]]> position:absolute;

Arm Yourself With The Weapons of Mass Education

"What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think." --Adolf Hitler

Did you know the CIA Commits Over 100,000 Serious Terrorist Crimes Per Year? Read the Entire Congressional report]   [hole.gif]

The Zionists represent the most dangerous thing that the human race has ever faced, and unless we begin to find ways to drive these bestial savages back into oblivion, then we are ALL doomed.



The Jewish Peril is real


The "Forgery" (Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion) is master-plan for vast restructuring of society, creation of a new oligarchy and subjugation of millions.

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

 

US military spreading death

Sunday, 9 August 2009

Wars of Aggression: Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran

Senator Lieberman, Secretary of State Clinton, and former UN Ambassador John Bolton have resumed rhetoric of a United States attack upon Iran. This article will define “War of Aggression” and explain when a war is justifiable under US and international law. Laws are meant to be understood and obeyed. Among the most important for governments and citizens to understand is when war is authorized, and when responses other than war are required. If we wish to call ourselves civilized, we MUST understand the rule of law before we threaten a nation for destruction, death, and cruel physical, emotional and mental agony.

It is edited from my brief, “War with Afghanistan and Iraq, rhetoric for war with Iran”; found here.
Note: this information is in context of Iraq and Afghanistan. A war against Iran is equally illegal, as they have not attacked the US, there is no imminent threat from their legal action for nuclear energy (full explanation in the brief and my article, “Iran, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and the law”) and the UN Security Council has not authorized force. For a war to be justified, there are only two acceptable conditions: being under attack (or imminent threat of attack) or UN Security Council authorization. That’s it. Any other war is legally classified as a War of Aggression. For our political “leadership” and mainstream media to NOT MAKE THIS CLEAR, their mutual intent is obfuscation and war without being labeled as criminal mass murderers. On to the section of the brief:
Iraq’s WMD were chemical and biological weapons. Assuming that the US was concerned about these weapons that the US originally supplied Saddam during his invasion of Iran from 1980-1988,[1] the conservative first option should have been the UN Security Council voting for the UN WMD agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to directly request Saddam to submit to OPCW’s authority. The Director-general of OPCW, Jose Bustani, was in talks with Saddam to do so. Instead of supporting this reasonable alternative to war, the US promised to withhold its funding of the UN (22% of the UN’s budget) until Bustani was fired. The US called Bustani’s talks with Saddam an “ill-considered initiative.” The US request was honored; the US then paid its 2002 UN dues in April 2002; less than one year before the US invasion of Iraq. This was the first time in UN history where the Director of an international program was fired.[2] By the way, the US does not cooperate with the OPCW to ensure US compliance with International Laws of chemical and biological WMD. More

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Disclaimer and Fair use