Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls For Draft

Greetings...I think in a matter of time...more wars...need more people.==DRAFT.

You and I Agree!!! Sad that soo many do listen to this guy and actually sow seeds from his words....

Oh my god someone pinch me I'm agreeing with crystalman

Obama dithered for over a month and only made a decision when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Samanth Power (senior aide at the National Security Council), and Susan Rice (Obama’s ambassador to the UN) put pressure on him to take a stand and protect the Libyan people.

But here's the kicker:
“the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Dec 20 2007 Barack Obama.

consider yourself pinched.

ROFL pawned

“the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Dec 20 2007 Barack Obama.

hey he didnt sign up for business as usual. but thats what he's got

wow, hypocrisy?

Thanks I'll check it out

Ummm....nothing!

It appears as if our govt "did not know" the ground truth before committing to this military action.

That is precisely the correct attitude to have and should be the one for all of us citizens, except for one Caveat, it shouldn't matter that its a potential draft we're talking about, the same logic, intelligence and reason should apply to keep our children out of these ridiculous, immoral and empire building engagements regardless of whether it's a draft or not, hats off to you! and good to see you again!+^

Thanks V.

By the way, I am reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" on your recommendation and I am loving it! Thanks for recommending it!

You can see why he was considered a threat to the Republic.

((((Sarcasm))))

On a similar note, I would love to see Grayson on Current.com as a political reporter. I hope Keith at least chooses to have him as a guest as often as possible.

When will we see another congressman explain how many bottles of grey poupon could be bought with a millionaires tax money?
The guy has a real talent for putting things in perspective.

how i miss logic and common sense.

$ Millions were spent against him thanks to "Citizens" United, the "left" media always forget to mention that when they look at the 2010 elections. He was on that Alaskan terrorists hit list with the targets also.

It saddens me that he didn't get re-elected.

seriously?

It's being SPUN as genocide, but that's really an idiotoc argument with no basis in logic.
In your examples you have war along CLEAR ethnic divisisons. The only case the press are puting forward is some bulshit about "Gadaffi taking it out on the civilian population"...

Every time government forces attack the rebal army it's some sort of war crime. Give me a break.
Gadaffi is a bad guy. He's a totalitarian dictator, but this isn't genocide. This isn't a war to stop him doing anything -except staying in power. It does not take much global political awareness to see that.

When the prize is lucrative easy to reach oil contracts, anything is possible. :)

---------------

I am HAPPY for Gadaffi to lose power, but only if no other country has ANYTHING to do with it. If it's not the Libyans doing it on their own for their own reasons and not yet another Iraq then it's fine.

you obviously missed the report and written article in the NYTimes where Khadafis mercenaries or troops took an entire towns women and children to the center and proceeded to start killing them because the rebels would not come out of hiding. If thats not Genocide I don't know what is. Your lack of knowing what happened is not your fault, it was not easy news to come by until Nick Kristof of the NYTimes reported it. If its civil war, is it any different than the French coming to our founding fathers aid to defeat the British?

All those species of reports are dubious in nature and oddly co-ordinated. I'm seeing extacly the same sorts of reports with exactly the same sorts of wording from sources that would never normally have those sort of views OR word their stuff in those ways.

Your comment about the French and the British is interesting, but off-base. You're talking about a seceding colony, not civil war within the homeland of a country.
The reason it's interesting is because France didn't really come to anyone's "aid"; France acted in her own interests AGAINST the interests of the British as part of her age old rivalry and on-going war against them.

Hats off to you!+^

what are you stupid?

The trouble with that is that there was general strife in a whole number of countries in that region, especially Egypt which is an extremely important ally of the US due to its role as a stable buffer on the Israeli border. It is pretty standard practise to get carriers over to areas where there's strife, especially where allies might be in trouble.
So the perspective you offer here is based on something a little hollow.

Of course "taking out Gaddafi" has been on the books since he first came to power and I'm sure they've been refreshing "regime change" plans for Libya yearly since then, but the current situation has all the hallmarks of taking advantage of things as they're happening.

The only stuff obviously planned in advance here was the suspicious simultaneous resigning of all Libya's diplomatic staff at the UN and several of his generals and ministers all turning on him together coupled with the near perfectly unanimous agreement among Western Allies to take action. All these people are trying to cynically hijack the popular people's uprising in a bid steal the country for themselves.

“The trouble with that is that there was general strife in a whole number of countries in that region, especially Egypt which is an extremely important ally of the US due to its role as a stable buffer on the Israeli border. It is pretty standard practise to get carriers over to areas where there's strife, especially where allies might be in trouble.
So the perspective you offer here is based on something a little hollow.”

I disagree with this part of your response primarily because you are either incredibly naive, or you simply do not know what you are talking about, in either case, here are some facts.

If there is "general strife in a whole number of countries in that region" it is because ultimately, the US or its "allies" are responsible for the conditions which have brought about such strife. Noting that “Egypt which is an extremely important ally of the US due to its role as a stable buffer of the Israeli border” Is akin to arguing that since they were fascist allies, Hitler HAD to send aid to Francisco Franco's fascist to overthrow the democratically elected Republican government of Spain, Egypt is a notoriously repressive government, in a country where in reality social liberty is still a concept, not a reality, so please don't bring Egypt as America's "ally" into this.

As far as Israel is concerned, bad choice again, I have several Jewish friends who live in Israel, and there is a common saying there: Israel's a really nice place, too bad there aren't any Jews here. If you don't understand what is being implied by that statement, allow me explain.

Since 1948 when the victorious Allied Powers collectively raped the Palestinians of their territory by arbitrarily declaring that such territory was henceforth bequeathed to the Jews as the state of Israel, many Arabs were understandably passed off, not to mention the fact that every since then, Israel has received the largest amount of military and financial aid that the US allocates, not because we give a damn about Israel, but because they are strategically important to future US expansionist plans for the Middle East. Anyone who does even the most cursory examination of Israel's "policies" to its Palestinian neighbors, knows that the Israelis (government and military) have a continuing history of being quite monstrous, so monstrous (accomplished through US "aid") that a large number of Jews who reside in Israel, particularly in Tel Aviv, refuse to identify themselves as Israeli Jews, because no decent Jew would act that way to other human beings, apparently, they remember.

Finally, your casual assessment that ". It is pretty standard practise to get carriers over to areas where there's strife, especially where allies might be in trouble.” Completely ignores the obvious, it was pretty standard practice that puppet regimes such as the Vichy government of France worked in "cooperation" with the Nazis to terrorize their fellow citizens and to root out partisans, while the Italian Navy patrolled the Mediterranean should there "allies" get into trouble. The overall point, is that as can be very concretely demonstrated not only historically, but presently as well, as far as America's foreign "policy" is concerned, America never comes to “help” but to expand its empire, and America will do anything, to any people, or nation, to accomplish that goal. Wake up.

Regardless, there was still one sent there from the east cost about 3 weeks ago.

This comment was amazing, up to par a on target... I actually learned another something new today... Many Thanks for this post....

absurd. someone should have to fight and possibly kill and die for the profit of some corporations just because they happened to be born there?

The draft is as unamerican as communism. America is supposed to be the land of the free, where people stand up for what they beleive in (not what they are coerced into). I agree that most poeple who join do it for the money, as they have few other options for supporting themselves. I might be able to consider forcing congress/cabinent member's children to enlist. That would acheive the desired effect pretty quickly.

You always have to give people an out though. Certain people just aren't cut out for killing people.

A draft would cause enourmous uprising in the US though. I certainly wouldn't be going to the frontlines until the same is expected of women. I would also refuse to go until the law considers me an adult (i.e. old enough to drink a beer).

Are you just now noticing?

Libya: over 1000 civilians (some estimates as high as 10,000) killed by government forces, aerial bombing of civilians by government
Yemen: less than 50 civilian deaths
Iran 2009-2010: 34-150 civilian deaths
Iran 2011: 2 civilian deaths
Belarus: No deaths, only arrests.
Burma: 13-150 civilian deaths, Also before Obama was president.

Don't you think one of these countries needed intervention more than the others?

as i have said forever, you dont blame ronald for the bad cheeseburgers. who the president is makes zero difference its just a ploy to make people feel they have a choice. the policies of the powers that really run things stay the same

meet the new boss same as the old boss

if you feel any of them did

Absolutely correct, good to see you again! +^

I could also of said: Could intervention be better justified in one of these over the others?

That may have been better.

No

Ian,
as I watch very little television and have never seen a single episode of the West Wing, I guess I'm not getting it, what is being said here?

It's a new foreign policy doctrine for the use of military force overseas
I like to refer to it as the "Civis Romanus" Doctrine
it's what being the world sole remaining superpower is all about
there's no point in spending well over a billion dollars every single yea on our military armed forces, more than all of the rest of the nations in the world put together combined,
If Americans traveling abroad can still be abducted, kidnapped, tortured, tormented, terrorized, attacked, assaulted, and killed by only just a few haggard men dressed in rags and living in caves somewhere in the mountains
If we are going to continue to call ourselves a "superpower", then that has to mean something
it has to mean that any American can go anywhere at any time without fear, of molestation or death,
If the United States of America truly is the "superpower" we claim to be, then all Americans must be able to go about their lives unharmed
We cannot be the world's most powerful nation, and play the victim of any other power, at the same time
it just simply doesn't work

For the past decade, the United States as a nation, and Americans everywhere at large in general, have been playing the victim with our so-called "War on Terror"
The leaders of our nation have instilled, and then utilized, rampant fear and paranoia concerning alleged supposed outside "others" being a threat to the safety and security of America, to wreak truly staggeringly massive destruction and devastation on nations on the other side of the globe, which never did, never could, and never would have posed any sort of even remote threat to the United States.

We have our military spread throughout the known world, with bases and installations in at least 200 separate nations globally worldwide.
Yet reports of Americans being abducted, kidnapped, and killed in countries all around the world make the news on a nearly daily basis
There is no point in having a globalized military if this nation's own citizens are not safe to walk the earth without the fear of harm

The "Civis Romanus" Doctrine would protect all American citizens traveling anywhere in the world at any time, as the people of every other nation on earth would understand the dire consequences of harming an individual who identified themselves as being an American
IF, and i must stress emphasis on the very big IF, we are to spend on Trillion dollars every single year on our National Homeland Security and Defense, THAT is a goal that would be well worth spending a trillion dollars in order to perfect.

If we are NOT ready, willing, or capable to do everything that is necessary to secure the safety of all of our Nations' citizens, then we quite clearly, evidently, and obviously have no business spending more than all other nations on earth combined on our homeland defense, nor continuing to call ourselves the world's "superpower"

Good point,+^

Don't look now... it's at number 2.

It happens too often. Change this site with me by voting down such stories and voting up actual, non-sensationalist news. Honestly, we probably shouldn't even be commenting on such stories either because that can cause them to raise in ranks, but sometimes I can't help but try to talk some sense into the ignorant whose only lens to the world seems to be Alex Jones.

Yes I have. Here's what Monday's show was about. Let me know which part is dillusional if you can....

Alex talks with Washington, D.C.-based investigative journalist, author and columnist specializing in intelligence and international affairs, Wayne Madsen. He publishes the Wayne Madsen Report. Madsen will talk with Alex about photographs of American soldiers posing with bloodied and partially-naked Afghan bodies they had killed. Alex also covers the latest on the stricken Japanese nuclear plants and the radiation threat and the unfolding drama in Libya as the U.S. and its coalition attack the country. Author, researcher, and GCN radio host Webster Tarpley also talks with Alex about the invasion of Libya. Alex also takes your calls.

Let me guess since your new channel stopped talking about the Japanese nuclear plants and the radiation threat after Obama said there is nothing to worry about that makes infowars.com or Alex Jones crazy for talking about it. Sound about right?

Unlike your favorite corporate sponsored/manufactured hero the calls on his show are not screened. Feel free to call AJ up and prove how much more grounded in reality you are. To parents out there.... this is why it's bad to start off lying to kids about Santa and the Easter bunny. It's conditioning for people like kb723. Now that he's all grown up he still has a hard time separating slick talking teleprompter reading crooks and false paradigms from the real. Hang in there little buddy.... you have a lot to learn

You know what my friend.... You act as though I really give a flying fart!!!

Thanks Aaron, Right back at Ya'!!!!

and i would like to add my own Fuck you as well! the draft is a slow genocide of the young to feed the beast that is corporate america

Ummmmm, Perhaps that's Why our Economy is Not Stable???

Perhaps. Maybe, just a tad.

Glad we agree.... =)

This is a well-reasoned post, Ian -- thanks for pointing out the very important distinctions.

Didn't Bush have the support of the UN?

Sure just like the people of Iraq needed us to bring democracy. Now there is over 1 million dead Iraqis. With friends like that who needs enemies.

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett
Monday, March 21, 2011
Washington, Mar 21 - Congressman Roscoe Bartlett released the following statement today concerning the situation in Libya. Congressman Bartlett represents Maryland’s Sixth District and he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee.
“The United States does not have a King’s army. President Obama’s unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution. President Obama’s administration has repeated the mistakes of the Clinton administration concerning bombing in Kosovo and the George W. Bush administration concerning invading Iraq by failing to request and obtain from the U.S. Congress unambiguous prior authorization to use military force against a country that has not attacked U.S. territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens.

But that was a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz plan.

This was a UN voted decision and as the above poster stated, 25 nations are involved in stopping the Dictator from killing his own and mostly unarmed people.

agreed, for once. i'm sick of these limp wristed cowards that would have just watched while kitty genovese was murdered.

"Good Luck!!!" LOL!!!!!