Warmonger A vs. Warmonger B !

[Onebornfree's commentary:  Greetings from the Freedom Network! - and remember, "War is the health of the state!"- which means that if you have a government in the first place, war is always inevitable. It 's also worth bearing in mind that once formed governments can never be contained or limited {therefor the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was/is a  total scam}.  So if you believe that either of these two schmucks will "make a difference", with all due respect, you suffering from a serious case of self delusion! Regards, onebornfree.]

Presidential Debates Prove that Obama and Romney’s Foreign Policy Is Virtually Identical. 

 [Romney and Obama pretend to differ on imperial foreign policy.]

As made obvious by the third-party presidential debates, Romney and Obama’s foreign policy is virtually identical.

They both favor elective, preemptive wars of aggression.  They both want to force regime change in Syria, and they both characterize Iran as the “biggest threat” to the U.S.
Forbes’ Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes:

The debate could not plausibly be a real debate because of the following parameters: Barack Obama has essentially pursued the same foreign policy as the Bush Administration, and Romney has eschewed any fundamental critique of the Obama-Bush consensus ….

Even Jon Stewart agrees:

                            Former British ambassador Craig Murray notes: I have traveled this world much more extensively than either Obama or Romney, and I still do. I find everywhere, even in areas of conflict and economic difficulty, the vast majority of people are friendly, even kind, and have very similar aspirations, across cultures, to personal development and emotional fulfilment.

The striking thing about tonight’s US Presidential “foreign policy” debate, is when it did occasionally discuss foreign policy, the world out there was discussed not as a place of vast potential, but as a deeply disturbing place full of foreigners who are, apparently, all evil except the Israelis, who are perfect.
The vast benefits from cooperation and trade with “abroad” were not mentioned once that I noticed (though I confess the thing was so awful my attention wandered occasionally). Europe apparently doesn’t exist, other than Greece which is nothing more than a terrible warning of the dangers of not being right wing enough.
The correct attitude to all these foreigners that God so unfortunately and inexplicably placed on this planet, is apparently to maintain incredibly large armed forces, murder people with drones (they were both very enthusiastic on this one), place sanctions on them and declare them “currency manipulators”. The only surprising note was that both agreed that they could not kill everyone in Iran.
But “We can’t just kill our way out of this mess” was spoken with regret, rather than as an affirmation of the possibilities of cooperation instead. What a grim and joyless world view.

Original article source.

Are Military Oaths Meaningless?

[ This article was published  at this blog to benefit members of  The Freedom Network: An International, non-political, leaderless informational exchange network of individuals who seek more personal freedom in an unfree world.]

Military Oaths Are Meaningless 

By Roger Young :

Members of the US military often point to the oaths they take upon enlistment as proof they will never violate the rights of Americans. They insist they are committed toward "defending" the Piece of Paper (also known as the US Constitution) and thereby also defend the individual rights that this document claims to protect. But is it wise for the free individual to rely on such an oath being kept?

Since World War II, the US military has participated in numerous illegal, unconstitutional wars. The pace of participating in such actions seems to grow by the year. It has almost become difficult to keep up with them all. When considering such actions, I begin to question just when are these individuals going to begin keeping their oath? I have yet to see any mass resistance by members of the military against any of these illegal actions. 

I have read numerous accounts that such mass resistance will finally occur when soldiers are ordered to confiscate the weapons of, and/or fire upon, their own people. But why should I believe such an assertion? Members of the military, with very few exceptions, have followed all orders to fire upon, kidnap, and confiscate weapons from civilians in other countries all over the world. Is it that much more of a challenge for them to also execute such action against people in their own country?

How can the US Military "defend" the Piece of Paper while at the same time murdering foreigners in illegal wars of empire, thereby violating the restrictions contained in that very Piece of Paper? They have admittedly participated in criminal acts. Therefore, they are criminals. Why should I believe unrepentant criminals?

The US military claims to defend individual liberty. But how can one who willingly lives as a military slave have any appreciation of liberty? I assure you, people willing to kill on command lack any conscience about violating someone’s liberty. Why should I be willing to believe, when given the order to kidnap or kill me, they will ignore this order?

Please remember the following truths:

These people wear the uniform of the regime.

These people work for the regime.

These people are paid by the regime.

These people follow the orders of the regime.

These people actively protect the regime.

Why should I trust them? Given these truths, why I should I be assured that they have my best interests in mind just because a collection of words called an "oath" have passed out of their mouths?

And just who do they give this oath to? They, of course, give it to the corporate entity known as the United States of America- a political organism. It is not directed toward me, a human organism. Nowhere in this oath does it mention obeying orders from me or "officers appointed" by me.

Oaths are merely words that disappear into the vapor. They are meaningless unless backed by action. One such action would be to truly defend this Piece of Paper against "all enemies foreign and domestic" by ignoring the non-existent "foreign" enemies and concentrating on the "domestic" variety. May I suggest a mass, peaceful resistance or petitioning directed at those who initiate such threats.

However, I would be ecstatic if they all chose a less drastic, but no less courageous, form of action. If they really want to keep their "oath," they should immediately begin resigning in droves, deserting, or seeking conscientious objector status.

Protections of my life and liberties can never come from the same institution that directly threatens my life and liberty. You don’t protect yourself, your countrymen, and your families from the mafia by becoming part of the mafia. You first free yourself from the system entirely.

If members of the US military truly want to impress upon me their dedication and devotion toward protecting my life and liberty they need to forget about any sacred pledges and concentrate on action. Complete disengagement, by whatever means from the US Death Machine, will more successfully convey that dedication than a book full of oaths.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.