Supreme International Crime


Initial invasion
For those keeping up with the news, December 30, 2006 should be a day that lives in infamy.

On this day a chain of events was completed which seals the United States, the largest and most powerful nation in the world today as an International outlaw state.

Let’s review.

In 2003 this outlaw state invaded Iraq under the pretext of exigent circumstances – that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the means to create them.

This was a lie.

It was accepted as a lie by the International community, and it was admitted to by the United States intelligence services and members of the White House cabinet itself. It is now understood by politicians and political analysts around the world that the real purpose of this invasion was to secure economic and military advantages in the middle east region, and to maintain the United States’ position as the dominant economic power.

This is also in line with the statement of principles for PNAC (The Project for a New American Century), a sinister right-wing group which has installed its highest-ranking members into the White House cabinet. These principles are, as derived from the organization’s website (emphasis mine):

we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Upon the successful completion of this invasion a regime was installed which has professed an open desire to work closely with the United States and protect/promote its interests.

This regime instituted a tribunal for the purpose of prosecuting the deposed Saddam Hussein, former sovereign ruler of this country. The charges brought against Hussein were crimes against humanity, in reference to a genocide operation in the 1980’s which saw no objection or intervention from the United States or the rest of the International community at the time. Logic dictates therefore that the neither United States nor its pro-western regime now ruling Iraq are truly interested in carrying out justice. This is a pretext.

Considerable controversy has surrounded this tribunal since its inception, as its members have been replaced for unverifiable reasons or murdered by unknown assassins, and at least one of its judges was replaced for making a comment interpreted by the new Iraqi regime as ‘too tolerant’ of Hussein.

The sentence of death against Saddam Hussein was inevitable, the trial a machine unwinding to its inexorable conclusion. There was no other possible outcome.

In summary, the United States brazenly defied International Law by initiating an unprovoked attack on an independent, sovereign nation.

As of today, December 30, 2006, it has now been the primary participant in the murder of its legal ruler by mock trial.

Where were the American people during these events? As the masters of their country’s destiny, were they given all the facts by the White House or the Mass Media?

Initial public support for the war in Iraq was high, indicating clearly that they were not told the truth about the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction or Iraq’s role in the terrorist acts that enabled PNAC to achieve its goals in the middle east. This is underscored by the current level of support for the Iraq war, which is at its lowest levels ever. The difference? The American public is now aware of the pretext and the futility of the exercise.

Most importantly, what did the American do to intervene on their country’s behalf before it committed an International crime? What is it now doing to influence its democratically elected rulers to put a stop to this? If the answer is “largely nothing” are they not, each and every one of them, personally responsible?


5 responses to “Supreme International Crime”

  1. Like many left wingers, you’ve said not a word about what happened in Iraq under Saddam’s rule. Some of the brighter liberals at least note the atrocities.

    No chance that Iraq may be better off now?

  2. In terms of an examination of the legality of the 2003 invasion, there’s not much to discuss about Saddam’s style of rule, good or bad.

    The average Iraqi is not better off. Quite the opposite – the UN Secretary General has made it clear that Iraqi’s have less societal infrastructure and personal security than they did before the invasion.

    Even if positive results could have been achieved — there was no chance of that, even G.W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld commented during previous administrations that an invasion/occupation of Iraq would constitute a humanitarian disaster, and it has — the method by which they were achieved was illegal.

  3. Are each and everyone of us personally responsible? That’s ridiculous. This democracy is a joke, and the reality of the situation is that a Republic mixed with Capitalisms does not work. The politicians do not represent me, nor do they represent the views of the majority of Americans. What these politicians, Democratic and Republican alike represent, is the corporations and organizations that fund their elections. Washington DC is run by the corporations by proxy, and their interests are the main agenda of the House, Congress, and the White House.

    So who are the American people supposed to elect? Would John Kerry have solved the problem? I think it’s safe to say no. Left wing, right wing. It’s still the same bird. How can the American people stop a political machine like the American government? They tried in the 60’s and early 70’s and failed, what are their options? Protests? I’ve been to 20+ protests. They don’t work. At all. Zero. Violence? Ha ha. Voting? That’s even funnier.

    The American people are fucked, trapped in their own failing system, helpless to stop a government growing ever more fascist by the day. The world grows to despise us, we, the most spoiled nation in the world. Many of us live blind to the crimes our country commits against humanity. Still, even those who recognize our country’s horrible actions aboard and diminishing freedoms at home fail to find an effective solution.

    Back to your question though “what did the American do to intervene on their country’s behalf before it committed an International crime?” and I respond by begging you, someone, anyone for an answer to how we could possibly intervene on our country’s behalf! What can we do for christ’s sake? Give me an answer to that, that won’t be lost in the propaganda of our corporate controlled media/government.

  4. Jeff, being informed is the most important thing – you’re well aware of the flaws present in American democracy but many people are simply not. And it’s not because the information is not available.

    It’s a civic responsibility to be informed about the things your country is doing. It is possible to see past the misinformation on FOX/CNN and understand events from their true perspectives with a relatively small amount of personal research, which you’ve done to the extent that you understand the current level of disinterest members of government have in telling the public the truth about things.

    Contrary to popular belief, the Presidency is still interested in catering to popular opinion, if for no other reason than to achieve its other goals. If popular opinion were consistently well informed and there was a constant challenge from the public against government policy, the situation would indeed begin to turn around. Slowly, but it would.

    I’m still optimistic enough to say a majority informed public would have a powerful impact. If this were not so, any hope of freedom in America is lost.

  5. “In summary, the United States brazenly defied International Law by initiating an unprovoked attack on an independent, sovereign nation.”

    Irrelevant and inadmissable information.
    The President lacks the prerequiste knowledge for the meaning of the words “sovereign nation” as illustrated by the following evidence:

    “Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean, you’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

    But what really shows we the people have been Pown’ed is this statement which pretty much acts as an axiom. All other statements about the president are corollaries and must comply with this one:

    “I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.” —as quoted in Bob Woodward’s Bush at War

    Therefore it follows that this MUST be true:

    “The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.” —Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

    Q.E.D.