP is straight up wrong about the illegalities surrounding this issue. The main problem is that OP is trying to argue based on morality but confusing it with legality. Two very very different ways of looking at an issue.

The UN has 0 legal mandate for the US to enter war. That power rests in the United States Congress and the Congress alone.

It has legal mandate to tell the U.S. where it can't go, much as it has legal mandate to tell Serbia to fuck off away from Kosovo. It just has no muscle beyond collective goodwill to enforce that or any other mandate.

The UN has a 100% Legal Mandate to preserve peace, and will intervene against the US if required, this they seem so intend on making a bad situation worse tell me how well did it go for you the last two times you decided to Ignore a UN Mandate.

Yes. The UN will intervene against the US. Let's all just hold our breath until that occurs. I'll give you a head start.

I'm just curious when people's human rights are being violated by their own regime. or any other regime. is it wrong for the US to help them out in a time of need? Just like when the Jews were being brought to concentration camps was it wrong for us to intercede? I'm just trying to get a better grasp on the situation.

Not everyone recognizes the concept of "world police", and the US's hands are too dirty to claim the role at any rate.

I'm not some lefty high-school kid, either. I spent 26 years active duty at what I thought was defending the US. I later found out different.

Let's have one thing straight here: The US did not intervene because it cared so much about the fate of European Jews.

is it wrong for the US to help them out in a time of need?

No, but the US government doesn't got to war to help people, so I don't see how that question is relevant.

Just like when the Jews were being brought to concentration camps was it wrong for us to intercede?

The US government didn't enter WWII to help people either. I think you've learned the US = good version of history.

Could you provide links or more information as to why the US entered WWII, just want to better understand your point.

I don't support the war, but what gives the UN the title of world police?

The UN gave itself the title.

Just like the US considets considers itself as the "police" of the whole world.

I figured out what the attack on Syria is about, in part at least. This attack is designed to show that the US can attack Syria without significant reprisals from Syria or Russia or Iran. It's a test attack. If the US gets away with it, the door will be opened to more attacks of greater severity in the future.

No, I'm sorry but that's not it. The West already knows it can do whatever it wants, and Russia is on our team; their resistance is cointelpro. Because Russia's central bank is owned by the same banking cartel that owns basically every nation's sovereignty, they cannot be expected to resist as promised, and their words are simply there to muddy the waters.

The issue is that Syria has a non-privately owned central bank, placing its currency out of international banking cartel hands (for the moment). Because it's through control of national money supplies that the global elite control everyone, this places them at odds with global fascism and they therefore must be eliminated at all costs.

There's also a cover story about an oil pipeline to Israel from Iraq, but energy control is just icing on the cake; it's all about the banks, as always.

I respectfully beg to differ. Russia and China are the main allies in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which is their main set of treaties which is a foundation to that defense block of permanent member nations. Study the SCO and you'll find that they designed it not just as a trade block but a defense block. Any attack on signators within the SCO is an attack on all of them(permanent or not). I'm not negating the point you made concerning the financial/banking side of this issue but Russian interests and U.S. interests are not in line in the Syrian proxy war with Iran. (my apology for typos)

I will do more research, perhaps I am overconfident in my belief. Thank you for letting me know, and I apologize if I misled anyone by speaking in error.

NP :-) Russia and China have more autonomy and power than many realize. Just because they don't meddle as much as the U.S. but yet the noose is getting tighter and Syria (then Iran) is one step in the take over plan and the SCO countries are no set of fools. They will be forced into this corner and will eventually hit back.... Hard! sigh :-(

Some would say that Russia's joining our team is just a long term cold war strategy.

Obviously that particular theory is too old to be interesting for most, but its there.

The U.N. is irrelevant. An attack without a declaration of war from Congress is illegal. The UN can go fuck itself.

Not true. As someone stated above the president only needs give 48 hour notice as long as it only lasts 60 days. To stay longer needs congressional approval.

I think that considering it was written before the age of missiles that it should be reduced to 10 days or so now.

The US has already been in Syria for 60 days.

How so?

Special Forces and the rest

combat troops. special forces i'm sure can be anywhere indefinitely as long as they don't make too much noise.

"anywhere indefinitely", indeed.

Screw the UN - they are in this up to their hairy chinny-chin-chins. We have our own process for sanctioning war and our presidents are not following legal procedures. They have not been following legal procedures and the current president is the most egregious violator of them all in this department.

This is a nice notion, and it is the way the world should work (maybe, I can see some situations wherein the UN should approve but they would not.)

However, reality is that laws are completely meaningless unless you have a way to enforce them. Enforce them, with force i.e. a military or police force. The UN does not have this, so any laws they write carry about as much weight as a law that I write myself, and then declare that everyone should listen to me cause I said so.

[deleted]

The only real force the UN has is supplied by the US.

You base this upon a presumption that the US can beat a joint China/Russia force, or worse if the EU decides to throw in it's lot with the UN instead of NATO (On that note, i'm predicting the withdrawl of European countries from NATO in the next 30 years and the formation of a similar organisation which only covers the EU)

They have legal force, but how do they transfer that into actual force? Do the other members of the security council invade the US, take it's leaders and put them on trial?

Effectively the US doesn't have any reason whatsoever to care about what the UN says... I think this is the point he was trying to make.

It's called UN sanctions. And since most everything the US has these days is imported, sanctions would really play hell on the US.

Who in their right mind would stop exporting to the US? China? Germany? Kidding me?

You have to make sacrifices when you fight the devil.

The security council's force IS the USA.

as their resolutions are lawfully binding in the USA so whatever they decide is legally binding in the USA.

The Constitution disagrees with you

If the US legally enters into a treaty, it is not in violation of the Constitution honor that treaty.

Not if that treaty has guidelines that conflict with our Constitution. article 6

Does our participation in the UN do that?

Yes and no. article 36 and and 43 (if memory serves) of the charter we signed are in direct violation of our Constitution.

Depending on how you look at it, either the whole document is null and void or those particular articles are.

[deleted]

Not trolling. firstly.

The US Constitution doesn't say anything about the Euros, banks, whatever.

The Constitution also doesnt mention cars, nuclear power plants or Jupiter. If were going to start listing the things the Constitution doent mention by name, we can be here all day. What the Constitution DOES say in article 6 is "anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" (in relation to foreign treaties).

im not saying treaties have no legal weight. An international treaty not to use a certain weapon during war, or for some sort of trade application? sure go ahead. But what i amm saying is the UN does NOT dictate what we do, especially when its in violation of our Constitution. The fact the UN charter had terms that went explicitly against this, our relation with the UN is entirely or partially unconstituional depending on how you want to look at it. And looking to the UN for approval for war is indeed unconstiuional

Heres an extreme example, The UN has a treaty banning personal use of 50 caliber bullets in guns, and then the US signs this treaty and agrees to comply with the UN ban on 50 caliber bullets.Though the treaty is now "law" and has been signed, it violates our 2nd amendment right protected by Constitution, and is therefore null and void within our borders.

My point is, we should not look towards the UN for the go-ahead or green light, or even their approval (though it would be nice to know other nations agree with our stance). this is a sovereign nation and its people dictate what it does, not some foreign treaty.

The US et al. will probably argue that the use of chemical weapons invokes the right of humanitarian intervention and/or the responsibility to protect, two developing principles of international law that potentially permit the use of force without UNSC authorisiation.

But legality is different from morality.

I will let Mr. David Chapelle explain this for me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7T9gicSnR0#t=02m55s

I keep waiting for him to strip off his Obama mask and yell, PSYCHE!

Why is this post in /r/conspiracy this is the cold hard truth, not a conspiricy

The US blasted into Iraq without UN approval, and before all the intelligence had been compiled (ie bullshit intel). Another history making move that one was too. The reason the US seems hell bent on doing it again, is because they were never made to face the war crimes from that, so why not?

So then what? Who is going police the law Breaking country?

Here is a list of video links collected from comments that redditors have made in response to this submission:

• VideoLinkBot FAQ
• Feedback
• Playlist of videos in this comment

Wow, that really sums up the intricacies of International Law.

But the United States Is looked upon as the world police, everyone expects us to intervene, after all we were hailed as international heroes for the Iraq war. Military intervention in Syria promises to be short and linear, with a clear cut prospect for whose to mount the throne should the rebels overturn the Shia Assad.

Source: sarcasm

Fuck you. If I see someone shoot a kid in the face, it's illegal for me to shoot them...but you can bet your ass I'm walking up behind that mother fucker and putting a few rounds through his skull.

Yea, cause that's what a civilized human being would do...

And it turns out that kid raped his wife and now his children become terrorists to get revenge against you for killing their father

Then I kill them too. You don't not kill murder because it might create more murders.

Hell no. You just keep pullin that trigger and havin a hellofatime. - bubba

It doesn't make sense to not kill a killer because other killers might spring up to avenge the original killer. What else you supposed to do? Send the killer to counseling for 10 years and hope he doesn't do it again? Fuck that.

What if the kid just killed that person's mother? Wouldn't you do the same?

Anti-Americanism today pisses me of the fuck off. People think the United States consists of a bunch of arrogant pricks, but how do they decide this? If we say anything patriotic, we're arrogant. If any citizen of any other country says something patriotic, it's totally fine, because the Americans are obviously just blind nationalists. The world is a massive circlejerk where popular opinion is in charge.

I totally agree with your point /u/imjustsayintho

It's probably because non us patriotism doesn't require anyone to get shot.

Downvotes. Not sure what I was expecting.

Downvotes. Not sure what I was expecting.

I don't downvote unless I can back it up. No point silencing people.

Yeah, same here

[deleted]

The president can't declare war. He'll have to call it something else.

Humanitarian Intervention

Kinetic Humanitarian Intervention. Just kinda flows off the tongue. Maybe they could make a little jingle out of it that is played on US television while pictures of blanket bombing runs are shown leveling cities.

Actually aggressive wars without UN mandate are in fact illegal.

I truly wish the US would pull all foreign aid out of the region and weapon supply's to Egypt and all other countries that are currently in a revolt to let them sort it on their own terms. Why they stick their nose in places no one wants it. Yes its terrible what they are doing to the people but we are not team america to run around trying to solve everyone's problems.

I agree. I think the US needs to focus on its own problems. And whose money is paying for this war we disagree with? Ours.

[deleted]

Well, I guess that's good news for me then?

If my government or a group was using chemicals to kill my neighbors sure as shit I'd want the US coming to intervene.

Is that not what the UN is for not the US?

Yeah the UN definitely gets stuff done.

Kosovo was illegal too, but that didn't stop them.

Your trying to rationalize a war mongering country. I agree totally with what you said but you will find that the arrogance of the US as the worlds police does not give a shit about whats legal or not.

So war is illegal in other words?

You can do whatever you want with a big enough gang.

As a Canadian I really hate that our government is seriously considering piggy backing to support the US opinion.

Illegal or not, might makes right in the international community.

All the wars since Vietnam are illegal. Congress has not declared any since WWII.

This is all about power and control of MIC and Saudi control of OPEC to counter Russian and Chinese oil ventures to control oil in the Middle east. Let's face it here. Assad is not dumb. He is not some poorly educated despot. He had a university education and was a certified Eye doctor. This man had nothing to gain by gassing his citizens. Especially with the rebel factions split among themselves. It's classic strategy to divide and conquer, and now he gasses to unify them, and bring in outside military help? Oh Please! Obama is a a whore at the helm of the Big oil and MIC.

We talk about these despotic psychopaths in the Middle east, but we are the worst in USA and in England at the lead.

Hate to say it but after Syria. Iran is next.

Makes me think about the speech Joe Pesci gave in the movie "With Honors" about the role of the president.

Almost as if ... someone's trying to justify The Bush Doctrine of "preemptive war" that the Nuremberg Trials called the father of all war crimes.

But Barack can't possibly be a Cheney mole. He's a Marxist Muslim, right?

The USA is big, powerful, rich, but it has no legal authority to attack Syria at all.

The first three are FAR more important than the last.

No one will fuck with America, "It does what it waaants!"

What if its to "save teh children!!! omg teh children!!!" ?

Why does the UN approval matter. They are an unelected, unaccountable private organization that was created outside of the country, none of this should matter. DEFENSE ONLY

so that the bigger guys can't abuse their power

Here's a buzzword for ya : "Veto !"

The UN and NATO are unanimous in their condemnation of chemical attacks from a dictatorship on its own people. Allowing such actions to stand not only sends the message that such actions can and will be ignored, but also deteriorates the potential for future political discussion with Syria. Taking action would actually encourage political talks by showing that these types of inhumane attacks will not go unpunished and could lead to the Assad regime looking to cooperate with the UN.

The UN will find numerous legal rationales for taking action. Undoubtedly.

This is a good post! Very clear and easy to understand.

Wait so does that mean every American has to go to jail?

|The UN was created to avoid exactly what happened in Iraq.

I beg to differ...

What are the requisites to intervene in a country (lets say Syria) that is committing what amounts to war crimes against its own citizens and foreign fighters on its own soil, then? And what if war crimes are being committed by people fighting the Syrian government? As an as of yet uninvolved foreign country, do you stand by and watch innocent citizens get slaughtered by both factions?

Yes, because those citizens are not in your care and they did not ask you for help.

What source of information told you that the Syrians didnt ask for help?

No source told me they did.

You're not American are you...we've all recently learned this new lesson, and now the world will learn it too. Our leaders are done pretending we back the rule of law, and will slowly move to the end game of conquering the world in the name of equality. We will all become enslaved by a small majority. "We are shooting the moon."

Heil Obama! This will not end well. Get your affairs in order people.

Fuck legalities - it's something only an evil person would do.

I just wish Bush had the balls to call out Obama and the Liberal media for the extreme hypocrisy that is Obama

You really think the UN can serve any use at all? Seriously?!

This is about Iran and the petrodollar. We are onto to you you fucking evil, greedy assholes. The balls of the fucking US to try this twice in a few months, fail the first time and then succeed the second time.

Fuck you america, the world fucking hates you.

The Road to World War 3

World War 3 Has Already Begun

Obama the candidate was very critical of Bush going to war without Congressional approval... Obama the President, as usual, seems to have forgotton what he once preached...We shall see.

they want us to go to war.. not just with syria.. they want a world war.. they want to destroy america.. the people in charge.. make it so the rest of the world hates america.. and wages war on america.. they sit back in their mansions overseas..let the usa get destroyed (the land.. the people) then come back in.. pick up the pieces.. write up a new constitution.. dictatorship.. then rape the land for its water, and oil

"War without conquest is illegal"

I guess the US attacking Germany in WW2 was illegal

No, Germany declared war on us.

And Italy?

Yes, so did Italy. They did together.

Italy declared war first as well.

Predates foundation of the UN.

Under which jurisdiction the Iraq war was illegal? People say the US is a sovereign nation. Would that mean it's not subject to the laws of any higher political entity? Or what? Just trying to understand who has standing to say the US broke the law. And what laws did the US break?

Let's make it unambiguously clear: An attack on a country that did not attack you, without UN approval, is illegal

WRONG. The UN is NOT part of this country and does NOT dictate what the people of this nation do. Iraq wasnt illegal because the UN shook their finger at us, it was illegal because it was not declared.

It is CONGRESS that decides when this country goes to war, otherwise the war is illegal. Our constituion, if followed, can do more than any UN ever could. By declaring a war, the US will have a clear enemy and mission goal. We come in, we come out.

This idea people are touting about looking for the UN for approval is joke. The UN has no authority or power. Theyre simply a voice of the international community. They have no leverage, or standing army to enforce their "decisions".

The idea 3rd party can dictate what this country does is laughable

[deleted]

I appreciate you trying to bring some awareness with your thread.

A lot of this information is great information, and I am willing to point out my ignorance on most of it.

From my own understanding, congress doesn't have to decide to go to war anymore- and overall isn't considered illegal without their approval when depending on the situation. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there an executive order made under Bush to establish an authorized power for the commander in chief to declare war?

And just to fall back on your original post- it is very illegal, but that hasn't stopped us in the past. The US loves to esoterically initiate wars, which after doing, they have their controlled mainstream media reassure their citizens with lies to manipulate them into fostering the wars. Until the people learn from history, these illegal wars are going to continue to be inevitable. :/

I find it sad enough to argue over a war being legal or not.

Yes it is. Security Council resolutions are legally binding in the USA.

Legal and constitutional are very different planes. The NSA spying was legal as well. Not sure what country you hail from, but in America, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a foreign committees decision.

That's internally. The US is not isolated from the world, there are treaties that are as good as American law.

Why do people continue to confuse isolation with sovereignty? No, the congress is supposed to dictate what this country does in both notionally and internationally. they are supposed to be representation of the people that elected him/her and together they are the voice of the American people. Yes, congress may make treaties, but international laws do not trump our own, and any treaty signed that violates this simple fact is null and void. THATS in the constitution. the UN is simply the voice of other nations

The law can dictate what you do. The US is breaking international law by going to another war without a UN mandate, attacking another country that hasn't attacked you.

What about our own domestic constituional laws? those are above any international law or treaty and we should be looking to those first. If were violating our own Constitution, we definitely are breaking international codes.

Yes, The UN can voice their opinions and concerns, Yes, the US can agree to international treaties. But to hold the belief the UN has some sort of authority and that we should look to them for approval is hilarious. Congress should always be first on the list

That's internally.

Whether internal or external, Congress must approve it.

They did though, when they signed the damned treaties.

[deleted]

There sure are a lot of damn crisis actors in the world.

Oh for fuck sakes. Is everyone that dies unnaturally a crisis actor now?

Except is isn't, though. There's no law that prohibits what you're talking about.

If you want to say it would be bad or that you wouldn't like it, go ahead. But saying it's illegal is simply false, and people who know that won't bother listening to you, because they know you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, in fact it is illegal. You're a fucking whackjob or just a really bad troll. Oh nevermind, I recognize that name of yours. You again, hey?

He's a bad troll. Ignore.

So if someone who has a opinion you disagree with do you always label them a "troll" instead of offering a counter-argument?

You have no idea what you're talking about. There's context involved that you're not aware of. Go sell it somewhere else.

I very, very rarely call anyone a troll on here. But he is.

If it's illegal, then you (or somebody else) should have no problem pointing to the law that says so.

Good luck.

[deleted]

Which is not actually a law. It has no legal force and is supported by no lawful authority. So what else you got?

Again, you're welcome to say you wish it were illegal, or that you wish there were a law that prohibited it. But there isn't, and saying that you think there is just makes people stop listening to you.

[deleted]

Duly noted. I'm sure your wish will be granted someday. I hope it's not too soon.

Yes, in fact it is illegal. You're a fucking whackjob or just a really bad troll. Oh nevermind, I recognize that name of yours. You again, hey?

He's a bad troll. Ignore.

If it's illegal, then you (or somebody else) should have no problem pointing to the law that says so.

Good luck.

No, I'm sorry but that's not it. The West already knows it can do whatever it wants, and Russia is on our team; their resistance is cointelpro. Because Russia's central bank is owned by the same banking cartel that owns basically every nation's sovereignty, they cannot be expected to resist as promised, and their words are simply there to muddy the waters.

The issue is that Syria has a non-privately owned central bank, placing its currency out of international banking cartel hands (for the moment). Because it's through control of national money supplies that the global elite control everyone, this places them at odds with global fascism and they therefore must be eliminated at all costs.

There's also a cover story about an oil pipeline to Israel from Iraq, but energy control is just icing on the cake; it's all about the banks, as always.

Only covers us law, not international.

no country does unless it has to.

The U.S. federal government does not give two shits whether something is illegal or not.

Oh they care if what someone else is doing is illegal or not, they just don't care if what they are doing is illegal.

Who in their right mind would stop exporting to the US? China? Germany? Kidding me?

This basically hits the nail on the head. When you hold all the cards (see U.S. Military) you get to do what you want and rationalize it after the fact. Doesn't make it right but it's the cold reality. The UN is a shell institution with no ability to enforce it's decisions, and the U.S. government doesn't take any foreign/institutional body seriously unless it has a credible threat of force behind it's statements.

If we use a different word, it stops being the thing that is offensive!

Just like the US considets considers itself as the "police" of the whole world.

Yeah the UN definitely gets stuff done.