11. Ending Perpetual War for Profit

Ending Perpetual War for Profit.  The United States has over-extended its military and politcal hegemony beyond its national security interests to extract resources and serve the the Military Industrial Complex. The American people demand the immediate recall of all military personnel at all non-essential bases including but not limited to the Cold War era deployments in Europe, South Korea, Japan, Australia and Cuba and refocusing national defense goals to address threats posed by the geopolitics and technology of the 21st century. We further demand a new treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons so complete nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation may be achieved by 2020 or sooner. We demand that Congress pass new legislation to reinvigorate the War Powers Resolution to limit the deployment of military forces to those instances where Congressional approval has been granted to the President. New laws must be enacted to counter the Military Industrial Complex’s mission of perpetual war for profit, particularly in the Middle East which dramatically benefits the Oil and Gas Complex and other industries that actively seek or wage war for profit. The United States government has engaged in war after war only to later to discover that the pretexts relied upon to enter these wars were false or exaggerated. The goal of war in a corporate controlled state is to generate profits for shareholders who benefit directly and indirectly when humans kill one another. U.S. military policy can no longer be guided by the desire to make money. The annual savings created by updating our military posture and ending perpetual war for profit will be applied to the jobs and social programs outlined herein.

Click here to sign and show your support of this grievance.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic Wprocesses. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades." Dwight D. Eisenhower 


Do you like this page?

Showing 52 reactions

roy fickling commented 2012-04-15 11:55:37 -0700 · Flag
I said a long time ago,,,, war for profit will never end unless the Federal Reserve Bank, private banks, and fractional reserve banking is gone. We have a constitution, we have laws, but the powers that are in charge have perverted them, so changes to the constitution and new laws will change nothing. The central banking system is the cause of every problem in the world and no matter who is in charge or what the rules are, nothing will ever change, if bankers continue to rule the world. Our founding fathers knew this and even put it in the Constitution; Article 1, Section 8.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” Thomas Jefferson.

Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.
Thomas Jefferson
Timothy Price commented 2012-04-14 16:51:31 -0700 · Flag
Chuck is getting close to the extent of the problem when he cites Presidents from the Korean War upwards. It has taken me some time to understand what happened in the world with the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, granting a cartel of private bankers exclusive rights to generate unlimited profits for themselves by placing everyone else in debt to them. They have been relentless in their consolidation of power every since.

I have been naive all along in thinking that the excessive use of war by the past Presidencies has been excusable for other reasons. It is not. It was the purpose of the Banking monopoly to finance wars as wars are the most efficient instrument for creating debt, and for transference of wealth to them. This has been the goal and is why we have had undeclared wars.

Obama is a champion of the Federal Reserve banksters and their goal for one world government, in debt to them. He is their man.
The awakening of the people should result in his impeachment, or simply to declare him a fiction as he seems to be a creation, an invention of the elite.
There is not a shred verifiable evidence as to who he is. The only documentation provided by the White House has proven to be fraudulent.

I do not care where he was born, or if he was born at all. I care that the culmination of frauds has led us to this point, and the people need to deal directly with the criminals.. and they are criminals. Impeachment is only a side issue compared to violent revolution. We may have no choice as their actions are no longer even concealed, but are in-your-face totalitarian acts.





The elite have nearly accomplished their takeover through financial fraud, by corruption of officials, and the planting of CFR in every government office.
9/11 implemented the “COG”. or. the Continuity of Government order, which is still in effect. It is a parallel government and it controls the media. We the people are nearly “toast” and it will only be by firm, strong, clear, and unyielding opposition by the people that this country can be saved from them.

It will not happen through legislation, or any other civil act. The elite who have stolen the USA, and the rest of the world, for that matter, act with intent and impunity. Obama is an intentional fraud. He is an intentional aid to the banksters agenda. He serves their plan. He is a traitor to America. What do you do with traitors who got themselves elected through verifiable fraud?
chuck gregory commented 2012-04-14 13:20:28 -0700 · Flag
William and Timothy~~ our war-making is nominally governed by the War Powers Clause in the Constitution (which designates Congress to declare war) and the War Powers Resolution (which says the President needs approval from Congress within sixty days of waging a war).

Impeachment is a side issue, unless you want to impeach every politician who hasn’t held a President’s feet to the fire since the Korean War and then work your way up to the current one.

We should: 1) hash out the matter of whether to continue the War Powers Resolution. 2) Review and/or revise the War Powers Clause and screen our Congressional aspirants for the solidity of their stance against letting any President start a war without strict adherence to it in its present or amended form.
William Waugh commented 2012-04-14 13:09:41 -0700 · Flag
Timothy Price points out the already clear language of the Constitution on declaration of war and says that adding language will not help, and that we need prosecutions and an impeachment. I’m convinced, and I take back my suggestion to the contrary. Should our convention call for prosecutions and impeachment, or is that not on a path toward success? Is the convention a waste of time?
Timothy Price commented 2012-04-14 09:01:28 -0700 · Flag
“No war should be fought unless declared and approved by Congress.”
That is in the Constitution. If we had a representative Congress of people who were of a median income, and who did not have conflicted interest or take handouts, then we would not have “limited engagements” or “peace keeping” forces of aggression such a Libya suffers.
The problem can never be solved by more language, or legislation, or changes in an already explicit Constitution. The problem can be solved with a public that awakens to a hostile take-over by the banksters and prosecutes all the way to impeaching this puppet President.




It is only with the people acting to remove the criminals an prosecute them for their lies, theft, and illegal wars, that we will restore our rights, our economy, our wealth and, our healthy, free society again.
William Waugh commented 2012-04-14 06:57:04 -0700 · Flag
Japan’s constitution forbids military aggression. Let’s call for the US constitution to be amended to copy the language of that of Japan in that regard.
William Waugh commented 2012-04-14 06:55:24 -0700 · Flag
Tony Hanes said “William; what are your suggestions to cut through the meat of this declaration? How to [ensure] only congressional powers to act on war?”

I suppose it is appropriate for Congress to pass into statute law, clarifications about how the branches of government are to carry out the duties and powers delegated by the Constitution. We could call for the replacement of the War Powers resolution with a law stating that the President cannot send an armed man, woman, airplane, rocket, missile, or robot into or over another country without a declaration of war by Congress.

Also, the US should join the International Criminal Court.
chuck gregory commented 2012-03-11 15:51:27 -0700 · Flag
Tashia, if Iran is our enemy at present, it is our enemy the way Iraq was our enemy after 9/11— an enemy created out of thin air by an administration that wanted its oil fields. This administration is dealing with pressure groups that want us to invade it for all the wrong reasons.

The difference between invading Iraq and invading Iran is that in Iraq the people were pretty happy to see us. That’s not going to happen in Iran— dropping the first bomb will create 84 milllion enemies.

Otherwise, you give excellent points!
Tashia Berman commented 2012-03-11 14:31:59 -0700 · Flag
Have to agree with this one, but only to the extent that mutual disarmament can be mutually verified. Also, there has to be an agreement that decommissioned arms are scrapped and disassembled for recycling . They must not lose track of radioactive isotopes and must not sell such to our enemies (e.g. Iran) to be turned into weapons and used against us.

Further, we must maintain a strong, standing army on our shores and territories abroad to provide for our national defense. Each state should maintain its own National Guard ready to deploy should the need arise.

No war should be fought unless declared and approved by Congress.
Tony Hanes commented 2012-03-01 05:56:41 -0800 · Flag
William; Thanks so much for the clarity on the war powers act. Your observations are spot on. For others here who had a smiler misunderstanding of this as I did, please read up here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

It would see to me that pulling the war powers act back from congress is the way to go.

William; what are your suggestions to cut through the meat of this declaration? How to insure only congressional powers to act on war?
Tony Hanes commented 2012-03-01 05:27:31 -0800 · Flag
William; I MUST research what you have provided here regarding the war powers resolution. If what you say is true, then my understanding of what that is, is completely wrong. Thanks for bringing this up…
chuck gregory commented 2012-03-01 05:20:12 -0800 · Flag
YOu are correct, William.

I would like to add that the government has been quite capable of developing all sorts of systems— The Army Corps of Engineers planned and developed a substantial portion of the country’s infrastructure before the military-industrial complex took the money away from it.
William Waugh commented 2012-03-01 05:00:01 -0800 · Flag
This is to clarify. I don’t base my opposition to promotion of the War Powers Resolution by our delegates and document on some reverence for the Constitution, which I am not opposed to amending or replacing if the change takes appropriate directions. My problem with the War Powers Resolution is that it was a movement in the wrong direction, the direction of making it easier to make war rather than harder. The prior condition was that Congress was supposed to have the sole power to declare war, and implicit in that was that war was not legal unless declared. The Resolution, and its acceptance by the executive branch, and the lack of any challenge to it in the courts, all had the effect of enacting or further entrenching the practice of undeclared war by US officials. So it was a step in the wrong direction. Someone please correct me if my conclusion is not supported by the facts. I could be missing some facts or counterargument.
William Waugh commented 2012-03-01 04:31:43 -0800 · Flag
Tansk Irmish proposed in this thread, among other things,
“If the government itself held the monopoly on its own military technology development . . .”. I heartily endorse this proposal. In other words I call on our delegates to specify in the document of petition for redress of grievances that we want the government to have to build the big weapons it thinks it needs to defend us, using direct employees. I would exclude hand-carried rifles, because they are a commodity, but make the change apply to the big-ticket weapons. If it takes a Constitutional amendment, so be it, but the people acting through their government should nationalize the assets required to make and maintain any large weapons or vehicles considered necessary for defense. Compensation for the assets should be so meager that no one would think of politicking for war for profit. In fact war is a net loss rather than profit, and the loss should be spread among those who decide for the war or who can influence such a decision.

In regard to the comment by Tony Hanes in support of the War Powers Resolution, I reiterate the concern I expressed earlier in this thread, that our delegates and our document should not support an unconstitutional resolution (the resolution attempts to amend the meaning of the constitution without going through the amendment process — it delegates to the executive branch the effect of declaring war, which the constitution assigns to the legislative branch). Instead, our delegates and our document should demand that the US come into compliance with its treaty obligations, including the UN Charter, which includes the constraint, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state . . .”.
Mary Bowers commented 2012-02-29 19:29:03 -0800 · Flag
good points
Tony Hanes commented 2012-02-29 16:44:06 -0800 · Flag
I was reading this thread from bottom up, and was preparing to tell Tansk the same thing! Good thinking, great points.

And Chuck, of course well all know about Halliburton and their no bid contract to rebuild Irac (Vise President Cheeny was previously on the board of directors of Halliburton). The outright arrogance of that specific conflict of interest staggers my mind.

I’m very hopeful that the first declaration here; elimination of the corporate state, as well as campaign restoration would prevent any such activities in the future. Certainly the 1st. needs to have those specific considerations to remove any such possibility of anything like that ever happening again.

We all know now, that Cheney pushed Bush into that war, and he must of made millions on his connection to Halliburton and that contract.

I’m still thinking about your suggestion Tansk; regarding having the military be in charge of manufacturing their own military arsenal. I have a couple of reservations about that; one being the cross competition of the arms manufacturers probably does contribute to advancing technologies which might be absent if the government was the sole entity. On the other hand – the arms themselves would be perhaps a thousand percent cheaper.

It could be that such suggestions of this magnitude could better be addressed after the implementation of the core declarations here. After the entrenched powers-that-be have been disarmed (pun intended)

I certainly doubt anyone here would dispute the essential directive of this declaration is of maximum importance; “Congress shall pass new legislation to reinvigorate the War Powers Resolution”

One of my huge concerns remains; how the bush administration bamboozed the country into war with false accusations – outright lies. I’m very disappointed the the Obama administration let these atrocities slide. Part of that problem of after-the-fact indictments was the official correspondence of that time frame (cheney’s) emails etc. were missing or intentionally destroyed.

My long winded point is; that when any element of our government leads us into war, that there should be maximum accountability for truthfulness and complete transparency between the officials and any “players” that would be affected positively or negatively. For example, every acting congressman on any war committee or voting on war, should have to make a report accounting for any connections to any country that is considered hostile or aggressive; Be that ownership of stocks, bonds, past employment, family relations, etc.

Any fraudulent misrepresentation that would lead or provoke war, or intentionally mislead the public, should be accountable by treason laws. Any correspondence (emails, meetings) pertaining to war actions or considerations of war should be required to be documented and saved (they may be, I dont know?). And as I say, enforcement of these laws should have penalties that are reflected under treason statutes to invoke the ultimate seriousness of war considerations.
chuck gregory commented 2012-02-29 15:19:58 -0800 · Flag
Tansk, right on! This is the sort of historical detail we need— showing where solutions lie.

During the Bush years, the White House pushed for generous contributions from the winning contractors, further cementing the disaster in place.

With a campaign finance system that renders the size of the war chest irrelevant, the contractors lose a lot of clout. So, definitely eliminating the military-industrial complex’s outsized influence depends in part on campaign finance reform.
Tansk Irmish commented 2012-02-29 13:02:41 -0800 · Flag
Here’s a simple way to resolve the issue of perpetual war for profit. Take the “industrial” out of the military industrial complex. The majority of all military technology in the United States is monopolized by private manufacturers. This essentially creates the incentive for prolonged military conflict regardless of outcome. They’ll still make large sums even if the United States experiences Vietnam-style embarrassment. If the government itself held the monopoly on its own military technology development and defense budgets were voted on not by politicians but taxpayers there would be a huge shift in this very problem. In fact, I think a taxpayer should be given the right to allot their tax money however they see fit. In other words, each person vote with their taxes as to how exactly they’d want their individual contributions to be spent, deciding on how much could be allotted for military interests, education interests, green technology interests, etc. The overarching reason behind why most taxpayers resent taxation is because most taxpayers know that their paying too much, too much or all of it is being spent in a way that does not represent what they’d gladly pay for, and there’s very little if any equality; the wealthy pay fewer taxes and and benefit through subsidies and other plutocratic loopholes. Currency itself should also be rethought, which is why I agree that the Fed must go. A simple logical purpose of monetary policy shouldn’t be an ulterior motive of wealth consolidation through corrupt usury, intentional currency debasement, lobbying, and repossession; the underlying principle should always be that there is always enough money at any time to pay any debt, that money shouldn’t be created out of debt, and that inflation should be a vigorously avoidable impossibility.
Gary Wiseman commented 2012-02-26 10:08:32 -0800 · Flag
War hsould always be a last resort. We have planety of military capability to defend ourselves should we be attacked. We need to turnback the military industrial complex.

We need to show people that we have plenty of defensive capability so they can let their current or future elected represenatives know that military spending must be reduced.

Reductions in miltary spending can be put toward education, infrastructure. Things that create jobs.
Paul Grimm commented 2012-02-26 07:45:08 -0800 · Flag
In normal life we do not use “weapons” of death to solve problems. Therefore they should never be used except in extreme circumstances and certainly not on entire populations.
Continental Congress 2.0
There IS a Solution! Join now to help draft this historic document!

Buy a shirt!