Showing posts with label declaration of war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label declaration of war. Show all posts

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Foreign Occupation and Declaration of War

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



10. Will you oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

     Yes, I will oppose using U.S. forces to occupy a foreign nation without a declaration of war. Although the War Powers Act authorizes the president to deploy limited numbers of troops for limited times, the president cannot authorize attacks or strikes without the approval of the American people through Congress, unless there is imminent danger to the United States.
     The U.S. military should primarily be focused on defending the American people rather than acting in a militant manner and spending as much on so-called defense as the next 15 to 20 nations combined. Our military and intelligence forces should not intervene in the domestic affairs (including elections) of national governments unless refraining from doing so enables such a government's official apparati to inflict imminent harm upon America, and upon law-abiding American people and agencies abroad.
     Although I will to promote diplomacy, trade, and peace with all nations, I do not believe that this should involve formal military alliances, as I believe that we should heed George Washington's advice avoiding entangling alliances with foreign nations. I will support efforts to end formal military alliances with all nations, and to end U.S. membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
     I believe that our membership in N.A.T.O. - and our close relationships with the State of Israel and Saudi Arabia – only increase the chance of the United States fighting in more wars without congressional approval, and of the U.S. being expected by the international community to fight other nations' battles for them. This only diminishes the independence and military strength of such nations, while allowing them to fund their governments while the U.S. bears much of the costs of their protection.
     I will vote to cut foreign aid completely, but until that time, any foreign aid budget the federal government maintains should not reflect the kind of favoritism towards particular governments and peoples which has been suggested by the recent trends of vastly disproportionate disbursements to Israel and Egypt (which combined contain just over one percent of the world's population).
     Additionally, the U.S. military should not use drone planes to spy in other countries (either to collect information or to attack enemies of the United States) without the approval of Congress and without the authorization of the nation within whose borders and air space the use of such drones occurs.




For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html

Military Intervention

The following was written in November 2013 as a response to the questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican Party).

Here is the link to the original questionnaire:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw

This is my answer to Question #8.




8. B and C, and A under certain conditions
   (U.S. military intervention in other nations is justified when a clear and imminent threat is evident, after Congress declares war, and when our legitimate national interests are at stake, not when our national interests are related to the oil markets, and not before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens.
   Intervention is also justified when the threat is imminent, the war is declared by Congress, and our help is specifically requested by the international community)
   A U.S. military intervention in other nations is justified (B) when a clear and imminent threat is evident and (C) after Congress declares war. Intervention would not be justified (D) before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens, because there would not be (B) evidence of a clear and imminent threat.
   To support U.S. military intervention in other nations (A) whenever a national interest is at stake is to risk supporting the use of military force to protect American business interests and properties in other countries.
   It is to risk the lives and livelihoods of American soldiers, American civilians, and civilians in foreign nations alike, by entangling the United States in wars for oil, political and military power, gains from war profiteering, and control of banking and currency in Middle Eastern nations and other countries around the world.
   The U.S. should only intervene in other nations militarily when (A) its national interests are at stake (but only when those interests favor lives over corruptible business influence) or when specifically asked by the international community, (B) when a clear and imminent threat is evident (but not (D) before there is any risk of injury to U.S. citizens), and (C) after Congress declares war.




For more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html


Links to Documentaries About Covid-19, Vaccine Hesitancy, A.Z.T., and Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory

      Below is a list of links to documentaries regarding various topics related to Covid-19.      Topics addressed in these documentaries i...