Obama vows not to send people to war without cause

[---]

Obama vows not to send people to war without cause

President Barack Obama returns a salute as he arrives at the United States Naval AP – President Barack Obama returns a salute as he arrives at the United States Naval Academy graduation ceremony …
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 3 mins ago

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – President Barack Obama promised graduating midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy on Friday that, as their commander in chief, he will only send them "into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary." In his first address to military graduates, Obama also pledged to invest in the men and women who defend America's liberty, not just in the weapons they would take with them into battle against 21st century threats.

"I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done," the president told more than 1,000 graduates during a sun-splashed ceremony at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium.

Obama said he has halted reductions in the Navy, is building up the Marine Corps and investing in the hardware — combat ships, submarines and fighter aircraft — they'll need to do their jobs. He promised higher pay, enhanced child care and improved support and other benefits.

"In short, we will maintain America's military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen," Obama said, as more than 30,000 watched from the stands.

The president also praised the role of Navy SEALS in freeing a U.S. sea captain by killing his Somali pirate captors last month.

"The extraordinary precision and professionalism displayed that day was made possible, in no small measure, by the training, the discipline and the leadership skills that so many of those officers learned at the United States Naval Academy," Obama said in his first public comments on the matter.

Among those receiving degrees was John S. McCain IV, the son of Obama's presidential rival, Sen. John McCain, who watched from a front-row seat on the grassy field with his wife, Cindy, his mother, Roberta, and several of his children. Had the Arizona Republican, who also graduated from the academy, defeated Obama, McCain could have addressed the Class of 2009 himself.

Obama and "Jack" McCain, a fourth-generation academy graduate, shared a handshake, an embrace and a few words when the young man was called up to receive his diploma, following in the footsteps of his father, grandfather and great-grandfather.

Obama did not recognize Sen. McCain in his speech; the White House says it was out of respect for the family's wishes. But the president did say a few words about his rival for the presidency before he left the White House. He praised the senator as he signed legislation giving the Pentagon new power to curtail wasteful defense spending. McCain was a sponsor of the bill.

"Senator McCain couldn't be here today because he's making sure he has a good seat to watch his son graduate from the Naval Academy in a few hours, and that's where I'm headed as soon as I catch my ride over here," Obama said at the bill signing in the Rose Garden.

Presidents typically deliver the commencement address at one of the service academies each year. Friday's speech was the third graduation address by Obama in the past nine days. He used the previous two to tackle issues that threatened to overshadow both events.

At the University of Notre Dame last Sunday, abortion opponents protested Obama's appearance because he supports abortion rights. Obama took on the debate, telling graduates of the Roman Catholic university that people on both sides of the issue must stop demonizing one another.

At Arizona State University, where Obama spoke on May 13, the issue was the school's decision not to award him an honorary degree on grounds that he hadn't accomplished enough. Obama said he agreed, saying no one's body of work is ever complete.

On Thursday, Obama delivered a different kind of speech, one in which he sought to regain control of the emotional debate over closing the detention center for suspected terrorists in Cuba. He denounced "fear-mongering" by political opponents and insisted that maximum-security prisons on the U.S. mainland can safely house the dangerous detainees he wants transferred from Guantanamo Bay.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney countered the same day with a speech denouncing some of Obama's actions as "unwise in the extreme" and repeating his contention that the new president is endangering the country by turning aside Bush-era policies.

AP

[hilly7]

I like how Jessie Ventura explained if a war should be fought. Is it worth your son, not somebody elses.

[---]

Quote:I like how Jessie Ventura explained if a war should be fought. Is it worth your son, not somebody elses.

Yeah, I like that too - sad to say though, there's still a bunch of folks out there that'd say 'yes it is' :(

[drummer]

War is big business invest your son today ;)

[whitestone7]

we need to get the book by Smedley Darlington Butler off the shelf again and dust it off and read it

called --- "War Is A Racket"

it should be required reading in schools and colleges and universities

http://whitestone7.110mb.com/War.html

http://whitestone7.110mb.com/AntiWar.html

http://whitestone7.110mb.com/Videos.html

Obama knows better but he does it anyway -- We all know better

it's called cognitive disonnance

[hilly7]

They might say it, but you will not see them or their sons fight a war. I say, they should lead the battle on the front lines. IE Lead by example.

[SiLVa]

So does this mean that there will be a major reason to go to war coming pretty soon?
False flag or other? Sounds like it.

[---]

Quote:So does this mean that there will be a major reason to go to war coming pretty soon?
False flag or other? Sounds like it.

That's how I read it...

[whitestone7]

This is only my opinion

Yes I think there is gonna be a major conflict soon

When I look back over the years I see that the major point of conflicts have been between the Western powers and Communism

When i look at World War 2 the dispute was between the Nazi's and the Communists

When I look at Korea the war was in my opinion between China and the United States it just happened to be fought in Korea

When I look at Vietnam the War was between both Russia and China and the United States again it just happened to be fought in Vietnam

When I look around the globe it always seems as if the Western powers have been continuing to posture with the Communist countries in one form or another

After World War 2 there was an export of Nazi personnel around the world to many different countries -- the United States was only one such nation affected -- a great number of them were spread out across Europe and South America as well

I remember reading how thw Nazi hierarchy boasted that Germany would set up a Thousand Year Reich

I believe The Nazi regime knew right from the start they couldn't win the war -- that wasn't the reason for the conflict

The reason was to spread Nazi philosophy around the world

This was evidenced by Operation Gladio in which N.A.T.O. used stay behind army's to make sure Communism did not Spread across Europe by using captured Nazi personnel as a secret army

http://whitestone7.110mb.com/Conspirafact.html

Now the Shanghai Co-Operation Organization (Russia, China) and N.A.T.O. are vying for energy dominance (especially in the Mideast) and I think it will come to a head finally soon

http://whitestone7.110mb.com/SCO.html

I have been watching this unfold for 60 years now and I think the time will come soon where these antagonists will run out of wiggle room

Recent involvements in Pakistan and Afghanistan are a major cause for concern

[hilly7]

Interesting. How does Obama's owner Zbigniew Brzezinski play into this. I had heard before Obama's win that Brzezinski wanted to wage war between US & UK vs China & Russia.

Do you see this as a chess game between friends using people as expendable pawns or a real turf battle?

Also I read that it was and is still thought that whoever conquers Eurasia runs the world.

BTW, good website.

[whitestone7]

Interesting. How does Obama's owner Zbigniew Brzezinski play into this. I had heard before Obama's win that Brzezinski wanted to wage war between US & UK vs China & Russia.

I'm not sure how Zbigniew Brzezinski plays into this

He has consistently tried to play both sides of the Cold War question in my opinion

On one hand he's stressed we should have good relations with them at the same time as covertly encouraging the break up of the Soviet Union

He's a CFR member and a Trilateral Commission member




Do you see this as a chess game between friends using people as expendable pawns or a real turf battle?

I see this as a battle for total control of the planet -- both sides are complicit in my opinion and I'm not totally sure if any of them are real enemies -- even if they say they are

As far as people being expendable pawns -- well the powers that be know there are too many people in the world and the population growth is not showing any sign of slackening -- so if they are looking for cannon fodder for wars - I can understand maybe they think it's a reasonable commodity to work with (people I mean)




Also I read that it was and is still thought that whoever conquers Eurasia runs the world.

Yes - I agree but I wonder sometimes who's conquering who

In my opinion there might be a good case for thinking the United States, China and Russia and the European Union might eventually (some time down the road) become one entity




BTW, good website.

Thanks - worked hard on it - it's been a project over the last ten years

[hilly7]

I remember something to the effect that they plan a break into 4 parts EU, AsianU, African U, & NAU, eventually merging into 1. Later in that same place or maybe somewhere different, that they ocassionally quarrel with one another, but it becomes more of a family type spat and should outsiders interfer, they quickly ban together. Is that how you see it?

With Bush and a few more aquiring places in S.A., is it possible that they are planning to set up home there? A long time ago I read that TPTB see an ice age in the works and as such would need the lower portions in which to live comfortably, problem is, there are already too many people there and the land is not good for food production and therefore they needed to dispose of many people here and there to sustain the world. The USA will become more of a preserve (returning to the wild) with only a few cities that people can live. Your take on this please?

Looked over some more of your site, impressive. Lots of details and work there and it shows.

[whitestone7]

I remember something to the effect that they plan a break into 4 parts EU, AsianU, African U, & NAU, eventually merging into 1. Later in that same place or maybe somewhere different, that they ocassionally quarrel with one another, but it becomes more of a family type spat and should outsiders interfer, they quickly ban together. Is that how you see it?

Not really -- I see it as a lot of useless events for our consumption... I don't think sovereignty matters at all to these guys -- case in point -- all my life from the git go - i was raised to believe that china and russia did not agree or were complete enemies, and that they were competing brands of communism.. but hey every time a conflict started they were both caught supplying arms to the same people - now they have formed a partnership and it appears the communist manifesto trumps everything i was ever taught to believe in

Also there has been a trend to merge (for lack of a better word) communism and a semblance of capitalism in russia and now china, as if they might eventually merge communism and capitalism down the road under the guise of what mussolini called State Corporatism or some similar thing

Which is why i think it all might merge to be a blend of corporate control, communism and capitalism

With Bush and a few more aquiring places in S.A., is it possible that they are planning to set up home there? A long time ago I read that TPTB see an ice age in the works and as such would need the lower portions in which to live comfortably, problem is, there are already too many people there and the land is not good for food production and therefore they needed to dispose of many people here and there to sustain the world. The USA will become more of a preserve (returning to the wild) with only a few cities that people can live. Your take on this please?

Well right off the hop anything to do with climate or trends of climate is not my forte, so i can't be sure what the world leaders see as happening climate wise for the planet, i know what they are telling us about climate but i'm not totally sure it's the truth, i know it's very polluted, and i agree it has to be cleaned up but i'm not sure big business haven't got an angle on that one in some way any way thats my take on it -- whether it's correct we'll see won't we???

[hilly7]

Thanks whitestone7. Forgive my inquistiveness, but as much work as you have done, thought I'd pick your brain some more. Do you see these people setting up like a base camp or like they are now, scattered for better control? How long do you think they have worked towards this, cronologically speaking? I noticed that you have went back pretty far in the timeline on your site. Lastly, what do you foresee and do you see anything that can reverse of slow them down at this point?

I guess for me it seems that they must have a motive for wanting that much control and power and seeing how the promote this global warming thing seems like either they themselves must believe in it or it is a battle they figured out how to make us fight ourselves on. I personally don't buy into the global warming thing, but I wonder if they do. Thank you in advance.