NATO Drawing Up Plans to Deploy American Soldiers to the Front Line to Potentially Fight Russia in An All-Out War

The globalists in charge are interested in potentially expanding the already devastating Ukraine-Russia war beyond the borders of the respective two nations.

The Daily Mail reported Tuesday that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is preparing plans to deploy American forces to the frontlines on the European continent to potentially fight a war with Russia.

Such a dangerous move has the potential to put our men and women in direct harm’s way against a nation with the most nuclear weapons on Earth.

More

WORLD WAR III WATCH: NATO Drawing Up Plans to Deploy American Soldiers to the Front Line to Potentially Fight Russia in An All-Out War | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger

The globalists in charge are interested in potentially expanding the already devastating Ukraine-Russia war beyond the borders of the respective two nations.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[1LoverofGod]

So much is happening so fast I can't keep up and has my head spinning.
I think I know this much, American soldiers cannot be deployed to go to war without Congress approval first.
Am I wrong?

 

[1LoverofGod]

ArtII.S2.C1.1.10 Use of Troops Overseas and Congressional Authorization

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Cornell University insigniaCornell Law SchoolSearch Cornell
Toggle navigation


LII U.S. Constitution Annotated Article II. Executive Branch Section II Clause I Commander in Chief Use of Troops Overseas and Congressional Authorization
prev | next
ArtII.S2.C1.1.10 Use of Troops Overseas and Congressional Authorization
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

In 1912, the Department of State published a memorandum prepared by its Solicitor which set out to justify the Right to Protect Citizens in Foreign Countries by Landing Forces.1 In addition to the justification, the memorandum summarized forty-seven instances in which force had been used, in most of them without any congressional authorization.2 Twice revised and reissued, the memorandum was joined by a 1928 independent study and a 1945 work by a former government official in supporting conclusions that drifted away from the original justification of the use of United States forces abroad to the use of such forces at the discretion of the President and free from control by Congress.3

President Truman did not seek congressional authorization before sending troops to Korea, and subsequent Presidents similarly acted on their own in putting troops into many foreign countries, including the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, and most notably Indochina.10 Eventually, public opposition precipitated another constitutional debate whether the President had the authority to commit troops to foreign combat without the approval of Congress, culminating in the enactment of the War Powers Resolution.11 The Resolution did little to inhibit Presidents from sending troops abroad without prior congressional authorization, and the Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the issue.12

Use of Troops Overseas and Congressional Authorization

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[1LoverofGod]

ArtII.S2.C1.1.10 Use of Troops Overseas and Congressional Authorization

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Cornell University insigniaCornell Law SchoolSearch Cornell
Toggle navigation


LII U.S. Constitution Annotated Article II. Executive Branch Section II Clause I Commander in Chief Use of Troops Overseas and Congressional Authorization
prev | next
ArtII.S2.C1.1.10 Use of Troops Overseas and Congressional Authorization
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

In 1912, the Department of State published a memorandum prepared by its Solicitor which set out to justify the Right to Protect Citizens in Foreign Countries by Landing Forces.1 In addition to the justification, the memorandum summarized forty-seven instances in which force had been used, in most of them without any congressional authorization.2 Twice revised and reissued, the memorandum was joined by a 1928 independent study and a 1945 work by a former government official in supporting conclusions that drifted away from the original justification of the use of United States forces abroad to the use of such forces at the discretion of the President and free from control by Congress.3

President Truman did not seek congressional authorization before sending troops to Korea, and subsequent Presidents similarly acted on their own in putting troops into many foreign countries, including the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, and most notably Indochina.10 Eventually, public opposition precipitated another constitutional debate whether the President had the authority to commit troops to foreign combat without the approval of Congress, culminating in the enactment of the War Powers Resolution.11 The Resolution did little to inhibit Presidents from sending troops abroad without prior congressional authorization, and the Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the issue.12

Use of Troops Overseas and Congressional Authorization

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

However, POTUS can send US Marines and then beg forgiveness/ask permission after. It's a quick timeframe, but, still . . .

Every U.S. servicemember, who was stationed in Europe during the Cold War (and really up to the present), has faced the spector of being first to directly fight USSR (calling themselves Russia notwithstanding). Ditto, Alaska.

 

[Margery]

I’m not sure if the Biden administration would follow the law. They seem to ignore it whenever it doesn’t fit their agenda. The howling mobs of leftists will back them up as they trample on the law.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

Someone in the Chain of Command (hopefully) (better) refuse such an illegal order. If not higher civilian authority (Secretary of Defense), hopefully/presumably the first military link, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS).

Or Vice President Kamala Harris would have to step in and declare President Biden unfit. That political process could well take too long, depending on circumstances.

Even the lowliest Private knows to only obey lawful orders of a duly appointed/sworn superior, and if there is any doubt, to ask for clarification (within reason/commonsense of the current/immediate tactical situation).

 

[LydiaJoy]

There is a hundred and one tiktoks out there from Gen Z(s) saying they refuse to be drafted. Short language alert, but this does provide a quick, direct to the point, snap shot of how that generation views being drafted. The comments really say where we are at as a society as well, so different that many years ago...

TikTok - Make Your Day

 

[Margery]

There is a hundred and one tiktoks out there from Gen Z(s) saying they refuse to be drafted. Short language alert, but this does provide a quick, direct to the point, snap shot of how that generation views being drafted. The comments really say where we are at as a society as well, so different that many years ago...

TikTok - Make Your Day

And that’s Biden’s voter base. Very good point Lydia

 

[Bethlehem57]

Someone in the Chain of Command (hopefully) (better) refuse such an illegal order. If not higher civilian authority (Secretary of Defense), hopefully/presumably the first military link, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS).

Or Vice President Kamala Harris would have to step in and declare President Biden unfit. That political process could well take too long, depending on circumstances.

Even the lowliest Private knows to only obey lawful orders of a duly appointed/sworn superior, and if there is any doubt, to ask for clarification (within reason/commonsense of the current/immediate tactical situation).

I pray that if this were to happen that God would intercede and stop us from being tied up in this, but if the commander in thief doesn’t shut his trap, this could happen. I think I remember seeing an article about reinstating selective service recently??

Ghothi, I had to laugh when I saw “ Vice President Kamala Harris would have to step in and declare President Biden unfit…” . Pot…kettle

 

[Andy C]

From what I read today, the plans being drawn up would only be implemented if Russia attacks a Nato country. Plans are necessary for every possible contingency.

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I seen someone post an article on facebook that Russia has officially labelled America as an enemy .

 

[Andy C]

I seen someone post an article on facebook that Russia has officially labelled America as an enemy .

Was that article from the 70s? Im sure we have been their enemy for many decades, no matter what they have stated publicly.

I would never consider them anything other than an enemy.

 

[1LoverofGod]

I seen someone post an article on facebook that Russia has officially labelled Amer

**They did...

Kremlin Issues Stark US Statement as Relations Hit New Low

The Kremlin has issued a stark statement about the U.S. as relations with Washington hit a new low over Ukraine's use of American-supplied weapons on Russian territory.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, called the United States "an enemy" reportedly for the first time during a press briefing on Tuesday.

Kremlin issues stark US statement as relations hit new low

"We are now an enemy country for them, just as they are for us," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

**They did...

Kremlin Issues Stark US Statement as Relations Hit New Low

The Kremlin has issued a stark statement about the U.S. as relations with Washington hit a new low over Ukraine's use of American-supplied weapons on Russian territory.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, called the United States "an enemy" reportedly for the first time during a press briefing on Tuesday.

Kremlin issues stark US statement as relations hit new low

"We are now an enemy country for them, just as they are for us," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

www.newsweek.com

Thanks Rose, i was trying to find an article for it LOL

 

[Everlasting Life]

I seem to remember someone making the observation that Russia is a bigger cog in the one world government plans.

 

[1LoverofGod]

I seem to remember someone making the observation that Russia is a bigger cog in the one world government plans.

***Yes. That's what BRICS was introduced for to take away the US Dollar as the world economic currency as a means to bring in Russia's version of A New World Order, Eurasia and dominate the West, primarily The US. Of course it won't come to pass, being that prophetically the One World Government will be made up of Ten Kings according to Daniel 7:7.

From this past February:

Russia Plans to Usher In a 'New World Order'—More Powers Are Signing Up​

Russia is looking to use its leadership of a bloc containing some of the world's most powerful nations to shift the international order away from Western dominance.

With new influential nations having recently joined BRICS and more looking to sign up to the emerging bloc, Russia's envoy to the United States told Newsweek that the group's ambitious push to overcome differing geopolitical outlooks and press forward toward a common agenda is already underway in spite of unique challenges Moscow faces.

"The year 2024 is a landmark year for the foreign policy of the Russian Federation," Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov told Newsweek. "Despite persistent attempts by a number of states to isolate our country or, at least, present such a picture that key foreign nations are fencing off from Moscow, de facto the situation is completely different."

This year, as Russia took the helm of the bloc's rotating chairmanship under the banner of "Strengthening Multilateralism for Equitable Global Development and Security," BRICS accepted five new members—Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—in line with last year's historic summit in Johannesburg. Argentina was also set to join but rescinded its accession after elections ushered in a major political shift at home.

More

Russia plans to usher in a "new world order"—More powers are signing up

"Advancement of the international community towards genuine multipolarity is gaining momentum," Russia's ambassador told Newsweek.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Margery]

It's a One World Govt competition

In first place as the contenders line up at the starting line for the race:

We have the Western alliance - America, Europe and NATO with America's usual friends Canada, Australia, New Zealand or as I see them Tarshish and company hangin' with their besties in Europe or as Daniel might have seen them Rome 2.0

Next contender is the world as dominated and run by Russia for the sake of Mother Russia. Russia will get help from China but plans to deal with them later.

China would like to be included here, they have their own version of global govt, and it's base would be China and again, they want to use Russia and then turn on them.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

Was that article from the 70s? Im sure we have been their enemy for many decades, no matter what they have stated publicly.

I would never consider them anything other than an enemy.

The alliance that included USSR during WWII was one of necessity against Hitler. American and other Allied Soldiers were captured by USSR during late days of WWII and were deported ("disappeared") into the Gulag
The West and Russia/USSR have been enemies since at least 1917. Regardless of US and USSR propaganda, the Cold War never ended, and proxy wars still continue today.
Not sure about how far before the Communist Revolution the US and USSR have been enemies because of WWI, the Ottoman Empire, Zionist movement starting in the late 1700s/early 1800s, etc.

 

[Andiamo]

Please Lord God, may it not be so.