The reason I am advising you of where and when wars are the LEGITIMATE alternative is that instigating revolutions in other, sovereign countries is NEVER legitimate, at any time. Creating revolutions is particularly subversive in that the instigating parties remain hidden.

http://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/258

Portions from the above link:

Non-Intervention (Non-interference in domestic affairs)

Introduction / Definition:

In international law, the principle of non-intervention includes, but is not limited to, the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2.4 of the Charter). The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States also signifies that a State should not otherwise intervene in a dictatorial way in the internal affairs of other States. The International Court referred in the Nicaragua case to “[t]he element of coercion, which defines, and indeed forms the very essence of, prohibited intervention” (ICJ Reports 1986, p. 108, para. 205). As Oppenheim's International Law puts it, "the interference must be forcible or dictatorial, or otherwise coercive, in effect depriving the state intervened against of control over the matter in question. Interference pure and simple is not intervention" (Vol. I, 9th ed., 1992, p. 432). Butthe extent to which acts other than the use of force are, or should be, prohibited is uncertain.

Intervention (even military intervention) with the consent, properly given, of the Government of a State is not precluded.

Author:
Michael Wood

And here's the US resolution:

http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ga_2131-xx/ga_2131-xx_e.pdf

To continue (from the paper quoted previously):


Theoretical Implications:

There is no doubt that the principle of non-intervention remains a well-established part of international law. The prohibition of intervention "is a corollary of every state's right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence" (Oppenheim's International Law, p 428). The Friendly Relations Declaration [UNGA res. 2625(XXV) 1970]includes a whole section on 'The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter.' The UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Domestic Affairs of States (UNGA resolution 2131 (XX) 1965). The International Court was in no doubt about the existence of the principle in the Nicaragua case.

Like I said CHECK MATE!!
Google all their histories lazy one!!
Are you really that much in denial, Super Denial?

It isn't too late; last chance:
Since you were unable to find any discrepancies in the list; I call Check Mate
The list was posted for others to book mark to use for future reference. Like when politicians are in the news, or pundits are used by the networks, and etc.
It can give a heads up on where their political leanings are. The CFR is pure globalism.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall1.htm#d

Another List:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cfr-members.htm

BTW; The lists may not be all inclusive.
Not ALL members are necessarily sell outs to globalism, but it is an indicator.

I do hope others book mark for references