Fix Iraq? Judge Bush

The war started by G.W. Bush in 2003 is still on-going. The quick gains of 11,000 Islamist warriors, routing a much larger “Iraqi” army is explained only by the support of the Sunni population and of many of those who made Iraq work, before Bush destroyed it.

That Jihadist army is an international body headed by Iraqis (of Al Qaeda obedience, in the past), financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, sprinkled with some of Saddam Hussein’s generals and even some French (!) and Chechen. After the rout of Wednesday, Iran immediately rushed military “advisers” to the Shiite power in Baghdad. (Iran hated Saddam Hussein, and hates the Sunnis, all the more as the most sacred Shiite sites are south of Baghdad.)

Our Leaders: Greedy Mass Murderers

Our Leaders: Greedy Mass Murderers

The mistake the USA made was to dissolve the 700,000 strong Iraqi army and the Baathist, secular party that held Iraq as a civil society. That mistake was actually a crime, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention outlaws the destruction of a state. That the state was deliberately dismantled by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld is beyond question: so thorough was the dismantlement of the state, that all-important Iraqi museums and archeological sites were left defenseless.

Thus Bush and his ilk attacked not just Iraq, but all of humanity, not just by the atrocious examples they gave, but by the destruction of humanity’s memory.

Bush used to repeat: ”Saddam Hussein killed his own people.” Right, and Bush killed many times more. During the Iraq-Iran war, a war the West perhaps instigated, and, certainly actively supported and collaborated with, 5,000 civilian Kurds got chemically assassinated. Hussein and “Chemical Ali” were judged for this, and executed.

However, the number of Iraqis killed, after Bush’s attack, and consecutive to it, is of the order of 500,000, or maybe much more. So:

Saddam: 5,000 killed. Hanged.

Bush: 500,000+ killed. Painting.

Blair: 500,000+ killed. Still an authority of the EU, loudly praying for more bombing of Iraq.

Now the old Baathist and old Iraqi army are counterattacking. And there is nothing the USA can do: the counter-offensive is mixed with the (Sunni) population, so aerial strikes are not an effective, nor moral, option.

All there is to do is watch. If one wants to help, maybe one could put Bush and his accomplices on trial for war crimes. That would impress the Iraqis. That would build some real clout. But will the USA have the guts?

Let me explain slowly: the respect of law comes only from the fact all men, and children, know early on, that all are the same as far as the law is concerned. The lower moral types, those obsessed by the market, those who claim all the time that anything can be fixed through buying and selling, those who claim we are living in a globalized world, those tiny critters who rule, have to be treated the way they advocate.

They have to understand, with their tiny minds, that the market is nothing without the government, and the government nothing without an army driven by morality.

If it’s a global market, then, it’s a global morality. That means, a global law.

It’s high time for the USA to judge its war criminals. As France judged her own. How difficult is it to write a warrant of arrest for a guy who, by his wanton, cruel, and vicious acts, brought the death of hundreds of thousands of people?

And don’t forget Blair the Liar. Unbelievably that murderous Bliar, a plutocrat with more than eight residences, and an enormous fortune made as a payment for his satanic activities, is the “European Peace Envoy to the Middle East”. He is of course advising to commit more murderous bombing in Iraq.

Blair said he could not be judged for his war crimes (whereas Desmond Tutu and many other prestigious personalities advised that he should be). His argument was that the United Nations allowed the attack in Iraq. That’s actually false. What’s true is that a vote authorizing the attack did not happen.

The French Republic warned Bush that any attempt at the UN to allow for an attack would result in the exact opposite, namely an explicit interdiction of such an action, and that France had the votes in the Security Council.

So there was no authorization vote. The EU ought to be ashamed to use Blair in any function except as the main attraction in the International Criminal Court. Instead, Laurent Gbagbo, an Ivoirian president who allegedly used undemocratic means to stay in power too long, is going to be judged.

Gbagbo, in the worst possible case, was co-responsible of the deaths of few thousand people.  Blair, at least half a million (Bush would not have gone to war without Blair).

Gbagbo versus Blair: now, that’s true racism. Blair is just white, a plutocrat connected to the highest leading circles, and a pseudo converted Catholic (Blair cynically used that religious calling to say that he won’t have done it without the Lord’s agreement; so, on top of everything, the creep is straight out of the Crusades!)

The British and USA government officials deliberately lied to the United Nations. That sort of manipulation, by itself, to justify a war of aggression, is a war crime (the legal precedent being Von Ribbentrop at Nuremberg). Von Ribbentrop was hanged, as deserved. But then why are Blair and Bush still free to run around?

France executed around 40,000 Nazi collaborators in the 1944-48 period. Including an ex-Prime Minister (Pierre Laval)… And some authentic World War One heroes. Sometimes, recovering one’s honor, hope and human rights, let alone a Republican, Democratic Constitution, requires some work. And some courage. Can the USA step to the plate?

The Jihadist army is propelled by the prestige attached to fighting the bloody mass murdering tyrant Bachar Assad, scion of Assad. Thus the action of the USA and Britain, by  not striking the monster last summer, contributed to the Jihadist cause.

Ladies and gentlemen interventionists, you want to help Iraqis? Show them what democracy is about. It starts with justice. You want to help Iraq? Judge and condemn those Westerners who threw it into murderous chaos. They are easier to arrest than Ben Laden. And they killed much more people. And they are a much graver case. They are to civilization what a tumor is to a brain. Shall I repeat their names, or you still don’t get it?

Patrice Aymé

Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Fix Iraq? Judge Bush”

  1. Ian Miller Says:

    The central player in this is the group ISIS, which, as an aside, is Sunni, and anti Shia, and is probably linked to al Qaeda. In Syria, the US seems to be supporting ISIS, and is criticising Assad for bombing ISIS (and related parties). In Iraq, the US is strongly against ISIS, and is advocating bombing them. In short, the US has no coherent policy at all in this region, nor has it had. If anyone says it wants democracy, ask a Palestinian if that is so.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian: Let’s go meta. You say: “In short, the US has no coherent policy at all in this region, nor has it had.”
      But incoherence itself is a policy if the aim is chaos. As thermonuclear plasma studies are increasingly showing, deliberately inflected chaos can bring order.

      Fox News fascist greed free market fanatics thought Bush invaded Iraq for oil. Sure. However, mostly, Iraq, with the world’s first or second largest reserves, was mostly taken out… Making fracking, at last, profitable (it’s not below $60 per barrel).

      The ISIS, as I hinted, are just the shock troops. The real force is who is using them.


  2. Dominique Deux Says:

    The grounds for trying Bush and his accomplices are very clearly laid out in the Nuremberg Trial, which is acknowledged as the foundation of war crime and crime against humanity precedent in international law.

    Most people assume that the sentenced Nazis got the noose for their part in the Holocaust. That was not the case – Soviet judges had no interest in pushing too deep about concentration camps, antisemitism and the like. What got most of them is the first ground for international indictment, listed among “Crimes against peace”:

    “Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”

    Fits like a glove. And in fact there is NO DOUBT that, pursuant to the Nuremberg Principles, any country is entitled to put these criminals on trial. It is not an option but an OBLIGATION.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Dominique: Entirely correct. And thanks for the link.

      It cannot be said and advertised enough.
      The fact is, the theory can be presented, that Bush and Blair are WAY worse than Osama Ben Laden. So what about showing some true global spirit, and arresting Tony Blair? (Bush is protected by the thickest layer of American plutocrats.)

      Only by arresting our own criminals, can we be taken seriously.
      By the way, Bush was told he would be arrested if he visited Switzerland. I never heard of any such warning from any other country.

      Albeit, as you said, it’s an OBLIGATION.


  3. Kevin Berger Says:

    Bon… commentaire pictural, délivré en Français, puisqu’il s’agit d’échapper un instant au “circlejerk” de l’internet de la langue de Benny Hill :

    Gratuit, assez léger par rapport au théme de l’article, petit, mesquin, tout ce que vous voulez,… mais… tellement approprié.

    On se rassure, même dans le fil reddit/Polandball d’origine, l’idée du Français lâche et capitulard est toujours bien présente, au moins résiduellement – le “circlejerk” mentionné plus haut -, peut importe combien de fois les E-U se vautrent militairement, ou combien d’armées indigènes formées à leur image se débandent.

    En fait, ceci semble être l’unique victoire proprement US ces 70 dernières années. Excellent bilan, donc.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I do not feel that it’s “mesquin” (~ petty) to assert that, for exiting some of the contradictions of the Middle East, or world politics in general, one should insist on the respect of the rule of law. Ben Laden paid the price, but what about Bush, who did worse?
      And even worse, it’s the whole effective moral system of the USA that is at fault. Or, even worse, it’s COGNITIVE system. That cries to be judged and condemned.
      Not so much to punish than to progress.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hilarious link (once blown up!). A lot of USA policy in the Middle East is explained by the rivalry with France. In particular Afghanistan, Iraq, as I explained. (Ever since Thatcher, the UK has been more into collaborating with Washington, and plutocrats of all origins.)


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: