Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

"United States Is Corrupted!" - The Russian-Ukrainian War Explained

yota691
 Share

Recommended Posts

coorslite21 Grand Master

coorslite21

Posted
Posted

When is enough , enough?

Since 1950....Korean War....the US has been involved in these proxy wars that are undeclared by Congress. 

It's all about the money...$$$$....who gets rich during these events.

 

A lost generation of the 60's and 70's put a stop to the massacre known as the Vietnam war.....Millions protested...

 

Today we find ourselves headed down a similar path....the war drums are pounding louder every day...Ukraine....Russia.........China...Iran......NOKO.....

 

Perhaps some common sense can prevail once again......Feb. 19.......DC

CL

 

February 19, New Anti-Interventionist Coalition to March to White House from Lincoln Memorial

With the war in Ukraine putting us the precipice of nuclear Armageddon, “rage” might be considered a mild reaction.
 
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

On February 19, Washington, DC, will witness a protest against the war in Ukraine that marks a sharp departure from past demonstrations. The lead demand is simple and direct, “Not One More Penny for war in Ukraine.” It is a demand that emphasizes what we in the US can do to end the war, not what others can do. After all, the only government we have the power to influence is our own.

Above and beyond that demand, the potential power of this unique and promising movement arises from the nature of the sponsoring organizations – The Peoples Party, a progressive new Party, and the Libertarian Party. It is in fact what much of the press would term a “right-left” Coalition, spanning a spectrum broad enough to actually bring the proxy war in Ukraine to an end. Fittingly, the organizers are calling the protest “Rage Against the War Machine.” With the war in Ukraine putting us the precipice of nuclear Armageddon, “rage” might be considered a mild reaction.

A New Right-Left Coalition to Oppose the War

The Peoples Party is probably the lesser known of the two sponsoring organizations, because it’s newer. Its founder and National Chair is Nick Brana, a lead organizer of the protest. Brana was National Coordinator of the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign, but has turned his back on the Democrats in disgust over the failure progressive Democratic pols to fight for the promises they made. Among the speakers at the Party’s founding convention in 2020 were Cornel West, Chris Hedges, Jimmy Dore and Nina Turner (co-chair of the Sanders 2020 campaign).

The Libertarian Party is better known. It has been around longer and, though small, is the third largest political party in the US by voter registration. The present National Chair, Angela McCardle, is the other lead organizer of the DC protest. In American political life, probably, the best known representative of libertarian values, most notably a principled anti-interventionist stance in foreign policy, is Ron Paul.

A call for ending US support for the proxy war in Ukraine is realistic; a substantial and growing segment of the American people support this demand.

The lead demand “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine” is finding ever more support among Americans. A survey in November by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed that 35% of Americans oppose sending more arms to Ukraine and 34% oppose sending more economic aid. (When it comes to sending US troops, 68% are opposed!) These numbers in grew from the previous survey in July, revealing a growing anti-interventionist sentiment. While this is not a majority, over one third of the populace is a base substantial enough to build an antiwar majority. Only 16% more needs to be won over to reach a majority. The number one demand of the February demonstration is not utopian -it is realistic!

 

 

The Demands of the Demonstration.

It is worthwhile to look at all ten of the demands of the February protest which are found here. But the first four deserve special attention because they spell out the spirit and leading ideas of the movement. Here they are as worded on the website for the protest:

  • Not One More Penny for War in Ukraine: The Democrats and Republicans have armed Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and military aid. The war has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and is pushing us toward a nuclear WW3. Stop funding the war.
  • Negotiate Peace: The US government instigated the war in Ukraine with a coup of its democratically elected government in 2014, and then sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March. Pursue an immediate ceasefire and diplomacy to end the war.
  • Stop the War Inflation: The war is accelerating inflation and increasing food, gas and energy prices. The US blew up Russian gas pipelines to Europe, starving them of energy and deindustrializing their countries. End the war and stop increasing prices.
  • Disband NATO: NATO expansion to Russia’s border provoked the war in Ukraine. NATO is a warmongering relic of the Cold War. Disband it like the Warsaw Pact.

The other six demands are: Global Nuclear De-Escalation; Slash the Pentagon Budget; Abolish the CIA and Military-Industrial Deep State; Abolish War and Empire; Restore Civil Liberties; and Free Julian Assange.

Make plans now to get to Washington on February 19. Lend your presence to this potent new coalition of forces. The demonstration will gather at the Lincoln Memorial and then march to the White House. Watch for more details, and sign up for updates here in the coming weeks.

Let’s do this. Time is running out as the threat of nuclear war grows with each day and each new escalation in Ukraine. A broad coalition can end it. Enough of the forever wars!

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coorslite21 Grand Master

coorslite21

Posted
Posted

It all started in 1950....this "proxy" war garbage.......CL 

 

 
Home
 
 
WAR POWERS

The Korea War Powers Precedent

 Thursday, July 23, 2020, 10:52 AM47617577121_1312ac4e5b_c.jpg
The Korean War Memorial in Washington, D.C. (Source: Ross Dunn, https://flic.kr/p/2fxNwGZ; CC BY-SA 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)
 

As we commemorate the start of the Korean War seventy years ago, we should also take note of the precedent set by Congress’s inaction in that conflict, and the weakening of its claim to war powers that followed. Before 1950, Congress had authorized major military operations more than a dozen times, including five declared wars. Since 1950, Congress has ducked its responsibilities to approve—or block—major combat at least half a dozen times.

Congress probably did not realize it was setting a precedent—although it was certainly departing from one. Besides declaring wars, earlier Congresses had approved conditional authorizations of force against France in 1798, Algiers in 1815 and in Florida in 1811 and 1819. Lawmakers also retrospectively approved operations against Tripoli in 1802 and Mexico in 1914. Dozens of military deployments to Central America and the Caribbean before the 1930s were tolerated possibly because they were limited in size and usually duration and thus not thought of as wars requiring congressional action. The Korean War was a different story.

In 1950, President Harry Truman’s first reaction to North Korea’s invasion of the South was to send supplies to South Korean forces. He respected Congress, having served as a senator for more than 10 years before becoming chief executive, so he insisted on consulting with the leadership. But he was also decisive and believed in the authority and responsibilities of the president. He didn’t want necessary action in Korea to be hindered by a contentious Congress.

When he decided to give U.S. air and naval support, lawmakers voiced no criticism. Only five days later did Truman decide to send American ground troops. By then, Congress was busy finishing legislative business at the end of the fiscal year, and the leadership didn’t want to interrupt the Fourth of July recess by calling members back to Washington. Then and in the months that followed, Congress missed the chance to assert its power to authorize a major war, and that same dynamic has played out over and over again in the seventy years since.

Here’s how it happened. Truman learned of the North Korean attacks Sunday, June 25, 1950, while at home in Missouri. He promptly returned to Washington, met with his executive branch advisers and ordered supplies to be sent to the South Koreans. Meanwhile the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution calling on North Korea to cease hostilities and withdraw from the South and calling on all members to assist the United Nations.

On June 26, Truman approved full U.S. air and naval support to South Korean forces and called a meeting with congressional leaders the next morning. At that meeting, he announced that U.S. forces would give “cover and support” to the South Koreans. No one questioned the president’s plans.

On June 28, Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, who had not been at the White House meeting, said he did not oppose Truman’s decisions and would vote for a measure approving force, but he protested the president’s “usurpation” of the war power authority.

At a news conference on June 29, Truman said “we are not at war,” and agreed with a reporter’s suggestion that the U.S. was not participating in a war but “a police action under the United Nations,” a phrase he would come to regret as the conflict grew larger and prolonged, thus becoming what most people would call a “war.” In fact, the conflict would last three years and see more than 2.5 million people killed, including more than 36,000 U.S. military personnel.

It wasn’t until Friday, June 30 that the president formally ordered the commitment of U.S. ground troops to Korea. A few hours later he met with another bipartisan congressional group to inform them of his decision. Only Sen. Kenneth Wherry, a Republican from Nebraska, argued that Congress ought to be consulted. Truman said there was no time for lots of talk. “I just had to act as commander-in-chief,” he said, “and I did.” Truman felt he had already obtained adequate expressions of support from the Hill.

On the Hill, Wherry repeated his call for congressional debate and action. But even leaders of his own party backed the Democratic president. Senate Republican leader William Knowland of California echoed the administration’s position that no declaration of war was needed, that the action was obligatory under the U.N. Charter.

On July 3, Truman met again with his advisers to discuss whether he should speak to a joint session of Congress on Korea, after which the body could vote on a joint resolution of approval for military action. He welcomed such a resolution as a congressional initiative, but the Democratic Senate majority leader, Scott Lucas, questioned the desirability of the administration proposing such a resolution. He feared a lengthy debate and the possibility of fights on other contentious issues. The Senate majority leader also wanted to avoid what would look like a declaration of war; he said something along the lines of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats would be better. Truman agreed to avoid a formal appearance of requesting a joint resolution.

Instead of calling Congress back after it departed for the July 4 recess, Truman sent a message to the Hill on July 19. He called the North Korean attack “naked, deliberate, unprovoked aggression” and said his actions were based on “the unanimous advice of our civilian and military authorities” and were to support the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Congress was never asked to vote for or against the Korean War.

Meanwhile, Congress was already taking action to support and fund the war both directly and indirectly. It passed an extension of the draft on June 28, a temporary appropriations bill on June 29 and a Mutual Defense Cooperation bill that included small sums for operations on the Korean Peninsula. It approved the defense appropriations bill on August 28 and a large supplemental appropriation for defense on September 22. This was business as usual for the Congress, but these actions were later cited by administration lawyers as evidence of Congress’s authorization for the conflict.

To many legal analysts, such as Secretary of State Dean Acheson, the Korea precedent bolstered the State Department claim made at the start of the war that the president had authority under the U.N. Charter to carry out the U.N. Security Council resolutions. No one dredged up the history of assurances to Congress in 1945, including by Acheson himself, that congressional approval would be sought on U.N. operations.

To many lawmakers, the Korea deployments would have been more acceptable if they were part of a package including the presidential order to the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa—now Taiwan—where the defeated Republic of China government had relocated. Republicans like Knowland had blamed Truman for the Communist Party takeover of China in 1949 and strongly favored support for the government on Formosa. Any debates on authorizing troops to Korea might have become snarled over Formosa; this was another reason Senate Democratic leadership sought to avoid an official vote.

The Korea precedent also revealed Congress’s implicit definition of war as requiring ground troops in large numbers. That explained Congress’s acceptance of later interventions in the Caribbean and Central America as well as the lack of strong expression of concern regarding the Korean War until Truman decided on ground troops. It also explains Congress’s subsequent acceptance of punitive air and drone strikes in counterterrorism operations.

After Korea, several presidents sought and received congressional approval for possible combat operations—Eisenhower in Lebanon, Kennedy in Cuba, Johnson in Vietnam and Reagan in Lebanon. Congress also authorized major combat in Iraq in 1991 and 2002 and in Afghanistan in 2001. But in the cases of military intervention in Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya and Syria, Congress failed to muster majorities for any decisive action for or against those conflicts. Over decades, the legislative branch has repeatedly abdicated its constitutional responsibilities, preferring to applaud short, successful wars and criticize any that were prolonged or unsuccessful while still providing funds for those wars regardless of the outcome. That history might have been different if Congress had insisted on acting in June 1950 and maintained the precedent that major combat operations require congressional approval.

 
Topics: 
 
Tags: 
 
Charles A. Stevenson
Dr. Charles A. Stevenson teaches American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins SAIS and is author of Congress at War.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Explore

© 2023 The Lawfare Institute

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Synopsis Grand Master

Synopsis

Posted
Posted
On 2/18/2023 at 10:04 AM, coorslite21 said:

When is enough , enough?

Since 1950....Korean War....the US has been involved in these proxy wars that are undeclared by Congress. 

It's all about the money...$$$$....who gets rich during these events.

 

A lost generation of the 60's and 70's put a stop to the massacre known as the Vietnam war.....Millions protested...

 

Today we find ourselves headed down a similar path....the war drums are pounding louder every day...Ukraine....Russia.........China...Iran......NOKO.....

 

Perhaps some common sense can prevail once again......Feb. 19.......DC

CL

 

February 19, New Anti-Interventionist Coalition to March to White House from Lincoln Memorial

With the war in Ukraine putting us the precipice of nuclear Armageddon, “rage” might be considered a mild reaction.
 
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

On February 19, Washington, DC, will witness a protest against the war in Ukraine that marks a sharp departure from past demonstrations. The lead demand is simple and direct, “Not One More Penny for war in Ukraine.” It is a demand that emphasizes what we in the US can do to end the war, not what others can do. After all, the only government we have the power to influence is our own.

Above and beyond that demand, the potential power of this unique and promising movement arises from the nature of the sponsoring organizations – The Peoples Party, a progressive new Party, and the Libertarian Party. It is in fact what much of the press would term a “right-left” Coalition, spanning a spectrum broad enough to actually bring the proxy war in Ukraine to an end. Fittingly, the organizers are calling the protest “Rage Against the War Machine.” With the war in Ukraine putting us the precipice of nuclear Armageddon, “rage” might be considered a mild reaction.

A New Right-Left Coalition to Oppose the War

The Peoples Party is probably the lesser known of the two sponsoring organizations, because it’s newer. Its founder and National Chair is Nick Brana, a lead organizer of the protest. Brana was National Coordinator of the Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign, but has turned his back on the Democrats in disgust over the failure progressive Democratic pols to fight for the promises they made. Among the speakers at the Party’s founding convention in 2020 were Cornel West, Chris Hedges, Jimmy Dore and Nina Turner (co-chair of the Sanders 2020 campaign).

The Libertarian Party is better known. It has been around longer and, though small, is the third largest political party in the US by voter registration. The present National Chair, Angela McCardle, is the other lead organizer of the DC protest. In American political life, probably, the best known representative of libertarian values, most notably a principled anti-interventionist stance in foreign policy, is Ron Paul.

A call for ending US support system" rel="">support for the proxy war in Ukraine is realistic; a substantial and growing segment of the American people support system" rel="">support this demand.

The lead demand “Not one more penny for war in Ukraine” is finding ever more support system" rel="">support among Americans. A survey in November by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed that 35% of Americans oppose sending more arms to Ukraine and 34% oppose sending more economic aid. (When it comes to sending US troops, 68% are opposed!) These numbers in grew from the previous survey in July, revealing a growing anti-interventionist sentiment. While this is not a majority, over one third of the populace is a base substantial enough to build an antiwar majority. Only 16% more needs to be won over to reach a majority. The number one demand of the February demonstration is not utopian -it is realistic!

 

 

The Demands of the Demonstration.

It is worthwhile to look at all ten of the demands of the February protest which are found here. But the first four deserve special attention because they spell out the spirit and leading ideas of the movement. Here they are as worded on the website for the protest:

  • Not One More Penny for War in Ukraine: The Democrats and Republicans have armed Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in weapons and military aid. The war has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and is pushing us toward a nuclear WW3. Stop funding the war.
  • Negotiate Peace: The US government instigated the war in Ukraine with a coup of its democratically elected government in 2014, and then sabotaged a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in March. Pursue an immediate ceasefire and diplomacy to end the war.
  • Stop the War Inflation: The war is accelerating inflation and increasing food, gas and energy prices. The US blew up Russian gas pipelines to Europe, starving them of energy and deindustrializing their countries. End the war and stop increasing prices.
  • Disband NATO: NATO expansion to Russia’s border provoked the war in Ukraine. NATO is a warmongering relic of the Cold War. Disband it like the Warsaw Pact.

The other six demands are: Global Nuclear De-Escalation; Slash the Pentagon Budget; Abolish the CIA and Military-Industrial Deep State; Abolish War and Empire; Restore Civil Liberties; and Free Julian Assange.

Make plans now to get to Washington on February 19. Lend your presence to this potent new coalition of forces. The demonstration will gather at the Lincoln Memorial and then march to the White House. Watch for more details, and sign up for updates here in the coming weeks.

Let’s do this. Time is running out as the threat of nuclear war grows with each day and each new escalation in Ukraine. A broad coalition can end it. Enough of the forever wars!

 

On 2/18/2023 at 10:13 AM, coorslite21 said:

It all started in 1950....this "proxy" war garbage.......CL 

 

 
Home
 
 
WAR POWERS

The Korea War Powers Precedent

 Thursday, July 23, 2020, 10:52 AM47617577121_1312ac4e5b_c.jpg
The Korean War Memorial in Washington, D.C. (Source: Ross Dunn, https://flic.kr/p/2fxNwGZ; CC BY-SA 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/)
 

As we commemorate the start of the Korean War seventy years ago, we should also take note of the precedent set by Congress’s inaction in that conflict, and the weakening of its claim to war powers that followed. Before 1950, Congress had authorized major military operations more than a dozen times, including five declared wars. Since 1950, Congress has ducked its responsibilities to approve—or block—major combat at least half a dozen times.

Congress probably did not realize it was setting a precedent—although it was certainly departing from one. Besides declaring wars, earlier Congresses had approved conditional authorizations of force against France in 1798, Algiers in 1815 and in Florida in 1811 and 1819. Lawmakers also retrospectively approved operations against Tripoli in 1802 and Mexico in 1914. Dozens of military deployments to Central America and the Caribbean before the 1930s were tolerated possibly because they were limited in size and usually duration and thus not thought of as wars requiring congressional action. The Korean War was a different story.

In 1950, President Harry Truman’s first reaction to North Korea’s invasion of the South was to send supplies to South Korean forces. He respected Congress, having served as a senator for more than 10 years before becoming chief executive, so he insisted on consulting with the leadership. But he was also decisive and believed in the authority and responsibilities of the president. He didn’t want necessary action in Korea to be hindered by a contentious Congress.

When he decided to give U.S. air and naval support system" rel="">support, lawmakers voiced no criticism. Only five days later did Truman decide to send American ground troops. By then, Congress was busy finishing legislative business at the end of the fiscal year, and the leadership didn’t want to interrupt the Fourth of July recess by calling members back to Washington. Then and in the months that followed, Congress missed the chance to assert its power to authorize a major war, and that same dynamic has played out over and over again in the seventy years since.

Here’s how it happened. Truman learned of the North Korean attacks Sunday, June 25, 1950, while at home in Missouri. He promptly returned to Washington, met with his executive branch advisers and ordered supplies to be sent to the South Koreans. Meanwhile the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution calling on North Korea to cease hostilities and withdraw from the South and calling on all members to assist the United Nations.

On June 26, Truman approved full U.S. air and naval support system" rel="">support to South Korean forces and called a meeting with congressional leaders the next morning. At that meeting, he announced that U.S. forces would give “cover and support system" rel="">support” to the South Koreans. No one questioned the president’s plans.

On June 28, Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, who had not been at the White House meeting, said he did not oppose Truman’s decisions and would vote for a measure approving force, but he protested the president’s “usurpation” of the war power authority.

At a news conference on June 29, Truman said “we are not at war,” and agreed with a reporter’s suggestion that the U.S. was not participating in a war but “a police action under the United Nations,” a phrase he would come to regret as the conflict grew larger and prolonged, thus becoming what most people would call a “war.” In fact, the conflict would last three years and see more than 2.5 million people killed, including more than 36,000 U.S. military personnel.

It wasn’t until Friday, June 30 that the president formally ordered the commitment of U.S. ground troops to Korea. A few hours later he met with another bipartisan congressional group to inform them of his decision. Only Sen. Kenneth Wherry, a Republican from Nebraska, argued that Congress ought to be consulted. Truman said there was no time for lots of talk. “I just had to act as commander-in-chief,” he said, “and I did.” Truman felt he had already obtained adequate expressions of support system" rel="">support from the Hill.

On the Hill, Wherry repeated his call for congressional debate and action. But even leaders of his own party backed the Democratic president. Senate Republican leader William Knowland of California echoed the administration’s position that no declaration of war was needed, that the action was obligatory under the U.N. Charter.

On July 3, Truman met again with his advisers to discuss whether he should speak to a joint session of Congress on Korea, after which the body could vote on a joint resolution of approval for military action. He welcomed such a resolution as a congressional initiative, but the Democratic Senate majority leader, Scott Lucas, questioned the desirability of the administration proposing such a resolution. He feared a lengthy debate and the possibility of fights on other contentious issues. The Senate majority leader also wanted to avoid what would look like a declaration of war; he said something along the lines of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats would be better. Truman agreed to avoid a formal appearance of requesting a joint resolution.

Instead of calling Congress back after it departed for the July 4 recess, Truman sent a message to the Hill on July 19. He called the North Korean attack “naked, deliberate, unprovoked aggression” and said his actions were based on “the unanimous advice of our civilian and military authorities” and were to support system" rel="">support the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Congress was never asked to vote for or against the Korean War.

Meanwhile, Congress was already taking action to support system" rel="">support and fund the war both directly and indirectly. It passed an extension of the draft on June 28, a temporary appropriations bill on June 29 and a Mutual Defense Cooperation bill that included small sums for operations on the Korean Peninsula. It approved the defense appropriations bill on August 28 and a large supplemental appropriation for defense on September 22. This was business as usual for the Congress, but these actions were later cited by administration lawyers as evidence of Congress’s authorization for the conflict.

To many legal analysts, such as Secretary of State Dean Acheson, the Korea precedent bolstered the State Department claim made at the start of the war that the president had authority under the U.N. Charter to carry out the U.N. Security Council resolutions. No one dredged up the history of assurances to Congress in 1945, including by Acheson himself, that congressional approval would be sought on U.N. operations.

To many lawmakers, the Korea deployments would have been more acceptable if they were part of a package including the presidential order to the Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa—now Taiwan—where the defeated Republic of China government had relocated. Republicans like Knowland had blamed Truman for the Communist Party takeover of China in 1949 and strongly favored support system" rel="">support for the government on Formosa. Any debates on authorizing troops to Korea might have become snarled over Formosa; this was another reason Senate Democratic leadership sought to avoid an official vote.

The Korea precedent also revealed Congress’s implicit definition of war as requiring ground troops in large numbers. That explained Congress’s acceptance of later interventions in the Caribbean and Central America as well as the lack of strong expression of concern regarding the Korean War until Truman decided on ground troops. It also explains Congress’s subsequent acceptance of punitive air and drone strikes in counterterrorism operations.

After Korea, several presidents sought and received congressional approval for possible combat operations—Eisenhower in Lebanon, Kennedy in Cuba, Johnson in Vietnam and Reagan in Lebanon. Congress also authorized major combat in Iraq in 1991 and 2002 and in Afghanistan in 2001. But in the cases of military intervention in Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya and Syria, Congress failed to muster majorities for any decisive action for or against those conflicts. Over decades, the legislative branch has repeatedly abdicated its constitutional responsibilities, preferring to applaud short, successful wars and criticize any that were prolonged or unsuccessful while still providing funds for those wars regardless of the outcome. That history might have been different if Congress had insisted on acting in June 1950 and maintained the precedent that major combat operations require congressional approval.

 
Topics: 
 
Tags: 
 
Charles A. Stevenson
Dr. Charles A. Stevenson teaches American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins SAIS and is author of Congress at War.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Explore

© 2023 The Lawfare Institute

 

We might as well forget about all the miniscule stuff.

 

The real reason why all the regional conflicts exist today is because of the institution of The Black Eagle Trust facilitated by none other than............

 

Posted on December 31, 2017 by rhapsodyinbooks

On this day in history, President Jimmy Carter, visiting the Shah of Iran in Tehran, made a speech to toast the Shah at a state dinner.

President Jimmy Carter and the shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, at a state dinner in Iran in 1977.

President Jimmy Carter and the shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, at a state dinner in Iran in 1977.

He said in part:

Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.

This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership and to the respect and the admiration and love which your people give to you.”

The “island,” however, was in fact in turmoil. Opposition to the Shah was mounting, with the Shah increasingly relying on his notorious secret police, SAVAK, to crack down on dissent. Protesters began filling the streets, and on January 16, 1979, the Shah fled to Egypt. When the Shah found out he had cancer, he asked Carter for permission to come to the U.S. for treatment. Carter knew it would cause problems, but decided he could not refuse the Shah out of humanitarian considerations, and in October, 1979, he extended a public invitation to the Shah. He later said:

I was told that the Shah was desperately ill, at the point of death . . . I was told that New York was the only medical facility that was capable of possibly saving his life and reminded that the Iranian officials had promised to protect our people in Iran. When all the circumstances were described to me, I agreed.”

On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of young Islamic revolutionaries overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking more than 60 Americans hostage. The hostages were not released for 444 days, until Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. As the History Channel reports:

Iranian hostages

Iranian hostages

The immediate cause of this action was President Jimmy Carter’s decision to allow Iran’s deposed Shah, a pro-Western autocrat who had been expelled from his country some months before, to come to the United States for cancer treatment. However, the hostage-taking was about more than the Shah’s medical care: it was a dramatic way for the student revolutionaries to declare a break with Iran’s past and an end to American interference in its affairs. It was also a way to raise the intra- and international profile of the revolution’s leader, the anti-American cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.”

Portrait Of Ayatollah Khomeini taken in Paris, shortly before the 1979 revolution. Photograph: Denis Cameron/Rex Features

Portrait Of Ayatollah Khomeini taken in Paris, shortly before the 1979 revolution. Photograph: Denis Cameron/Rex Features

Posted on December 31, 2017 by rhapsodyinbooks

https://legallegacy.wordpress.com/2017/12/31/december-31-1977-jimmy-carter-praises-iran-as-an-island-of-stability/

 

The reason The United States Of America Service Personnel Blood is being spilled to this day is because of the bane of humanity James Earl Carter.

No question James Earl Carter is the worst felon of all time and even worse than Adolf Hilter due to the Crimes Against Humanity and perpetration of underworld activity via the establishment The Black Eagle Trust James Earl Carter was an active participant in it's institution.

Does ANYONE question why the economic sanctions against Iran DID NOT work or impede the activities of THEE INSANIANS???!!!

All due to the funding through The Black Eagle Trust with Iran as the center piece.

Now, of course, Iran is ushered into the consortium of Nuclear Nations to ensure Iran's ability to run the Black Eagle Trust Fund.

All before James Earl Carter "expires" to ensure the perpetuity of the lucritive Black Eagle Trust ALL at the expense of The United States Of America Citizens AND free citizens of the world lives and all else.

Once James Earl Carter passes, significant incomprehensible events will happen.

Keep yer powder dry!!!

image.thumb.jpeg.8d10c895e0d9ae841d663368878e1aa0.jpeg

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coorslite21 Grand Master

coorslite21

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Synopsis said:

 

 

We might as well forget about all the miniscule stuff.

 

The real reason why all the regional conflicts exist today is because of the institution of The Black Eagle Trust facilitated by none other than............

 

Posted on December 31, 2017 by rhapsodyinbooks

On this day in history, President Jimmy Carter, visiting the Shah of Iran in Tehran, made a speech to toast the Shah at a state dinner.

President Jimmy Carter and the shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, at a state dinner in Iran in 1977.

President Jimmy Carter and the shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, at a state dinner in Iran in 1977.

He said in part:

Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.

This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership and to the respect and the admiration and love which your people give to you.”

The “island,” however, was in fact in turmoil. Opposition to the Shah was mounting, with the Shah increasingly relying on his notorious secret police, SAVAK, to crack down on dissent. Protesters began filling the streets, and on January 16, 1979, the Shah fled to Egypt. When the Shah found out he had cancer, he asked Carter for permission to come to the U.S. for treatment. Carter knew it would cause problems, but decided he could not refuse the Shah out of humanitarian considerations, and in October, 1979, he extended a public invitation to the Shah. He later said:

I was told that the Shah was desperately ill, at the point of death . . . I was told that New York was the only medical facility that was capable of possibly saving his life and reminded that the Iranian officials had promised to protect our people in Iran. When all the circumstances were described to me, I agreed.”

On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of young Islamic revolutionaries overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking more than 60 Americans hostage. The hostages were not released for 444 days, until Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. As the History Channel reports:

Iranian hostages

Iranian hostages

The immediate cause of this action was President Jimmy Carter’s decision to allow Iran’s deposed Shah, a pro-Western autocrat who had been expelled from his country some months before, to come to the United States for cancer treatment. However, the hostage-taking was about more than the Shah’s medical care: it was a dramatic way for the student revolutionaries to declare a break with Iran’s past and an end to American interference in its affairs. It was also a way to raise the intra- and international profile of the revolution’s leader, the anti-American cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.”

Portrait Of Ayatollah Khomeini taken in Paris, shortly before the 1979 revolution. Photograph: Denis Cameron/Rex Features

Portrait Of Ayatollah Khomeini taken in Paris, shortly before the 1979 revolution. Photograph: Denis Cameron/Rex Features

Posted on December 31, 2017 by rhapsodyinbooks

https://legallegacy.wordpress.com/2017/12/31/december-31-1977-jimmy-carter-praises-iran-as-an-island-of-stability/

 

The reason The United States Of America Service Personnel Blood is being spilled to this day is because of the bane of humanity James Earl Carter.

No question James Earl Carter is the worst felon of all time and even worse than Adolf Hilter due to the Crimes Against Humanity and perpetration of underworld activity via the establishment The Black Eagle Trust James Earl Carter was an active participant in it's institution.

Does ANYONE question why the economic sanctions against Iran DID NOT work or impede the activities of THEE INSANIANS???!!!

All due to the funding through The Black Eagle Trust with Iran as the center piece.

Now, of course, Iran is ushered into the consortium of Nuclear Nations to ensure Iran's ability to run the Black Eagle Trust Fund.

All before James Earl Carter "expires" to ensure the perpetuity of the lucritive Black Eagle Trust ALL at the expense of The United States Of America Citizens AND free citizens of the world lives and all else.

Once James Earl Carter passes, significant incomprehensible events will happen.

Keep yer powder dry!!!

image.thumb.jpeg.8d10c895e0d9ae841d663368878e1aa0.jpeg

 

Pretty comical....Carter is the root of all the problems in the middle east... 

 

Reality is for centuries there has been unrest and wars...

Regionally think of the Anthem..."From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli".....(all a bit before Carters time).....

 

No worries though....we all have opinions......how about that $1.4 billion in cash dumped on the runway in Tehran by Obama.....bet that was Carter working behind the scenes.. 

CL

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Synopsis Grand Master

Synopsis

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, coorslite21 said:

 

Pretty comical....Carter is the root of all the problems in the middle east... 

 

Reality is for centuries there has been unrest and wars...

Regionally think of the Anthem..."From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli".....(all a bit before Carters time).....

 

No worries though....we all have opinions......how about that $1.4 billion in cash dumped on the runway in Tehran by Obama.....bet that was Carter working behind the scenes.. 

CL

 

 

 

No laughing matter for the state of affairs in the Middle East or elsewhere.

 

I worked with a guy from Pakistan whose grandfathers and his father were involved in the Pakistani government. He noted things in Pakistan were relatively stable when he lived in Pakistan into the mid sixties. He noted today in discussions with his relatives and when visiting them in India and Pakistan that it is much different now with political instability and rampant corruption.

 

The transition Iran went through in the late 1970's destabilized the whole region. Iran was brutal with it's people up to the Ayatollahs beginning to rule the people. Terrorism went on steroids in the Middle East due to Iran being the State Sponsor and people were brutalized outside of Iran then and now due to Iran sponsored terrorism.

 

And the wars in the Middel East since then where The United States Of America Patriots made the ultimate sacrifice when they would not have had to do so if James Earl Carter in conjunction with others had not empowered (provided the tools financially and otherwise) for Iran to conduct their underworld activities in conjunction with and on the behest of sinister and diabolical people.

 

That matters to me.

 

Alot.

 

In the very late 1970's and 1980 the spectre of having to go to war with a Sodomite enemy was a very real outcome for me and others. The United States Of America Citizens would likely have had far less concern for The United States Of America Military Personnel sent to Iran to fight an unpopular war on the heels of Vietnam. The brutal treatment should a The United States Of America Soldier been captured would have been worse than in Vietnam. With even less support from home.

 

All because of James Earl Carter.

 

Human trafficking, child trafficking, sex slaves, drugs, weapons, and the like all facilitated by the apparatus James Earl Carter and others put in place for these abhorent practices. All for power and money for the evil elitists.

 

That matters to me, too, that people be free of such abhorent practices.

 

No doubt there are other means to accomplish the same now as in the past before Iran was flipped.

 

But why contribute and make it easier for these evil activities to be facilitated?

 

Own nothing.

 

Control everything.

 

Adolf Hitler owned and controlled everything.

 

Today, these Crimes Against Humanity can be conducted without any directly perceived involvement in present or past related activities.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coorslite21 Grand Master

coorslite21

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Synopsis said:

 

No laughing matter for the state of affairs in the Middle East or elsewhere.

 

I worked with a guy from Pakistan whose grandfathers and his father were involved in the Pakistani government. He noted things in Pakistan were relatively stable when he lived in Pakistan into the mid sixties. He noted today in discussions with his relatives and when visiting them in India and Pakistan that it is much different now with political instability and rampant corruption.

 

The transition Iran went through in the late 1970's destabilized the whole region. Iran was brutal with it's people up to the Ayatollahs beginning to rule the people. Terrorism went on steroids in the Middle East due to Iran being the State Sponsor and people were brutalized outside of Iran then and now due to Iran sponsored terrorism.

 

And the wars in the Middel East since then where The United States Of America Patriots made the ultimate sacrifice when they would not have had to do so if James Earl Carter in conjunction with others had not empowered (provided the tools financially and otherwise) for Iran to conduct their underworld activities in conjunction with and on the behest of sinister and diabolical people.

 

That matters to me.

 

Alot.

 

In the very late 1970's and 1980 the spectre of having to go to war with a Sodomite enemy was a very real outcome for me and others. The United States Of America Citizens would likely have had far less concern for The United States Of America Military Personnel sent to Iran to fight an unpopular war on the heels of Vietnam. The brutal treatment should a The United States Of America Soldier been captured would have been worse than in Vietnam. With even less support system" rel="">support from home.

 

All because of James Earl Carter.

 

Human trafficking, child trafficking, sex slaves, drugs, weapons, and the like all facilitated by the apparatus James Earl Carter and others put in place for these abhorent practices. All for power and money for the evil elitists.

 

That matters to me, too, that people be free of such abhorent practices.

 

No doubt there are other means to accomplish the same now as in the past before Iran was flipped.

 

But why contribute and make it easier for these evil activities to be facilitated?

 

Own nothing.

 

Control everything.

 

Adolf Hitler owned and controlled everything.

 

Today, these Crimes Against Humanity can be conducted without any directly perceived involvement in present or past related activities.

 

Sorry that's your view....

Carter's legacy was as an inept President....not one capable of pulling much of anything you speak of off.

 

His legacy for me will be one of humanitarian service.

The record clearly indicates that.    CL

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Synopsis Grand Master

Synopsis

Posted
Posted
On 2/24/2023 at 1:25 AM, coorslite21 said:

 

Sorry that's your view....

Carter's legacy was as an inept President....not one capable of pulling much of anything you speak of off.

 

His legacy for me will be one of humanitarian service.

The record clearly indicates that.    CL

 

 

May want to consider the Karla Faye Tucker syndrome.

 

Because it actually applies.

 

To James Earl Carter.

 

No amount of goodness can overcome the corrupt acts that have been committed.

 

Tucker Dies After Apologizing; Despite Legal Blitz, Woman Executed for Pickax Slayings," by Kathy Walt. (February 3, 1998). 

HUNTSVILLE -- Karla Faye Tucker, the 38-year-old pickax murderer who charmed television audiences worldwide with her coquettish smile and talk of Jesus, was executed Tuesday despite an all-out legal blitz to spare her life. Apologizing to the family members of her victims, Tucker smiled and told her friends and relatives, "I love all of you very much. I'm going to be face to face with Jesus now." With a needle of solution in each arm, she gasped twice slightly as the lethal drugs took effect, then she groaned. "I love you, Karla," her sister, Kari Tucker Weeks, cried out. 

Tucker, who confessed her guilt in the slayings of a man and woman in Houston 15 years ago, was pronounced dead at 6:45 p.m., some eight minutes after the drugs began flowing through her veins. She was the first woman to be executed in Texas since 1863 and only the second nationally since 1984. She also was the first Texas prisoner to be executed this year. Tucker went to her death in a frenzy of media coverage, with an estimated 200 reporters from around the world posted outside the state prison system's Walls Unit in downtown Huntsville. A few hundred capital punishment abolitionists stood vigil in protest while death penalty advocates sparred verbally with them. It was in the final months leading up to her death that Tucker achieved the fame she once told her ex-husband was her destiny. "She always said that someday she would be famous," Stephen Griffith told the Houston Chronicle on Monday. Griffith, who was married to Tucker for six years, did not attend her execution. Although Tucker had pleaded to Gov. George W. Bush and the state Board of Pardons and Paroles for mercy, she had also maintained that her gender should not be an issue in deciding clemency. She said she had become a born-again Christian shortly after her arrest in 1983. 

Among those witnessing her death was Richard "Tony" Thornton, the husband of victim Deborah Thornton, who had been angrily outspoken about his desire to see Tucker executed. "Make no mistake, this is not Karla Faye Tucker's day," he said prior to the execution. "This is Deborah Ruth Davis Thornton's day." He was accompanied in the witness room to the execution chamber by his daughter, Katheryn Thornton, and William Joseph Davis, Deborah Thornton's son from a previous marriage. State prison officials said they were not contacted by any relatives of Jerry Lynn Dean, Tucker's other victim, so no witnesses representing his family were present. "Here she comes, baby doll. She's all yours," Thornton said as Tucker's injection began. "The world's a better place." 

Sitting in a wheelchair, the disabled Thornton was at eye level with Tucker, lying strapped to the gurney. At one point, Thornton referred to Tucker's current husband, a prison minister and car dealer, and remarked, "So now Dana Brown gets to write his book." Brown was among Tucker's personal witnesses, along with her sister, Kari Weeks; her lead attorney George "Mac" Secrest of Houston; friend Jackie Oncken, wife of Henry Oncken who had been one of Tucker's court-appointed attorneys before later becoming a U.S. attorney in Houston; and Ronald Carlson, the brother of Deborah Thornton, who had been outspoken in opposing Tucker's execution because of her purported religious conversion. Brown, who married Tucker three years ago, said he had not decided where she will be buried. Her body was taken to an undisclosed funeral home. "Her gain today was our loss," he said after her death, "someone that literally reached thousands of people for Jesus Christ and probably will continue through her testimony. Even though she cried out for forgiveness, God gave her just what she needed. That was love. "We've all made mistakes in our lives. Who are we to say when a person is past redemption? And that's what we're saying when we kill people, human beings." 

The final roadblocks to Tucker's execution were cleared about 6:20 p.m. when Bush rejected her plea for a 30-day delay. His decision was not unexpected. "Karla Faye Tucker has acknowledged she is guilty of a horrible crime. She was convicted and sentenced by a jury of her peers," Bush said, reading a statement at the Capitol. "The role of the state is to enforce our laws and to make sure all individuals are treated fairly under those laws. The courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have reviewed the legal issues in this case, and therefore, I will not grant a 30-day delay. "May God bless Karla Faye Tucker and may God bless her victims and their families." Earlier in the day, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected three challenges to Tucker's death sentence under criminal and federal civil rights laws. There was no dissent and no comment by the justices. In addition, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans turned away her attorneys' efforts to start another round of federal challenges. State courts also rejected her contention that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles violated the state's Open Meetings Act by not holding a public hearing or public vote in her clemency appeal. 

Portrayed by some as the prodigal daughter who finally found peace and redemption in a Harris County Jail cell shortly after her arrest, Tucker and her lawyers for the past several weeks waged a massive legal and international public relations appeal for clemency. Long a self-admitted ham who had always enjoyed mugging for a camera -- even during her wild days as a drug-abusing, motorcycle-riding, hot-headed prostitute -- Tucker, her crime and her punishment have become the conundrum in the debate over capital punishment. 

While her crime still ranks as one of the grisliest in Houston history, her supporters insisted that her Christian rebirth and her efforts to reach beyond her barred prison cell to warn youngsters of the dangers of her former lifestyle were proof she was no longer a danger to society. But those who insisted she should die have maintained that no matter the sometimes-angelic smiling face and twinkling eyes, no amount of changed personality could overcome the horrific facts of her crime. 

Tucker and her then-lover Daniel Garrett were condemned by a Houston jury in 1984 for the June 1983 slaying of Dean, a 27-year-old former cable installer. Dean was hacked more than 20 times with one of his own tools -- a 3-foot-long pickax -- as he lay sleeping in his northeast Houston apartment. The motive, Tucker later explained, was to settle a grudge she had against Dean for once parking his leaking motorcycle in her living room and for destroying the only picture she had of herself with her mother. Also killed was Deborah Thornton, 32, an office worker who had fought with her husband and stormed off, only to meet Dean at a party and go home with him. She was lying in bed with Dean when Tucker and Garrett showed up and began their attack. Thornton was hacked more than 20 times, the pickax left embedded in her chest, but neither Dean nor Garrett was ever tried specifically in Thornton's death. Tucker, who was a 23-year-old divorcee, would later claim that she experienced sexual pleasure every time she plunged the heavy ax into her victims. 

Garrett, 37, also was sentenced to die for the crime, but he died of liver disease in 1993 while awaiting retrial in connection with Dean's death. Tucker testified against Garrett at his trial, and after she did so, Harris County authorities dropped the second murder charge against her in connection with Thornton's slaying. 

Although she pleaded not guilty, once she was convicted, she never again denied the murders, which she said occurred after a weekend of bingeing on drugs and alcohol. Although she claimed her mother introduced her to drugs and urged her into prostitution, she had said, at least in recent weeks, that she no longer blames her mother. Indeed, in her letter pleading to Bush to spare her life, she said, "Justice and law demand my life for the two innocent lives I brutally murdered that night." "If my execution is the only thing, the final act that can fulfill the demand for restitution and justice," she wrote, "then I accept that."

 

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/tucker437.htm

 

If, and ONLY if, James Earl Carter was truly the humanitarian he is portrayed, then WHY, pray tell, did James Earl Carter NOT take the steps necessary to prevent people from losing their homes because of the ruined economy and Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation during HIS Presidential Administration???!!!

 

Why build homes for people that could have kept their homes in the first place???!!!

 

That doe NOT make any sense to force people into dependence by taking away their livelihood and ability to maintain their life sustaining provisions.

 

Like a home.

 

The ineptness is a guise deployed by James Earl Carter.

 

Vincent Gigante attempted a hit on Frank Costello. Vincent Gigante offered an insanity plea that was accepted. Vincent Gigante played law enforcement and the FBI under the innocuous insane man behavior with regular psychiatric visits to sustain the ruse.

 

Until the FBI got on to the ruse.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=vincent+gigante&client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=Jdb7Y-e4IJ-rqtsPp7OnmAo&ved=0ahUKEwin3_jCl7T9AhWflWoFHafZCaMQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=vincent+gigante&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:b12d0ecc,vid:I6_6cv0fSoQ

 

Is is easy to cut through the facade James Earl Carter presents to see the person for who he really is. James Earl Carter's past and present behaviors and affiliations demonstrate the person James Earl Carter really is.

 

Well, I doubt this:

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/jimmy-carter-no-relationship-with-obama-087893

 

What was James Earl Carter REALLY doing in Egypt as mentioned in the article with NO relationship to Barry???!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coorslite21 Grand Master

coorslite21

Posted
Posted

It would have cost about $14 billion to finish the Southern wall ....

$100+billion sent to Ukraine...and then the reality of what's really going on there....    CL 

 

 
 

American Fighting for Ukraine Defects to Russia, Blows Whistle on Nazism, War Crimes

John McIntyre joined Ukraine's Foreign Legion, before learning they were Nazi war criminals and defecting to Russia.

American Fighting for Ukraine Defects to Russia, Blows Whistle on Nazism, War Crimes
 
 
 

Last Updated on March 1, 2023

#

An American Army veteran who spent a year fighting in Ukraine’s Foreign Legion has defected to Russia, bringing with him tangible evidence and first-hand accounts of widespread Ukrainian Nazism and war crimes. He also says that Americans are on the ground in Ukraine, communicating directly with CIA handlers as they help coordinate attacks on Russian troops.

John McIntyre, an American southerner and US Army veteran who joined others from around the world in soliciting his services to the Ukrainian Foreign Legion has defected to Russia and described the war crimes and open Nazism he witnessed in NATO-backed Ukraine during an exclusive sit-down interview with RT in Moscow.

“When I came [to Ukraine],” McIntyre told RT, “I was really surprised. Everybody had tattoos and Nazi symbolism.”

Related: ‘Nazis in Ukraine’ Trends on Twitter As Global Awareness Continues to Rise

When he was asked by the Ukrainians why he was fighting in the war as a foreigner, he told them that he was there to stand up against Russian “Nazis” and “fascists,” only to be told that “the Russians aren’t the Nazis, we are the Nazis,” by his Ukrainian comrades and other neo-fascists who poured into the fight from all over Europe.

McIntyre told RT that he personally knew foreign fighters who had committed war crimes by executing Russian prisoners and that others had committed hideous acts of torture, something he says the Ukrainians and their foreign comrades like to laugh and joke about.

“A lot of captured Russian soldiers, they’ll take and cut their genitalia with a knife and everything and cut their stomachs open, slit their throats, cut their heads off and stuff like that. Really horrible stuff,” said McIntyre.

And it isn’t just Russian soldiers who have fallen victim to Ukrainian war crimes. Civilians, McIntyre said, have been targeted by the Ukrainians in pro-Russian separatist regions like the Donbas, and civilian homes and community centers, like schools, are routinely used as shields.

While McIntyre told RT that he was acting as a “spy” against the Ukrainians the entire time he was there, it’s unclear if this is actually true, or if he became disillusioned with the Ukrainian cause after witnessing their conduct first-hand. Nevertheless, the tale of his escape to Russia is harrowing. To escape, McIntyre contacted his family and received $300, before boarding a flight from Odessa to Istanbul, and later to Moscow, fearing for his life the entire time.

McIntyre described to RT how the Ukrainians deal with spies and whistleblowers, saying that they receive a “bullet to the back of the head,” and that it’s quite a regular occurrence, as multiple fighters have simply “disappeared” after being suspected of reporting war criminals.

“And we’re supporting these guys?” McIntyre said of American and NATO involvement in the war. “And these are supposed to be our allies? And we’re supposed to put them in NATO with us? And they can’t even follow the Geneva Convention?”

Far from only supporting the Ukrainians with massive shipments of weapons and cash, McIntyre told RT that the United States has men on the ground in Ukraine, maintaining direct communications with their handlers from the CIA and other American agencies notorious for meddling in global conflict zones and unstable nations.

One of them, a US Navy intelligence officer who McIntyre fought alongside, used a satellite phone to stay in constant contact with his American bosses.

“Every day he would call his contacts and he would get information about the positions, troops movements, and so on,” McIntyre told RT.

Watch the full interview below:

Related: American Federal ‘Policy Advisor’ Posts Pic in Ukrainian Nazi Badge on Twitter

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
gab.png

© 2022 NationalFile.com National File, LLC. Privacy. Corrections. About Us. All Rights Reserved.
Have any questions or suggestions? If you are having difficulty unsubscribing from our mail subscription please send an email here info@nationalfile.com Want to advertise with us? Please email: brett@nationalfile.com

 

© 2022 NationalFile.com National File, LLC. Privacy. Corrections. About Us. All Rights Reserved.
Have any questions or suggestions? If you are having difficulty unsubscribing from our mail subscription please send an email here info@nationalfile.com Want to advertise with us? Please email: brett@nationalfile.com

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Synopsis Grand Master

Synopsis

Posted
Posted
On 3/1/2023 at 9:29 AM, coorslite21 said:

When he was asked by the Ukrainians why he was fighting in the war as a foreigner, he told them that he was there to stand up against Russian “Nazis” and “fascists,” only to be told that “the Russians aren’t the Nazis, we are the Nazis,” by his Ukrainian comrades and other neo-fascists who poured into the fight from all over Europe.

McIntyre told RT that he personally knew foreign fighters who had committed war crimes by executing Russian prisoners and that others had committed hideous acts of torture, something he says the Ukrainians and their foreign comrades like to laugh and joke about.

“A lot of captured Russian soldiers, they’ll take and cut their genitalia with a knife and everything and cut their stomachs open, slit their throats, cut their heads off and stuff like that. Really horrible stuff,” said McIntyre.

And it isn’t just Russian soldiers who have fallen victim to Ukrainian war crimes. Civilians, McIntyre said, have been targeted by the Ukrainians in pro-Russian separatist regions like the Donbas, and civilian homes and community centers, like schools, are routinely used as shields.

While McIntyre told RT that he was acting as a “spy” against the Ukrainians the entire time he was there, it’s unclear if this is actually true, or if he became disillusioned with the Ukrainian cause after witnessing their conduct first-hand. Nevertheless, the tale of his escape to Russia is harrowing. To escape, McIntyre contacted his family and received $300, before boarding a flight from Odessa to Istanbul, and later to Moscow, fearing for his life the entire time.

McIntyre described to RT how the Ukrainians deal with spies and whistleblowers, saying that they receive a “bullet to the back of the head,” and that it’s quite a regular occurrence, as multiple fighters have simply “disappeared” after being suspected of reporting war criminals.

“And we’re supporting these guys?” McIntyre said of American and NATO involvement in the war. “And these are supposed to be our allies? And we’re supposed to put them in NATO with us? And they can’t even follow the Geneva Convention?”

Far from only supporting the Ukrainians with massive shipments of weapons and cash, McIntyre told RT that the United States has men on the ground in Ukraine, maintaining direct communications with their handlers from the CIA and other American agencies notorious for meddling in global conflict zones and unstable nations.

One of them, a US Navy intelligence officer who McIntyre fought alongside, used a satellite phone to stay in constant contact with his American bosses.

“Every day he would call his contacts and he would get information about the positions, troops movements, and so on,” McIntyre told RT.

 

What isn't reported is the Western Nation's, including elements of The United States Of America Agencies, underworld activities in Ukraine negatively impacting Russia fomenting the Russian response.

 

Two evil forces competing with innocent people expiring in the middle.

 

Could soon be Young The United States Of America Citizens.

 

Support the service personnel. War against the warmongers.

 

Not another Vietnam.

 

Or, heaven forbid, World War.

 

Neither is acceptable while The United States Of America military personnel, past and present, is cherished and valued.

 

The warmongers and profiteers are the actual enemy.

 

I wonder what would happen if the warmongers and profiteers were exposed?

 

A new war?

 

Actual peace and prosperity as as result?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Pow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

    Take This Quiz

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept