TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

World War 3 is closer than ever, and we must remove the warmongers and globalists from power. I was the only president in generations who didn't start a war because I rejected the disastrous advice of Washington's military and diplomatic establishment. For decades, figures like Victoria Nuland have pushed for conflict, particularly regarding Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine last year could have been avoided under my leadership. We need to replace the corrupt establishment with those who prioritize American interests. My administration will focus on peace through strength, ensuring respect from other nations. We could resolve the Ukraine conflict quickly with the right leadership. It’s crucial to call for de-escalation and reject nuclear weapons in Ukraine to prevent further escalation. We must empower all parties involved for a mutually beneficial outcome.

The speaker discusses the Iraq war and how they believe the American people were deceived by the neocons. They claim that false information was spread about Saddam Hussein's involvement in the World Trade Center attacks and the anthrax attacks that followed. The speaker also mentions that the FBI traced the anthrax to a U.S. government source at Fort Detrick. They argue that the Patriot Act, which was passed during this time, undermined the Constitution and reopened the bioweapons arms race. The speaker concludes by stating that the act allowed federal officials to violate international bioweapons agreements without facing prosecution.

The speaker argues that all wars are illegal, citing the UN Charter and the Kellogg Briand Pact as evidence. They claim that the treaty remains in effect and can be used to charge individuals with war crimes. Another speaker mentions that the Kellogg Briand Pact outlawed war and called for peaceful dispute resolution. However, they acknowledge that the US has violated the treaty multiple times. They emphasize the need for a blueprint for world peace, highlighting the militarization of police forces and crackdowns on protests. The Kellogg Briand Pact is described as an active treaty that serves as a reminder of what can be achieved through international unity.

The speaker discusses a memo outlining a plan to invade seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. They express frustration that this plan was not widely discussed in the media and highlight the propaganda used to justify each war. The speaker believes that these wars were premeditated and that excuses were made to deceive the American people. They criticize the immense profits made by weapon companies at the expense of innocent lives. The speaker condemns the atrocities committed and questions the perception of the United States as a force for good.

The speaker suggests they rely on Putin's worldview due to their knowledge of the United States' actions, citing the US bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and install a NATO base. They claim the US has repeatedly engaged in illegal wars, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and that the US overthrew Yanukovych in Kiev in 2014, despite an EU agreement for early elections. The speaker says that in 2015, Russia advocated for peace through negotiations, leading to the Minsk 2 agreement, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. However, the speaker claims the US government laughed at it, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine to build strength. The speaker distrusts the US government and wants both sides to agree on terms publicly. They propose that the US and Russia commit to not overthrowing governments or expanding beyond agreed boundaries, and that NATO halt its enlargement.

The speaker calls for the ICC to investigate a complaint against Russia for war crimes. They warn Russian generals and pilots to be held accountable for following Putin's orders. The speaker emphasizes the importance of the rule of law over the rule of the gun, urging bipartisan support in condemning Putin's actions. They argue that dropping cluster bombs on civilians violates international law and the Geneva Convention, stressing the significance of upholding the laws of war.

The speaker emphasizes that all wars are illegal, citing the UN Charter and the Kellogg Briand Pact as evidence. They argue that the treaty is still in effect and can be used to charge those involved in war with various crimes. The second speaker mentions that the Kellogg Briand Pact outlawed war and called for peaceful dispute resolution. They acknowledge that the US has violated the treaty and highlight the need for a blueprint for world peace. The pact is described as an active treaty that serves as a reminder of what can be achieved through international unity.

The speaker suggests the US has a history of breaking international law, citing the bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and install a NATO base. They claim the US illegally went to war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, with the Obama administration tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. They also allege the US and NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi and that the US overthrew Yanukovych in Kyiv in 2014, despite an EU agreement for early elections. The speaker states that the Minsk two agreement, intended to bring peace through negotiations between Ukraine and ethnic Russians, was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council but was disregarded by the US government. They claim Angela Merkel admitted Minsk two was just a holding pattern to allow Ukraine to build its strength. The speaker distrusts the US government and wants both sides to agree to terms publicly, with the US promising not to overthrow governments, Russia agreeing not to advance further, and NATO agreeing not to enlarge.

The speaker suggests the US has a history of interventionism, citing the bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and establish a NATO base. They claim the US illegally engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, with the Obama administration tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. They also allege the US, along with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, overthrew Yanukovych in Kyiv in 2014, despite an EU agreement for early elections. The speaker states that in 2015, Russia wanted peace through negotiations, leading to the Minsk II agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council and signed by Ukraine. However, the speaker claims the US government laughed at it, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine to build strength. The speaker distrusts the US government and wants both sides to agree to terms publicly, with the US agreeing to stop overthrowing governments, Russia agreeing to not advance further, and NATO agreeing to not enlarge.

A US senator called for war crimes and mass murder of innocent Palestinian civilians, which is illegal and violates international treaties. This includes collective punishment, attacking children, and a disproportionate response. While Hamas has committed war crimes and should be held accountable, responding with more war crimes is unacceptable. This perpetuates violence and causes more death and destruction for civilians. As a human rights lawyer, even one civilian death is too many. We must unite as a global community to protect both Jewish and Palestinian civilians and uphold the international rule of law.

The speaker emphasizes that all wars are illegal, citing the UN Charter and the Kellogg Briand Pact as evidence. They argue that the treaty is still in effect and can be used to charge individuals with various crimes, including defrauding and lying to Congress. The speaker highlights that the majority of the world is party to this treaty, making it the supreme law of the land. In contrast, the second speaker acknowledges the anniversary of the Kellogg Briand Pact, which outlawed war and called for peaceful dispute resolution. They express concern over the militarization of police forces and crackdowns on protests. The speaker concludes by stating that the treaty serves as a reminder of the potential for global unity in demanding peace.

The speaker suggests they rely on Putin's worldview due to their knowledge of the United States' actions, citing the US bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and install a NATO base. They claim the US has repeatedly engaged in illegal wars, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and that the US, along with right-wing Ukrainian forces, overthrew Yanukovych in Kiev in 2014, despite an EU-brokered agreement for early elections. The speaker says that in 2015, Russia advocated for peace through negotiations, leading to the Minsk 2 agreement, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. However, the speaker claims the US government laughed at Minsk 2, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine to build strength. The speaker distrusts the US government and wants both sides to agree to terms publicly, with the US agreeing not to overthrow governments and Russia agreeing not to advance further, with NATO not enlarging.

The speaker argues the US has a history of interventionism, citing the bombing of Belgrade to create Kosovo and establish a NATO base, as well as interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. They claim the US orchestrated the overthrow of Yanukovych in Ukraine in 2014, despite an EU-brokered agreement for early elections. The speaker states that the Minsk II agreement, intended to bring peace through negotiations between Ukraine and ethnic Russians, was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council but was disregarded by the US government and Ukraine, with Angela Merkel admitting it was a ploy to buy time for Ukraine to strengthen its military. The speaker expresses distrust of the US government and advocates for a transparent agreement between all parties, including guarantees against further expansion by NATO and military action by Russia.

The speaker criticizes the US government's funding of the proxy war in Ukraine, arguing that it prioritizes military aid over domestic infrastructure. They highlight the lack of transparency and accountability in the allocation of tax dollars, revealing questionable payments and arms deals. The speaker questions the wisdom of escalating the conflict with Russia, pointing out the potential for nuclear annihilation. They also criticize the erosion of democracy in Ukraine and the profit-seeking motives of individuals involved in the war. The speaker calls on the UN Security Council to enforce the UN Charter and monitor NATO's actions.

The speaker believes that media lies have been responsible for starting most wars in the past 50 years. They argue that if the media had dug deeper and not spread government propaganda, wars could have been prevented. The speaker suggests that populations are tricked into wars because they don't willingly enter them. They claim that a good media environment leads to peace, but ignorance is the main enemy. The organizations promoting ignorance are those that keep secrets and distort information. The speaker expresses their opinion that the media is generally so bad that the world might be better off without it.

Speaker 0: In, say, Britain, they've banned CGTN, the Chinese channel, from broadcasting RT, famously. Why is it that, do you think Russia thinks it's fine? I think Sergei Lavrov this week giving a press conference allowing Western reporters, accreditation, whereas in The United States, they obviously don't ban media in The US because of the First Amendment. Certainly in Europe, obviously, there's mass banning of, journalists and journalism. What what's behind, that? And that surely does depart somewhat from manufacturing consent where they didn't wanna ban anything. They just knew that lower selling outlets would fail to engage the populace in dissident opinion? Speaker 1: Well, I think first of all that's quite normal. You look through the, say the take a more recent event, the Iraq war, not that far back. Anyone who dares to say that the Iraq War was the major crime of this century, which it certainly was, is bitterly denounced and condemned. If you look at discussion in the mainstream, you'll be hard put to find anyone who can reach the mainstream who will say the elementary truth, indisputable truth, that the Iraq war was an example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the supreme international crime, crime of aggression, differs from other war crimes only in that it includes all of the evil that follows. So find somebody who says President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney were guilty of the crimes for which people were hanged at Nuremberg. Instead what you have is celebration of George Bush, the great criminal who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and destroyed them, Celebration of him as a lovely person, it's called a goofy grandpa who plays with his grandchildren, paints pictures. Just a delightful person. Well, that's the Iraq War. It's quite striking that anyone who dares to compare the Iraq War with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is viciously denounced.

The speaker emphasizes that all wars are illegal, citing the UN Charter and the Kellogg Briand Pact as evidence. They argue that the treaty remains in effect and can be used to charge individuals with various crimes, including defrauding and lying to Congress. The speaker highlights that war itself is a crime, making any actions during war automatically illegal. The second speaker acknowledges the anniversary of the Kellogg Briand Pact, which outlawed war and called for peaceful dispute resolution. They mention the violation of the pact by the US and the need for a blueprint for world peace. The pact is described as an active treaty that reminds us of the potential for international unity.

The defendants are accused of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes. The speaker accuses 22 defendants, many of whom have high education and military ranks, of deliberately murdering over a million innocent people. The speaker's first case resulted in convictions for all defendants. They emphasize the importance of affirming the right for all people to live in peace and dignity, regardless of race or creed. The speaker has dedicated their life to preventing such atrocities from happening again, but acknowledges the difficulty of this task.

The speaker argues against accepting a one-sided view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, citing the US's history of interventionism. They claim the US illegally bombed Belgrade, initiated wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and illegally bombed Libya. They allege the US overthrew Yanukovych in Kyiv in 2014, despite an EU-brokered agreement for early elections. The speaker states that Russia initially sought peace through negotiations, resulting in the Minsk II agreement, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. However, they claim the US government dismissed Minsk II, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a ploy to strengthen Ukraine. The speaker distrusts the US government and advocates for a transparent agreement between Russia and Ukraine, with both sides committing to non-intervention and NATO non-enlargement, to be witnessed by the world.

I believe the US has a history of overthrowing governments and breaking promises. The speaker mentions various instances like bombing Serbia, overthrowing leaders in Ukraine, and disregarding the Minsk 2 agreement. They emphasize the need for both sides to come to a clear agreement to avoid further conflict, with the US committing to not overthrow governments and Russia agreeing not to expand. The speaker calls for transparency and adherence to treaties for peace to prevail.

The speakers discuss the dangers of President Trump's control over nuclear weapons and the need to end the forever wars. They express concerns about the possibility of World War 3 and emphasize the importance of avoiding it. They criticize the president's Twitter behavior and call for restraints on his power. The military-industrial complex is also mentioned, with a focus on the excessive spending for short-term profit rather than national security. The speakers argue for ending the forever wars and highlight the need for moral responsibility in politics. They conclude by emphasizing the significance of elections and their consequences.

The speaker emphasizes that all wars, including the recent ones, are illegal under the Kellogg Briand Pact, which remains in effect. They argue that engaging in war is a crime, and participants in wars are automatically committing domestic crimes. The speaker mentions that Nazis were prosecuted for their involvement in war, including diplomats and industrialists. Another speaker mentions that the Kellogg Briand Pact outlawed war as an instrument of national policy and called for peaceful dispute resolution. However, the United States has repeatedly violated the pact. The speaker highlights the need for a blueprint for world peace, especially in light of increased militarization and crackdowns on protests. They conclude by stating that the active treaty serves as a reminder of what can be achieved if the international community unites against war.

The speaker contends that the war is a conflict that should never have begun and attributes its initiation to the 2020 US presidential election being rigged. They assert that the war would not have started if that election had not been rigged. They declare that it was a rigged election and assert that “Everybody now knows that. They found out.” The speaker further states that “People will soon be prosecuted for what they did.” They describe the situation as breaking news, though they add that it should be breaking news as well. The speaker reiterates that “Those are rigged elections.”

The speaker discusses a turning point in how the international community views morality in warfare. They describe this as a really important moment in history, highlighting that debates about what is permissible in war were taking place on a global scale. The narrative anchors this moment in the experiences of World War I, pointing to the horrors that occurred during that conflict as a catalyst for reflection on ethical boundaries in warfare. A central example used to illustrate the shift is the devastation caused by poisonous gas in World War I. The speaker emphasizes how the use of chemical agents revealed the severe human cost of such weapons and underscored the need to reexamine what should be allowed during armed conflict. This exposure to the brutal consequences of certain weapons helped drive an international rethinking of permissible conduct in war. As a concrete outcome of this rethinking, the Geneva Protocol is highlighted as a landmark agreement signed in 1925. The protocol prohibited chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons, marking a formal restriction on what could be employed in warfare. The speaker frames this as a key moment in history because it represented a collective commitment to limiting the means of war in order to protect human rights, even while hostilities were ongoing. The underlying message conveyed is that there are defined lines in war—certain weapons or methods that should not be crossed regardless of military objectives. The Geneva Protocol is presented as an institutional embodiment of that principle, signaling that even in the midst of conflict, there is recognition of fundamental human rights and a willingness to place restrictions on how warfare is conducted. In summary, the speaker highlights a historical arc from the wartime horrors of World War I to a postwar commitment to moral constraints in warfare. The devastating impact of chemical weapons prompted international action, culminating in the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibited chemical and bacteriological weapons and asserted that human rights should be protected even during armed conflict. The emphasis remains on the idea that certain practices in war are unacceptable and that there are explicit lines that nations agree not to cross.

Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission. Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional. Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made. Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times. Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.