Here is an essay which raises an interesting question. Since the US Congress has ratified treaties which outlaw war (e.g., the Kellogg-Briand Pact), why is it that we continue to fight non-defensive wars? They are illegal.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/parliament-congress-power-legalize-war.html
The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) is a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them". Parties failing to abide by this promise "should be denied of the benefits furnished by this treaty". It was signed by Germany, France and the United States on August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounced the use of war and called for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Similar provisions were incorporated into the UN Charter and other treaties and it became a stepping stone to a more activist American policy. It is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact
While it is true that the US always maintains that someone attacked us first (or threatened to attack) before taking action, most of these alleged first strikes by others are based upon the flimsiest of evidence (e.g., the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the imaginary threat of the Khorasan group). Should you require further proof of this assertion, refer to Daniel Ellsberg's book Secrets and/or to this report by Glenn Greenwald:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/
We are doing what the Nazis did: waging "preemptive war". Obama ad-Dajjal imitates Hitler in all things.
No comments:
Post a Comment