Professor:
You left out the USA government among those supporting the opposition to President Assad-- for it is an indisputable fact that the CIA and DoD are both arms of the US Government and both are publicly affirmed to have helped arm the opposition.
the target the US hit was static for over 6 months - Syrian Army control.
The US has the most sophisticated space based photography capability. Thus can not be mistake in choosing target.
The US did not receive UNSC clearance to attack Syria.
The Congress has not authorized attack on Syria.
Therefore, notwithstanding blah, blah, blah, the commanding officer who authorized the attack is guilty of
1., war crime per Nurnberg precedent
2., Is in contempt of Congress
3/. contempt of the Department of State re US/Russia agreement.
The 3000 tons of armament shipped by the behalf of US to Jordan indicates that the USA is supporting Al-Nustra and the Support of all opposition groups in Yemen indicates that the US is the primary sponsor of mayhem in Syria and Yemen, with lots of US boots on the ground in Iraq , Syria and who knows where else in the Middle East [Libya, Somalia, ec]
Dr. Cole:
With respect, I do believe that the US Senate Ratified the Geneva Conventions [all 4], and thus they are not only International Treaties, but part of the USA Constitution.; thus you should amend point $ of your list, for clarity's sake. Thank you
I believe tha Prof. Cole is mistaken in asserting that the Iraqnian requisite for US-Iran negotiation is maximal. I believe from reading and listening to various politicians from Iran, Respect, Friendship etc is the prerequisite for negotiation, else IRan will continue to advance [as it did technologically] in spite of the USA and satrap embagoes.
When one considers that China, India Russia Brazil and most of the NAM states back IRan, then the USA's 5% and EU's 6 % [plus minor % of Japan, Canada, S. Korea et al]of population is greatly out numbered.
It is true that Europe suffers due to the sanctions, but so does the USA:
1., Oil prices are higher by approx 20% due to Iran sanctions according to numerous statmentsin USA/UK media.
2.,USA companes are excluded form exploration in Iran, a loss to USA's Oil Service Companies - the most advanced in the world.
3., Thes actions are contrary to USA Constitution [as per adevise and consent of USA Senate to sapplicable International LAw]: as Mrs Clinton admitted the sanctions are intentionally designed to hurt civilians by instituting a shortage of mediciens, food supplyes etc.
4., Therefore the SA is declining in ionternational standiong, to the detriment of the nation.
While it is true that since 1990 the Co2 emission has decreased due to recession since 2007, the other boig part is that the USa has exported almost all the dirty manufacturing industries to offshore, thus eliminating some emission. Further the use of Oil has decresed by 2 million barrels per day since the recession strted.
While I admire Prof Cole's clarity in the analysis, I think that Mr. Obama partially, and Mrs. Clinton, fully underestimated their action's raminification in the internationala community - and I am not talking about the USA's satraps. Methinks the result will be resemblence of the Bush years. Soon even USA citizens will not ask WHY THEY HATE US, since it appears that the USA is cabaple of exporting only havoc: Wall Street's mess, chaos -by countering international law, armaments, especially to Israel to kill civilians, and war on Muslim countries.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Professor:
You left out the USA government among those supporting the opposition to President Assad-- for it is an indisputable fact that the CIA and DoD are both arms of the US Government and both are publicly affirmed to have helped arm the opposition.
the target the US hit was static for over 6 months - Syrian Army control.
The US has the most sophisticated space based photography capability. Thus can not be mistake in choosing target.
The US did not receive UNSC clearance to attack Syria.
The Congress has not authorized attack on Syria.
Therefore, notwithstanding blah, blah, blah, the commanding officer who authorized the attack is guilty of
1., war crime per Nurnberg precedent
2., Is in contempt of Congress
3/. contempt of the Department of State re US/Russia agreement.
At international law, the US military in Syria is an illegal invader. thus should not be there at all.
Dr. Cole: you can not have meaningful elections if the moneyed class controls both parties in the USA - curtesy of the Supreme Court of USA.
The 3000 tons of armament shipped by the behalf of US to Jordan indicates that the USA is supporting Al-Nustra and the Support of all opposition groups in Yemen indicates that the US is the primary sponsor of mayhem in Syria and Yemen, with lots of US boots on the ground in Iraq , Syria and who knows where else in the Middle East [Libya, Somalia, ec]
Thank you for the clarification. Enjoy being educated on the intricacies of the law.
Dr. Cole:
With respect, I do believe that the US Senate Ratified the Geneva Conventions [all 4], and thus they are not only International Treaties, but part of the USA Constitution.; thus you should amend point $ of your list, for clarity's sake. Thank you
If, I am mistaken, my apologies.
Cordially yours
I believe tha Prof. Cole is mistaken in asserting that the Iraqnian requisite for US-Iran negotiation is maximal. I believe from reading and listening to various politicians from Iran, Respect, Friendship etc is the prerequisite for negotiation, else IRan will continue to advance [as it did technologically] in spite of the USA and satrap embagoes.
When one considers that China, India Russia Brazil and most of the NAM states back IRan, then the USA's 5% and EU's 6 % [plus minor % of Japan, Canada, S. Korea et al]of population is greatly out numbered.
It is true that Europe suffers due to the sanctions, but so does the USA:
1., Oil prices are higher by approx 20% due to Iran sanctions according to numerous statmentsin USA/UK media.
2.,USA companes are excluded form exploration in Iran, a loss to USA's Oil Service Companies - the most advanced in the world.
3., Thes actions are contrary to USA Constitution [as per adevise and consent of USA Senate to sapplicable International LAw]: as Mrs Clinton admitted the sanctions are intentionally designed to hurt civilians by instituting a shortage of mediciens, food supplyes etc.
4., Therefore the SA is declining in ionternational standiong, to the detriment of the nation.
While it is true that since 1990 the Co2 emission has decreased due to recession since 2007, the other boig part is that the USa has exported almost all the dirty manufacturing industries to offshore, thus eliminating some emission. Further the use of Oil has decresed by 2 million barrels per day since the recession strted.
While I admire Prof Cole's clarity in the analysis, I think that Mr. Obama partially, and Mrs. Clinton, fully underestimated their action's raminification in the internationala community - and I am not talking about the USA's satraps. Methinks the result will be resemblence of the Bush years. Soon even USA citizens will not ask WHY THEY HATE US, since it appears that the USA is cabaple of exporting only havoc: Wall Street's mess, chaos -by countering international law, armaments, especially to Israel to kill civilians, and war on Muslim countries.