The following article is submitted to us for our consideration by a former top aide to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for several years
GERMAN GENERAL TO COMMAND U.S. TROOPS
"As far as German commanders go ........ About 12 years ago I was at Dulles Airport near DC. I saw two white Airbus 320’s on the (East) tarmac with “Luftwaffe”(in black letters) on the fuselage. In the Dulles concourse were over 200 German troops with Flecktar camo battle dress uniforms ... I saw them!! … and their combat packs with two Bundeswehr Colonels (Oberst) in civvies leading them. We three talked for about 15 minutes. At that point I then said to both Colonels, “You’re here for training right?” Ja.. (Yes) “Uhh huh and you’re to see if American troops will serve under German command?” He stopped talking and would not answer. I then said, “You’re also here to conduct urban pacification operations, right? He again would not speak. I smartly saluted him, saying , “Guten tag Herr oberst” (Good day Colonel) and I did an about face and marched away."........ Daniel New is Mike New’s father. This entity rising in the USA is the Fourth Reich.
______________________________
GERMAN GENERAL TO COMMAND U.S. TROOPS
By Daniel New
September 12, 2014
NewsWithViews.com
NATO recently placed a German officer in command of all European troops, including US troops, something that has never happened before. Here’s the story:
"This is a bold and major step forward in USAREUR's commitment to operating in a multinational environment with our German allies," Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell Jr., USAREUR commander, said of Laubenthal's appointment.
"U.S. and German senior military leaders have been serving together in NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan for years. Sustaining the shared capability from this experience will benefit both U.S. and German armies."[1]
Americans do not like the idea of foreign commanders over US troops. In fact, both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars have passed resolutions condemning such an action. Rolling Thunder and the Gulf War Veterans have also expressed their specific displeasure.[2]
The reaction from veterans in 1995-96 were aimed specifically at the Clinton administration, when he (illegally) placed American soldiers under a general officer from Finland on Operation Able Sentry, which went in to Macedonia as peacekeepers. For a couple of years the country was in an uproar and the name of Army Specialist Michael New was a household name, because he was the lone soldier who said, “No, thank you, I am an American soldier, and you do not have the right to force me to serve a foreign power against my will.” For his efforts, Spc. New became an American hero, and was awarded a Bad Conduct Discharge from the Army.
The problem today has nothing to do with General Laubenthal, who is probably an excellent officer, and in view of the fact that Germany is a member state of NATO, it makes perfect sense from the European point of view that they should be allowed to see their own qualified officers in charge of an organization of which they are presumed to be equal partners.
The problem is one of national sovereignty.
Most people do not realize that NATO is a “military arrangement” created for stabilizing European affairs under the authority of the United Nations. It is a U.N. adjunct. If you don’t believe me, go to their website and read the preamble to their charter.
NATO does not answer to any member nation. It answers only to the United Nations. Does anyone remember the Bosnian conflict where NATO was bombing and the U.N. told them to cease and desist? They went too far and, for its own political purposes, the UN Security Council ordered them to stand down. They complied immediately.
When a nation has a treaty relationship with another power, usually another nation, no one can argue that they are the same nation. They simply have a treaty. They agree to cooperate. The rules are binding as long as the treaty is in effect.
Treaties can also be with organizations, particularly since World War II, because the United Nations has spawned a plethora of organizations, all of which are aimed at establishing a one world government and they spread their tentacles into every nation by way of “treaty law”. This has proven to be a very effective way around “national law.”
Even though one can argue that we are members of NATO, surely no one will argue that NATO is in charge of the United States. And yet the legal case can easily be made that NATO, not the United States, is in charge of all those troops assigned to NATO. And therein lies the problem: two different heads." Anything with more than one head is a monster,” my dad used to say. He was right. Everyone knows that no one really tells the USA what to do – we’re too big. But how about other member states? Are they “equal partners” or not? The only way we get away with this is because we foot the bill for far too much of NATO for it to function without us.
Americans may not like it, but NATO has every right to appoint a German officer over all NATO troops.
The solution is to bring all US troops home from Europe, save a TON of money in the process, and let Europe provide the troops to protect Europe. Europe has no shortage of people, Europe is not impoverished, and Europe should be responsible for its own defense. Should they get themselves into a war, no doubt we will be willing to help them out again – if Congress declares war. (Yes, I know, it’s an old-fashioned concept, found in that out-of-date document known as The Constitution, but it also happens to be the law, contrary to what Democrats and Republicans think.)
Most Europeans agree that the USA needs to quit pushing them around, go home and let them take care of their own problems. In fact, most Americans feel the same way.
Another War is Brewing
We all know that the current administration is itching to get us into a war with Russia over the territorial squabble in Ukraine and Crimea. The only reason that makes any sense for us to get involved in that war is that we want to reduce the influence of Russia, and to advance the cause of an eventual one-world-government. Russia is not so keen on a one world government, particularly if they are not the ones running it. (Those days are behind us, at least for now.)
Russian national interests are paramount in Crimea – it has been their domain and property for hundreds of years, and is their only warm-weather port. They cannot reasonably be expected to give it up without a struggle.
Another factor is the strong stand that Russia has taken against the radical Muslim world. We don’t yet know how much that plays into the thinking of the current Muslim-lover in the White House, but it must be huge. The Muslim world hates Russia, (and us, for that matter), but at least we are helping finance their lunacy, whereas Russia has a policy of “zero tolerance for Islamic intolerance.”
If the USA would start immediately to phase out its presence in Europe, it may well be that the world would be safer, or in any case, that the USA would be safer. Maybe we would stop stirring up fights that are not ours, and financing the wrong side, or both sides, as we have done over the past several administrations.
If the USA would quit propping up petty dictators and butchers with American tax money in the form of military and foreign aid, perhaps then the citizens of those countries could manage to throw off the yoke of dictatorship and eventually find their way to joining the civilized world as civil governments.
Contrary to the propaganda coming out of Washington, not one American has died in the Middle East for Freedom, not one has died “to keep us safe.” They have died, and needlessly, to further One World Government, just as they did in Vietnam under the UN agency known as SEATO.
Americans are growing weary of raising their children to be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order. We’ll defend OUR country, and OUR faith, but we will continue to take a dim view of politicians who want war, to satisfy the needs of the military-industrial complex working hand-in-hand with the globalists who are determined to undermine our national sovereignty and our Constitution.
© 2014 Daniel New - All Rights Reserved
The reaction from veterans in 1995-96 were aimed specifically at the Clinton administration, when he (illegally) placed American soldiers under a general officer from Finland on Operation Able Sentry, which went in to Macedonia as peacekeepers. For a couple of years the country was in an uproar and the name of Army Specialist Michael New was a household name, because he was the lone soldier who said, “No, thank you, I am an American soldier, and you do not have the right to force me to serve a foreign power against my will.” For his efforts, Spc. New became an American hero, and was awarded a Bad Conduct Discharge from the Army.
The problem today has nothing to do with General Laubenthal, who is probably an excellent officer, and in view of the fact that Germany is a member state of NATO, it makes perfect sense from the European point of view that they should be allowed to see their own qualified officers in charge of an organization of which they are presumed to be equal partners.
The problem is one of national sovereignty.
Most people do not realize that NATO is a “military arrangement” created for stabilizing European affairs under the authority of the United Nations. It is a U.N. adjunct. If you don’t believe me, go to their website and read the preamble to their charter.
NATO does not answer to any member nation. It answers only to the United Nations. Does anyone remember the Bosnian conflict where NATO was bombing and the U.N. told them to cease and desist? They went too far and, for its own political purposes, the UN Security Council ordered them to stand down. They complied immediately.
When a nation has a treaty relationship with another power, usually another nation, no one can argue that they are the same nation. They simply have a treaty. They agree to cooperate. The rules are binding as long as the treaty is in effect.
Treaties can also be with organizations, particularly since World War II, because the United Nations has spawned a plethora of organizations, all of which are aimed at establishing a one world government and they spread their tentacles into every nation by way of “treaty law”. This has proven to be a very effective way around “national law.”
Even though one can argue that we are members of NATO, surely no one will argue that NATO is in charge of the United States. And yet the legal case can easily be made that NATO, not the United States, is in charge of all those troops assigned to NATO. And therein lies the problem: two different heads." Anything with more than one head is a monster,” my dad used to say. He was right. Everyone knows that no one really tells the USA what to do – we’re too big. But how about other member states? Are they “equal partners” or not? The only way we get away with this is because we foot the bill for far too much of NATO for it to function without us.
Americans may not like it, but NATO has every right to appoint a German officer over all NATO troops.
The solution is to bring all US troops home from Europe, save a TON of money in the process, and let Europe provide the troops to protect Europe. Europe has no shortage of people, Europe is not impoverished, and Europe should be responsible for its own defense. Should they get themselves into a war, no doubt we will be willing to help them out again – if Congress declares war. (Yes, I know, it’s an old-fashioned concept, found in that out-of-date document known as The Constitution, but it also happens to be the law, contrary to what Democrats and Republicans think.)
Most Europeans agree that the USA needs to quit pushing them around, go home and let them take care of their own problems. In fact, most Americans feel the same way.
Another War is Brewing
We all know that the current administration is itching to get us into a war with Russia over the territorial squabble in Ukraine and Crimea. The only reason that makes any sense for us to get involved in that war is that we want to reduce the influence of Russia, and to advance the cause of an eventual one-world-government. Russia is not so keen on a one world government, particularly if they are not the ones running it. (Those days are behind us, at least for now.)
Russian national interests are paramount in Crimea – it has been their domain and property for hundreds of years, and is their only warm-weather port. They cannot reasonably be expected to give it up without a struggle.
Another factor is the strong stand that Russia has taken against the radical Muslim world. We don’t yet know how much that plays into the thinking of the current Muslim-lover in the White House, but it must be huge. The Muslim world hates Russia, (and us, for that matter), but at least we are helping finance their lunacy, whereas Russia has a policy of “zero tolerance for Islamic intolerance.”
If the USA would start immediately to phase out its presence in Europe, it may well be that the world would be safer, or in any case, that the USA would be safer. Maybe we would stop stirring up fights that are not ours, and financing the wrong side, or both sides, as we have done over the past several administrations.
If the USA would quit propping up petty dictators and butchers with American tax money in the form of military and foreign aid, perhaps then the citizens of those countries could manage to throw off the yoke of dictatorship and eventually find their way to joining the civilized world as civil governments.
Americans are growing weary of raising their children to be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order. We’ll defend OUR country, and OUR faith, but we will continue to take a dim view of politicians who want war, to satisfy the needs of the military-industrial complex working hand-in-hand with the globalists who are determined to undermine our national sovereignty and our Constitution.
© 2014 Daniel New - All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment