Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Raptor Witness

Do undeclared wars steal from the people?

Do undeclared wars steal from the people?   12 members have voted

  1. 1. Do undeclared wars steal from the people?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      2

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

21 posts in this topic



After what occurred last Friday in the British House of Commons, I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and then felt afterwards.

Our former colonial host, who my family bled to shed the yoke of, telling their elected commander in chief that he couldn't go to war, and him accepting this?

What a novel idea the Brits have adopted, the civilian head of the military going so far as to say, " I get that."

What I don't get is the idea that my family bled for the right to decide when we go to war, and someone has casually taken that away.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy in action

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait I'm confused, it's bad that the Parliament voted down war? You know the House of Commons is made up from democratically elected MPs. As far as I understand from the British system it is the monarch who is the commander in chief of the military, and they act on advice from Parliament.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After what occurred last Friday in the British House of Commons, I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and then felt afterwards.

Our former colonial host, who my family bled to shed the yoke of, telling their elected commander in chief that he couldn't go to war, and him accepting this?

What a novel idea the Brits have adopted, the civilian head of the military going so far as to say, " I get that."

What I don't get is the idea that my family bled for the right to decide when we go to war, and someone has casually taken that away.

The Prime Minister is not the Commander in Chief. The Prime Minister is the ruler of the leading party. In Englnd the Queen is the Commander in Chief of the UK's Military, as in Canada the Governer General is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces.

These governments need the support of the house to launch Military Action, though it helps when you have a Majority because you control the swing of the house, I believe that the UK Government is a Minority meaning that they would need the support of one or more of the other parties. Where as in Canada we have a Majority where the Ruling party has over 50% of the elected Seats.

However you can not vote on starting Military Action without a vote in Parliament, the PM can however extend a mission without one (which has been done in Canada multiple Times with relation to the Afghanistan Mission).

~Thanato

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news from England! Bravo! :tsu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if he's not the commander-in-chief, he was was clearly saying that aggression would not proceed, because Of that vote. So he was implying that he was the decision-maker. Call it whatever you like.

I'm not trying to nitpick the proper title, that's not the point here at all. The point, is my own family literally bled not to do what recent U.S. presidents have done repeatedly in my country. The list is long, and growing longer.

It therefore gives me no option, but to appeal to a Higher power, because The military-industrial complex that Pres. Eisenhower warned U.S. about has completely taken over my government. The will of the people has been silenced by wolves far too easily.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress has the power to "declare war," but that is not defined. I don't know but I doubt there has been a formal "declaration of war" for a long time, and then only when fighting had already begun.

It can't possibly mean the President has to get Congressional approval for every military action, since then the country would not be able to defend itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if he's not the commander-in-chief, he was was clearly saying that aggression would not proceed, because Of that vote. So he was implying that he was the decision-maker. Call it whatever you like.

I'm not trying to nitpick the proper title, that's not the point here at all. The point, is my own family literally bled not to do what recent U.S. presidents have done repeatedly in my country. The list is long, and growing longer.

It therefore gives me no option, but to appeal to a Higher power, because The military-industrial complex that Pres. Eisenhower warned U.S. about has completely taken over my government. The will of the people has been silenced by wolves far too easily.

Is not the will of the people expressed by parliament? It would seem any other decision but to abide the vote of parliament would subvert the will of the people. I served my country as well and my family bled to preserve the freedom of America and I have seen the heart of our bill of rights torn out by the patriot act so I can understand your pain but what else was the PM to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress has the power to "declare war," but that is not defined. I don't know but I doubt there has been a formal "declaration of war" for a long time, and then only when fighting had already begun.

It can't possibly mean the President has to get Congressional approval for every military action, since then the country would not be able to defend itself.

In the US there has been no formal declaration of war since WWII
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US there has been no formal declaration of war since WWII

If we're directly attacked that's one thing, quick action is called for, but we've seen several lies precede unnecessary wars.

In the jet age, Congress can be called back in a day, yet when this concept was structured, it might take weeks to convene Congress, and still they wanted the people to have the final say.

The military industrial complex in the U.S. will lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to make war without declaration, and they will do the same when it comes to spying on U.S. citizens.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The military industrial complex in the U.S. will lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to make war without declaration, and they will do the same when it comes to spying on U.S. citizens.

You know, I think that is weird. To an extent all people and all institutons do things like that, but your paranoia and focus on one fantasy is just not realistic at all, and completely distorts reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I think that is weird. To an extent all people and all institutons do things like that, but your paranoia and focus on one fantasy is just not realistic at all, and completely distorts reality.

Tyranny thrives on a lack of "paranoia," and while the status quo might be a reality, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

I have no problem arguing my version of reality, but yours sounds like complacency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say what yours sounds like or the moderators will be upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's bad enough to spend such large sums of money on undeclared wars, but if you follow the money trail, guess where it leads within the military industrial complex?

The trees we can clearly see, but the forest we're ignoring is an intelligence community that has become an independent power, operating outside the system of checks and balances, which the framers of the Constitution clearly envisioned. That abuse of power now includes our privacy, which you cannot put a price on.

9652909902_f6c0a6e13d_z.jpg

Source

In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanvok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 Tonkin Vietnam incident. - Source

Then the same thing happened in Iraq, with the CIA's false assessments of Iraq's nuclear capabilities and links to Al-Qaeda.

So it should come as no surprise that in Edward Snowden's recently released documents highlighting the rapidly inflating black budgets of the NSA and CIA, that the very two entities caught lying in these two fraudulent undeclared wars are who are directly profiting from the abuse of our Constitution.

9653432088_d7f5c0a52d_o.jpg

ON top of all this, the vast data mining projects begun by the NSA that will later include the capability to surveil all Americans took place as a direct result of the Iraq War. So this lie has led to series of others.

The Real Time Regional Gateway was a data collection program introduced in 2005 in Iraq by NSA during the Iraq War. It consisted of gathering all Iraqi electronic communication, storing it, then searching and otherwise analyzing it. It was effective in providing information about Iraqi insurgents who had eluded less comprehensive techniques. Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian believes that the "collect it all" strategy introduced by NSA director Alexander shows that "the NSA's goal is to collect, monitor and store every telephone and internet communication" worldwide. - Source

Do I trust the NSA?

I trust Heat Miser(6/2/13) ... who follows Mr. Snowden.(6/5/13)

Edited by Raptor Witness
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the US there has been no formal declaration of war since WWII

Yet we have been "at war" for many many years since WWII. As Smedley Butler said, war is a racket. I think Cheney would absolutely agree.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait I'm confused, it's bad that the Parliament voted down war? You know the House of Commons is made up from democratically elected MPs. As far as I understand from the British system it is the monarch who is the commander in chief of the military, and they act on advice from Parliament.

I can't speak for RW but my understanding of his post was that he's troubled that the Brits are doing what we in America haven't done - reign in our adventurism. I agree with this in principle but I also think that there are times that going against public sentiment is necessary - rare but necessary. This may be one of those instances. Of course all this is predicated on the truth that our president isn't mature enough to understand that his words carry great weight and need to be chosen circumspectly. He set this problem in motion and now we are boxed into an action no one seems to want. I think the fact that US citizens by and large seem willing to just look the other way on Syria is shameful for us as a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at all this from outside (even though I am in the States for a couple more weeks) and see a rather pathetic picture of a President afraid of his shadow and a significant number of members of the Congress plus of course Russia and Syria taking political advantage of the President's vacillation

I will admit, although the Syrian regime's behavior is beyond even the criminal pale, that I feared we might be at the beginning of a WWI type scenario, and it may still work out this way. If Putin would behave honorably all this could be managed, but it seems he want personal advantage out of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's disgusting to see how many political pundits are giving President Obama hell for deciding to go to Congress before bombing Syria.

If he had bombed them immediately, they'd be saying just the opposite.

The "red line" was hoping Syria wouldn't use chemical weapons. It was the right thing to do. Waiting now, is the right thing to do, also.

I also suspect the Russians gave Assad some hell for this, because the more people Assad gases, the worse the Russians look, and the more motivated they become to help put an end to him.

Edited by Raptor Witness
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's disgusting to see how many political pundits are giving President Obama hell for deciding to go to Congress before bombing Syria.

If he had bombed them immediately, they'd be saying just the opposite.

The "red line" was hoping Syria wouldn't use chemical weapons. It was the right thing to do. Waiting now, is the right thing to do, also.

I also suspect the Russians gave Assad some hell for this, because the more people Assad gases, the worse the Russians look, and the more motivated they become to help put an end to him.

And it appears that now the neocons and other war mongers are saying they will go along with Obama as long as he broadens the war (instead of 'surgical' strikes) and puts boots on the ground. The Israelis are loving it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's disgusting to see how many political pundits are giving President Obama hell for deciding to go to Congress before bombing Syria.

If he had bombed them immediately, they'd be saying just the opposite.

The "red line" was hoping Syria wouldn't use chemical weapons. It was the right thing to do. Waiting now, is the right thing to do, also.

I also suspect the Russians gave Assad some hell for this, because the more people Assad gases, the worse the Russians look, and the more motivated they become to help put an end to him.

I agree but I don't get why it was ok for him to kill his people with bullets but now that he used chemicals everyone is outraged.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it appears that now the neocons and other war mongers are saying they will go along with Obama as long as he broadens the war (instead of 'surgical' strikes) and puts boots on the ground. The Israelis are loving it.

I wouldn't be opposed to boots on the ground if they were solely for the purpose of securing those chemical weapons. In fact, I think most Americans could understand that, but surgically bombing someone who is cornered, and who might lash out at Israel, or give some of these weapons to Hezbollah, is insane without an obvious back up plan. In other words, the real end game they want.

It's likely the Americans already know that they'll have to go in and get those weapons, once bombing begins, and this is the false pretense they'll use to put boots on the ground. Kerry basically stumbled upon that correct answer in the Congressional hearings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDPjiHPAfpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.