Even Margaret Thatcher held the Israelis accountable for violations of international law.

I  would like to share some excerpts from a letter written by Britain's former prime minister, Margaret Thatcher in condemning Israel's unprovoked attack  which destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor on 7 June 1981. The letter can be found here:
https://archive.margaretthatcher.org/doc02/8DC11F504FAA43199FE1288432BEBD3B.pdf

"I cannot accept that this attack was an essential pre-emptive act of self-defence by Israel. You argue first that Iraq has been in a state of war with Israel since 1948 and that Israel's action was not therefore a breach of international law. But the fact is that the Israeli action was clearly contrary to the prohibition in the UN Charter on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. Iraq has not engaged in active hostilities with Israel for some years. When there has been no armed conflict between the two countries for so long, an unprovoked attack of this kind has in our view no justification under international law. Your argument would logically justify an unprovoked Iraqi attack on an Israeli reactor which, as I said in the House of Commons, I would equally have condemned."

"You say that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Iraqi reactor would shortly have had the capacity to make atomic weapons. I can only point out again, as I did in the House of Commons, that Iraq is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, that the installations in question are subject to international safeguards, that they were regularly inspected (the last occasion being as recently as January) and no breaches of these safeguards were detected. We do not believe that Iraq had the capacity to manufacture fissile material for nuclear weapons, nor that she could have developed a capability for doing so without detection, as the French Government has made clear."

"I recognise of course that Israel has legitimate concerns about her security and that the Israeli Government faces very difficult decisions in ensuring the country's protection. I have made my views on this plain many times. Nor has Iraq so far played a constructive role in the Middle East peace process. There is no doubting her potential hostility to Israel."

"But none of this justifies the unprovoked use of force. The system of international law and international safeguards has been established precisely to avoid the situation which Israel feared and action such as Israel took on 7 June. If that system breaks down - and it will be at risk if flagrant violations of it are not forthrightly condemned - the security of all countries, not only Israel would be at risk. I am particularly concerned that the action taken against Iraq has further set back the chances of progress towards a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, which I believe is the only basis for Israel's security in the long term."

I want to point out that Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has faced scrutiny for its nuclear activities, which some countries believe violate the treaty's terms.

On the other hand, Israel IS NOT a signatory. US aid is supposed to be withheld to such a nation.

Mrs. Thatcher's positions on Israel and Palestine comes as a surprise, because she was not particularly a neocon, but instead a partisan of international law and fairness. She was a Zionist in the sense that she believed in the justice of establishing a Jewish state in the Mideast, but, and here the distinction is critical, with the provision that Palestinians receive meaningful self-determination or statehood as well. And her belief in the sanctity of international law was something she believed should apply to Israel as well.

I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for Mrs. Thatcher even if I did not like her politics for the most part. 

The office of the US President needs to have its powers limited.

The US is in an illegal war for many different reasons. I'm not going to go into those reasons other than that only Congress can declare war.

But what is to stop a maniac who has power over the military to start a war? There are worse scenarios here as well.

The problem is that Trump has gotten the US into a war and it is hard to stop now that it's started.

The office of the executive should basically be the administration of the laws passed by the legislature. 

 

 

The only rogue state with WMD that destabilises the region is ISRAEL

 There are rumours that JFK was killed because he wanted to stop Israel from getting nuclear weapons.

Now it has the the Samson Option, Israel's alleged nuclear doctrine of last resort, which is where they will use nuclear weapons as a pre-emptive strike. 

 The US needs to stop supporting the state of Israel.

 

And this war could have been avoided.

The Constitution needs to be Amended: The Commander in Chief should not be the President.

 

If the founders should have learned anything from the English Civil War and Standing Armies issue, it should have been that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces should not be the King, President, or whatever you wish to call the executive. It should be separate and under the control of the legislature. It should not be able to act unilaterally unless then is an actual attack on the territory.

Under the constitution, only Congress can declare war. However, that power has been usurped innumerable times by the president. And the result is usually disastrous, as is the current case.

Toss in that the Executive should not use the military without authorisation from the people's representatives.

Article II, Section 2  which states:

    "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" 

 Should be amended to:

"The Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces, and of the  National Guards of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States, shall be nominated by the senior military staff with the appointment ratified by congress. This position is responsible to and reports solely to the Legislature, unless there is a declared national emergency."

The routine administration of the military should be delegated to a Defence Council, a body officially charged with the direction and command of the Armed Forces.

While the administration of the military should be military, the ultimate control would rest with the legislature.  

The power to declare war is vested in the legislature under the US Constitution: they should be the ones to have power over the military. 

 

 

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”

 The US Consrtitution is broken. To be honest having a written constitution is meaningless if no one understands what it means, or follows it.

I've pointed out that the US Constitution doesn't mention self-defence, but it does mention the common defence and shows great concern for the military establishment.

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to:

•     declare war
•     grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (i.e., license private citizens to capture enemy vessels)
•     raise and support Armies (for terms up to two years at a time)
•     provide and maintain a Navy
•     make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
•     provide for calling forth the Militia
•     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
•     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia; and
•     govern such Part of [the militia] as may be employed in the Service of the United States.

Section 8 further provides that the states have the power to:

•     Appoint the Officers of the Militia; and
•     train and equip the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Article II, Section 2 provides that:

    "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"

The US engaged in acts of war without congressional approval during the Vietnam war, which led to the introduction of the War Powers Resolution which is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. 

The failure of getting congressional approval means this is an illegal war. 

The War Powers Resoultion provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by Congress's "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".  

The attack on Iran shows that the commander in chief should not be the president of the United States.

One of the reasons I put this under Second Amendment was that part of the constitution was supposed to guarantee that institution would form the defence of the nation. As I have said before, the idea was to have a military where training and  administration would be handled by full time, professional soldiers, while the bulk of the forces would be part timers.

This system was what Switzerland had and is perfect for a peaceful and neutral nation since it discourages actions like those taken by Trump. As Jesse Ventura pointed out, make the people who make the decisions go to war. But under a militia, everyone is subject to military duty during a conflict, which should discourage belligerent actions.

And the founders were discussing the military when they discussed the Second Amendment, which is something which can be confirmed if you look up "founding fathers on standing armies". I keep mentioning the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 since provides a good idea of what the founders' mindset happened to be:

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The founders would be appalled with the current state of the Union.