US Provides Military For One-Quarter Of The Universe, Ice World Of Hoth Is Next
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “I must have missed the signup sheet that they had down at the YMCA where I went and got the opportunity to sign up to go defend a quarter of humanity. By the way, the quarter of humanity that we must defend or that we’re allegedly treaty-bound to defend does not include you.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest….
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: I must have missed the signup sheet that they had down at the YMCA where I went and got the opportunity to sign up to go defend a quarter of humanity. By the way, the quarter of humanity that we must defend or that we’re allegedly treaty-bound to defend does not include you. It doesn’t include me. Adam Taylor, Washington Post:
The United States is bound by a number of treaties that could, in theory, force it to get involved in a war if an ally is attacked. Consider, for example, the situation in Ukraine, a non-member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If a NATO ally were to find itself under similar threat from Russia, the U.S. may find itself duty bound to war.
Or alternatively, cast your mind to the South China Sea and its territorial disputes. If China were to engage militarily with the Philippines at some point in the near future, the U.S. may well be expected to step in to protect its ally: Since 1951, the U.S. and the Philippines have had a bilateral agreement for mutual defense.
It goes without saying that war with either Russia or China would be a very big deal – especially if that war is on behalf of a third party. This becomes more startling when you realize that, thanks to various treaties and deals set up since 1945, the U.S. government might be legally obligated to defend countries containing 25 percent of the world’s population.
Members Only Access The Founders Pass
You are missing out on crucial commentary video, audio and exclusive downloads!
See What You Are Missing Take The Tour!
OR Join Now
Answer: Yes. Wouldn’t you think that if you’re going to have these sorts of treaties, that you would want to have them where the threat was most imminent, in other words, closest? Such is not the case. I have another question: Why isn’t anyone else analyzing this like that? Why doesn’t anybody else do the simple math and reach the conclusion that, if this is correct, Taylor’s piece here on the treaties – you have one of two choices. Again, this is like the old adage: You’re not kind of pregnant; you either are or you’re not. You’re either bound or you’re not bound to protect humanity. If it’s humanity that you’re to protect, then that is the Homo sapiens population of Earth. Of course, this is an impossibility, but that seems to matter not.
How ironic that the American exceptionalists that say we’re the greatest, grandest, bestest, coolest, hippest, most caring, loving in the history of the world, etc., etc., but somehow we’ve found a way to not care for 75 percent of the world’s population. Now, I don’t say that because I personally think or have reasoned that we should go ahead and throw in with the other 75 percent of the population. It is just to illustrate the point that you can’t run the world. You cannot control its affairs. You cannot marshal the great forces of humanity to your advantage at all times. You can’t even manage the great forces of humanity. Here’s what you can do: You can manage your own affairs.
End Mike Church Show Transcript