Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Resolution to prevent undeclared wars

Posted 2 years ago on March 8, 2012, 9:42 p.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You may be aware that there is currently a risk of a nuclear WW3 being triggered by an attack on Iran, which could quickly escalate into a conflict with Russia and China.

So, a congressman, Rep. Walter Jones, republican of North Carolina, has come out with a bill that would initiate the impeachment of Obama if he gets us into any more undeclared wars.

Some of the material about this is provided by Lyndon Larouche, so if you don't like him for any reason, please just try to focus on this issue, because its really critical.

Its urgently requested that you contact your representatives about this, and also to request that anybody you know do the same.

This is a good page that you can refer people to about it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

This is a good video about it:

http://larouchepac.com/node/21924

At the bottom of the following page, there is an application to help you find your representatives:

http://larouchepac.com/obama-on-notice

This is a sample letter that people can send to their representatives:

I request that you sign on to Concurrent Resolution 107, which calls on the House, the Senate Concurring, to do the following:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

I normally don't ask people to do these things, but this time I think its critical, about life and death, both yours and mine. I hope you think so to.

55 Comments

55 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The citizens of the US sit in the back of a great limousine driven by the chauffeur, our representatives in Congress and the president. Wealthy individuals, corporations, and special interests also sit in the front seat, encouraging the chauffeur to stop at the corruption motel, the deficit liquor store, then turn right on war with Iran Avenue. The people in back yell don't turn, get back on Democracy highway, but the chaufeur doesn't listen. The people need to kick out the chauffeur and his buddies and take the wheel themselves if they are ever to get back on the road to Democracy.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

This resolution is meant to send the message "stop the car", any president that starts another unauthorized war will be impeached. I hope you'll ask your representatives to support it.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I agree with your message, but our representatives don't listen to us. They are in the front seat involved in an orgy of political corruption. We need to stop the car, and fast. Nothing we try to accomplish will happen until we do.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I know they don't listen, what do you suggest we do?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

One option is to withhold our income tax payments. No taxation without representation.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Since the chauffeur will not listen to our call to pullover, the only power we have is to stop filling the gas tank at the IRS gas station. Eventually .the car will stop and we will escort all in the front seat out and carefully select a new chauffeur from the people.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Jones voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 that started the Iraq War.

When France took a stand against American warmongering against Iraq, Jones made a courageous stand - Walter B. Jones was the member of Congress who in March 2003 moved to rename the french fries in the Congressional cafeteria "freedom fries." French toast was also renamed "freedom toast." This was, according to the Congressman's website, to "publicly declare our sincere disappointment in our old friends, the French."

[obviously a serious intellect]

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

That may be true, but the issue is that the coming wars are different, they would put is into conflict with other nuclear powers. That needs to be stopped, regardless of Jones' or anybody's voting record.

[-] 1 points by zymergy (236) 2 years ago

These situations, VietNam, Iraq I & II, Afghanistan, and potentially Iran, would be much improved if Congress would assume its own responsibilities for the Declaration of War, rather than authorize the Executive Branch to make such commitments. As it now is, the Executive declares that we exist in an indefinite state of war with undefined terrorists, and assumes with the pre-consent of Congress the power to arrest, hold without trial, and execute American citizens and foreign nationals at will. Congress must fix this grievous error.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

every single one of Obama's security agencies - CIA FBI NSA DIA etc
[ i think its around 15 ]
says Iran is not close to having a bomb or developing a bomb
but what do they know?

I think its a waiting game - and we are winning
1 Ahmadinejad is a beligerant maniac
2 Kahmeni is a religious dictator
3 Iran has a huge population of young people who love American
4 Kahmeni noes NOT like confrontation
5 Ahmadinejad is being squeezed out by Kahmeni
6 I think this shows Kahmeni does not want a confrontation

regardless - this action is simply more anti-Obama crap
If he was crazy enough to attack Iran, he DOES have the right to unilaterally use the military ( for 60 days - i think ) He got Binlanden, he helped get Quadaffi, he is staying away from Syria, hes out of Iraq - much to the disgust of the Rs

Rep. Walter Jones (an Rs) - I would not waste my time, but I would like to know how he voted on every Iraq war funding bill and how he votes on all military WEAPONS bills

And have you looked into the constitutionality of pre-emptive impeachment?

And did Lyndon or Jones call for impeaching bush for invading Iraq?

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Correction, we are not out of Iraq, thousands of private military contractors remain as 'security' for foreign companies and US diplomats.

Iran has not fought an aggressive war in about 2 centuries. I don't think we should hold our breath while waiting for them to fire the first shot.

Ahmadinejad was fighting for his position, but now he is most likely here to stay. Letting him take credit for downing of a US drone, letting him blame assassinations of Nuclear Scientists on Israel and the west (probably right about that), and imposing sanctions have only given him legitimacy with the people. In their eyes (true or not), this is a dude standing up for Iran against foreign aggression.

The President does not have the right to initiate aggression on another sovereign state without a clear indication of IMMINENT danger posed to US citizens on US soil.

Panetta has basically tossed the constitution out the fricking window and leased the US army to NATO and UN consensus. These bodies are not accountable to the US citizenry. They allow the Military Industrial complex to initiate and perpetuate wars without authorization from the people. NATO and the UN are controlled by the 'representatives' who are the hired guns of the M-I-Complex.

Libya: "Humanitarian bombing," a contradiction in terms. NATO special forces on the ground, a direct violation of the UN mandate.

Syria: Fomenting an armed revolution against an incumbent government of a sovereign state. Illegal according to UN charter.

By circumventing its own people and the UN as well, the US is committing acts akin to Japan prior to initiation of hostilities in the 2nd World War when it quit the League of Nations.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The US is also acting somewhat like Germany during WW2 and may suffer an even worse fate than Germany. If we keep up our "Blitzkrieg" against small Asian nations, we'll eventually run up against large Asian nations that have nuclear arsenals. And just like in WW2, they will fight back, to the death, if we don't stop it from happening.

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Well, we are already stated to be in a state of perpetual warfare against "terrorism." Gives the freedom to govt to apply military laws as and when they please.

The US will never attack a nuclear power or any other power with a marginally strong regular army because they won't risk a protracted high intensity conflict. They will use economic skulduggery balanced with the threat of military power to combat such foes.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Some very wealthy people want to reduce the population, because they cannot control so many people. Here, they are doing that through economic collapse.

Since they can't get Russia and China to induce economic collapse to reduce their own populations, our super wealthy will pursue a war instead for the same intention, with much quicker results.

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Interesting theory, but personally I feel its just money that they are after. War creates destruction and debt.

Someone has to rebuild after the war... and these are usually the same people selling the guns and bombs that caused the destruction in the first place... total win win...

Creating conflict and divisions among the people of the world are also a way to keep them distracted from the shameless exploitation of the common man in every country of the world by the ones in power. It keeps people from focusing on real problems.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think you are right about most cases up until now. Currently, the western oligarchy's financial system is collapsing. Without it, they will loose their control over the world, while Asian nations are gaining in prominence. I think they would do anything to stop this from happening, even plunge us into WW3.

[-] 1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

"thousands of private military contractors remain as 'security' for foreign companies and US diplomats."

and if people knew how much these de facto US Military "companies" made, and are making, doing what they are doing, there'd be all manners of hell raised about it.

People not in the club join the military, those inside with crony connections get paid high six and low seven figures to do a soldier's job, not to mention the profit per head the contracting corporations are banking.

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

It surprises me that such companies are even legal to begin with. They sound more like what we might find in countries like Afghanistan or places like Africa, where warlords hire out their mercenaries to the highest bidder. Except these guys are mostly all trained at taxpayer expense and then paid many times more what a soldier earns (usually again at taxpayer expense).

These are, in effect, private armies on US soil. What are the rules governing their deployment on US soil? What laws govern the actions they may take to put down a civilian protest by US citizens?

[-] 1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

I know several of them banking 1mil and amazing bennies a year, doing an enlisted man's job.

Short tenure required to secure a really fat pension complete with all the trimmings.

I think with NDAA, it's just a bit of shuck and jive to deploy private military here. I've sure heard lots of desensitizing rhetoric about a "national police force" which should be indistinguishable from our military.

You're asking good questions.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Those are interesting points, but the main question now, is do you want to live or to die? Because a war with Iran could bring Russia and China into a nuclear war with the US. This resolution is intended to stop that.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Lyndon Larouche called for the impeachment of Bush on numerous occasions.

Also, this resolution is not meant to be a pre-emptive impeachment, it is simply a warning, though there are sufficient grounds for Obama's impeachment already.

This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, it is intended to let both parties know that undeclared wars will not be tolerated.

[-] 2 points by ClearTarget (216) 2 years ago

This is bullshit. If this isn't about Republicans vs Democrats, why would this bill only target Obama? Why such a nearsighted bill? They could have made the bill so that it threatens impeachment of any president that gets us into undeclared wars but they didn't. The Republican who proposed this bill conveniently chose to write Obama's name on it. This bill is garbage.

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Obama is the one who is now getting us into wars. We need to deal with what happening now, and apply the same thing to future republican presidents as well.

[-] 1 points by ClearTarget (216) 2 years ago

"and apply the same thing to future republican presidents as well." What a load of dribble. All talk and no action. If you are serious about this issue, then support a bill that applies to all presidents and not just Obama. Just feebly voicing about applying the same thing to future presidents isn't going to cut it.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I believe once this bill is past, it would apply to all presidents. And by the way, I am no republican and never have been. I'm a conservative democrat.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So sorry. But Obama has not gotten us into a war yet.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Well, he got us into Libya, and some are quite concerned about him getting us into further wars. Did you hear about the full page ad in the Washington Post in which top US military and intelligence officers advised Obama against another war? It is as if they are ready to mutiny if another war is initiated.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No he shut down a murderous dictators slaughtering troops in no time flat. That allowed the Population to defend itself. We were never in Libya. This action should be repeated by someone - anyone for Syria.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

One of the reasons that people originally came to America was because they wanted to stay out of foreign wars. Are we really the world's policeman? Can't we let other countries take care of their own business?

I'm getting to the point at which I think that if we provoke a global nuclear war that wipes out the US, it must be because we deserve it.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The strong should protect the weak. That is how bullies are ended.

Foreign and Domestic.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

And what happens when Russia and China say the same? That they should protect the weak against us with their nuclear weapons. If you live by the sword you'll die by the sword.

Libya used to have the best economy in Africa. It had problems, like most countries do, but we didn't have to go in there and overthrow the guy.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I guess Gaddafi should have considered that.

Hey?

Now there is another butcher in Syria that should do the considering that Gaddafi did not.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

All problems do not have to be solved by war.

Here is some info on the war that was not a war in Libya:

The current all-out military regime-change operation against Libya exposes not only the lies of the Obama Administration, but also the cowardice of the U.S. Senate, led by Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry, Lyndon LaRouche charged yesterday.

As is now reported in virtually all major news media, the "victory" of the rebel forces in Libya is totally dependent upon ongoing operations of the armed forces of France, Britain, and the United States in that country, in what can only be called an all-out air and ground war.

Obama blatantly lied when he said that there would be no U.S. troops on the ground. The U.S. had CIA operatives on the ground, and credible Pentagon sources report that many of the so-called CIA operatives are active-duty Special Forces personnel who have been temporarily seconded to the CIA for the purpose of evading the ban on American troops on the ground in the Libya operation. It had private contractors on the ground. It provided satellite intelligence. It provided air support. It was and is the leading element in a NATO coalition, whose command was and is U.S.-led.

http://larouchepac.com/node/19198

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Here is how problems should be solved in Syria:

Syria's New Constitution Endorsed by 89% Voters

Around 89% of Syrians approved a new constitution, proposed by President Bashar al-Assad, in a referendum on Sunday Feb. 26, state television said Monday. Turnout in the referendum was 57.4% nationwide, state television said. Fewer voters turned out in the areas of Rukneddine and Barzeh, where anti-government protesters have recently demonstrated.

The new constitution puts an end to over five decades of one-party rule by the Ba'ath Party, and introduces a Presidential limit of two seven-year terms. The reform, however, would come into force only at the end of President Bashar al-Assad's current term of office, in 2014.

Unlike Germany, and the western countries in alliance with the multitude of Syrian opposition, which called the referendum a "farce," Russia welcomed Syria's holding of a constitutional referendum ending the Ba'ath Party's monopoly on power in the country. "I think that those who see this as a move toward democracy are right. The end of a monopoly position by one party in the political system should be welcomed," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a press conference with diplomats from Myanmar.

The two main umbrella opposition groups, the Syrian National Council and the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change in Syria, had called for a boycott. Other groups had called for a general strike.

Despite the boycott call, Russian Foreign Ministry pointed out that the percentage of voter participation proves that "the influence of those opposition groups that called for boycotting the referendum is restricted and gives them no exclusive right to speak on behalf of the Syrian people." A statement issued by the ministry explains that the referendum "is an important step in the path of reforms started by the Syrian government towards a modern democratic state and a new Syria."

http://larouchepac.com/node/21776

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

It most definitely matters what they said about Bush! That is how I will decide if this law is good or not!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Larouche was definitely for the impeachment of Bush.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Can you show proof?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, here is one article that mentions it:

LaRouche: To Solve the `Mexican Crisis,' Get Bush and Cheney Out Now http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2006/lar_pac/060908mexico_crisis.html

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Good comment - Good food for thought.

[-] 0 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

They all take turns playing the "straight guy"........... it perpetuates the illusion!

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Is Walter pressing for impleachment of warhawks who are SPECIFICALLY calling for attacking Iran - like McCain And have walter & lyndon voiced ther horror at the warmongering of Gingrich & Santorum?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Lyndon has indeed expressed his horror at the warmongering of Gingrich and Santorum.

I think that walker is focusing on Obama now, as opposed to others like McCain, because he is the one who makes a decision if we get into an undeclared war or not.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the power of the executive rises in "crisis" situations

when there's no time for congress to make a decision

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

That's why we need to do something about it, or we will be "done" for.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And did walter vote against bush's Iraq war funding?
or is he just an Rs doing what Rs do?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Getting involved in a war with Iran could trigger a global nuclear war. Shouldn't we just focus on preventing that from happening?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Prevention is what we are currently doing.

We are in our fight against corruption - This is going to be the best way to stop abuse - ALL ABUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

What we are doing is good, but if we don't focus on this particular life-and-death issues, we may not be around much longer to do anything else.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The life and death issues are all around us. They are being controlled by the corrupt.

So the sooner we regain control of our system of government by owning the process as a people the sooner we can promote peaceful activity.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The lives and deaths we are talking about, are the immediate lives and deaths of billions of people. Its about the end of civilization as we know it in the near term.

Maybe you don't see it like I do, but what I see is that we are face with the immediate threat of nuclear war.

This resolution is intended to help us in the process of releasing ourselves from the control of the corrupt. We can't allow them to keep murdering people at their whim, or quite soon, we will face retribution for not stopping them.

Ending the rule of the corrupt will require a number specific measures, regaining control of the financial system through Glass Steagall is one of them. This specific Resolution 107 is intended to help us gain control of the defense system.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We will not stop this until we control the system as it was meant to be controlled - BY THE PEOPLE.

We move forward in this process and while traveling that road we cry out against injustice.

To stop the killing we need to stop the corrupt.

The People speak and - We move forward Together.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Ok, I guess what your saying is that specific actions are not necessary.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Some specific actions will not be possible without control.

We move forward with all speed - Together.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34903) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Comments anyone? I have not looked at this yet, but I told arturo I would. I will likely look into it tomorrow. But arturo is concerned. So if you have a moment please have a look. I was just checking in when I saw this matter. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Thanks for your support on this issue.