Home 911Truth The Long Road Leading to the Destruction of IRAQ

The Long Road Leading to the Destruction of IRAQ


by Dee McLachlan

The Iraq nation has been destroyed — over a million citizens were killed, and its 37 million people are suffering the consequences.

Who would do this and why? Syria has suffered six years of war, and Iran has been told that they are “next.” Should civilised people sit at home eating popcorn waiting to watch the destruction of those nations on TV? What kind of idiots are we?

In yesterday’s Gumshoe article, Mary Maxwell used a “Cock Robin” approach to the problem of 9/11. It is reasonable to say that a coterie of men with connections to Israel, rather than 19 Arabs, carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center. She did not ask why the coterie would do this. There are many theories. In this article I will look at the build-up to war with Iraq — going back in time to see how this madness unfolded.

General Wesley Clark

We have quoted Clark and his interview with Democracy Now countless times on Gumshoe News. He was told of a memo when he visited the Pentagon in 2001:

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Why he only revealed this in 2007 is a mystery. If he had spoken earlier, imagine how different the world might be.

It is possible that the plan to destroy certain Middle Eastern nations dates back to the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. Communities in the former Ottoman empire got handed out as “mandates” to members of the League of Nations. For example, Palestine was mandated to the British. But in this article I will go back only as far as the 1960s.

Gathering of Neoconservatives

In 1965 Irving Kristol (dubbed the “godfather of neoconservatism”) founded a magazine, “The Public Interest.” By this time Albert Wohlstetter, a professor at the University of Chicago, had gathered a group of young intellectuals around him — including Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad, Paul Kozemchak and Paul Wolfowitz.

By the mid 1970s young Neoconservatives were beginning to have influence in Washington — some having arrived as students and interns. And these young Neocons were already promoting a strong Israel as essential for US domination in the Middle East.

Perle was working for Conservative Democratic senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, and Dick Cheney had worked his way into the White House — serving as the White House Chief of Staff, from 1975 to 1977. George H. W. Bush had become the head of the CIA (1976) and allegedly decided to bring in a small group of outsiders (Neocons).  The Neocon team of “analysts” (supported by Cheney) used their intellectual firepower to overwhelm the mid-level CIA analysts to declare the USSR a major threat.

Using Militant Islam Against The Soviet Union

The CIA begins funding Islamist extremists… as a resistance movement to oppose the Soviets.

“In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter’s National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets.

By the mid 1980s Cheney becomes defense secretary, and brings a core group of ideological staffers under the supervision of Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. I quote Wikipedia:

“Arguably at the helm of the neoconservative movement is Richard Perle… aided by Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith… the Neocon core have been interrelated for decades through positions in government, think-tanks, business corporations, and even family ties… [leading] think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century, Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and the U.S Committee for a Free Lebanon.”

I now digress briefly to discuss another principal player, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Two Worlds and Ideologies Meet in New York

Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949) joined the Israel Defense Forces shortly after the Six-Day War (1967) and served in the elite commando unit, Sayeret Matkal. He allegedly took part in several operations (Operations Inferno, Gift and Isotope), plus he fought on various fronts 1973. (His brother Yonatan died leading Operation Entebbe.) A soldiering war-like attitude will stay with him throughout his political career.

Benjamin Netanyahu as a soldier in Sayeret Matkal (Photo credit: Wikicommons/ GPO)

He attended MIT, then from 1976 – 1978 works for Boston Consulting Group. (We have no idea whether he arrived there by merit or was groomed into these positions.) In 1982 he becomes Deputy Chief of Mission at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, and then as the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations from 1984 to 1988.  And now in New York he is connecting with those who want to support him.

An interesting friendship is between Netanyahu and Larry Silverstein — who took over the lease for the WTC shortly before 9-11. To quote an article from haaretz.com:

“Close ties with Netanyahu …The two have been on friendly terms since Netanyahu’s stint as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations. For years they kept in close touch. Every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein. It made no difference what the subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call, Silverstein told an Israeli acquaintance. Their ties continued after Netanyahu became prime minister.” [Who else did Netanyahu call on Sundays?]

The Plan to Destroy the Middle East

It was around 1992, after the First Gulf War, that the Neocons advocate trashing the Middle Eastern countries — including Iraq.

In 1992 Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis publishes an article in the influential journal Foreign Affairs called “Rethinking the Middle East.” Lewis, a British Jew, a longtime supporter of the Israeli right wing, says, (I quote):

“Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity.”

In June 1996 Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister of Israel, and Perle, leading a study group, wrote a paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” This is what is written in Wikipedia:

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle FOR Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on “Western values”… [including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare]

To quote DREYFUSS, 2005, PP. 330-337: 

The neoconservatives’ intention in Iraq was never to truly build democracy there. Their intention was to flatten it, to remove Iraq as a regional threat to Israel.” 

OH BOY. Who were these madman working for?

So they planned to destroy Iraq, and they needed an excuse. They began to hype the threat of “weapons of mass destruction,” and after Netanyahu’s visit to the United States (1996), the US neoconservatives began a push for war against Iraq. (Was this under Netanyahu’s request or instruction?)

In 1997 Neoconservative Douglas Feith wrote a paper called “A Strategy for Israel.”

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

The PNAC think tank, founded by William Kristol (son of Irving) and Robert Kagan produced the document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century. 

It was written for the George W. Bush team (before the 2000 presidential election), and for future VP Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and others. Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC’s founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in Bush’s administration, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. John Pilger quotes the document:

What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, it said, was “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor“.

The Big False Flag — The Attacks on New York

The attacks were meticulously planned and executed on all fronts — except the “pulling” down of Building 7.  Within hours Paul Bremer and others pointed to Osama bin Laden — and there was an immediate response to get on a war footing. As Mary Maxwell noted in her article yesterday:

“Appearing on BBC on 9/11, Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel said: “[We should act pre-emptively against] five states, they are Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea… these kind of states should be treated as rogue states.”

“…in front of the U.S. House of Representatives on the 20th of September, 2001, Netanyahu vehemently implored the U.S. to launch ‘pre-emptive’ military strikes against ‘Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan,’ destroyed by the United States military.” Richard Perle entered the same BBC show by phone and ditto’d this.

The media promoted the official narrative — and Bush planned his attack on caves in Afghanistan.

The Neocon-Israeli Plan Unfolds.

To quote PNAC think tank co-founders William Kristol and Robert Kagan in their Weekly Standard January 2002 article:

“The United States can, after all, walk and chew gum at the same time. The Iraqi threat is enormous. It gets bigger with every day that passes. And it can’t wait until we finish tying up all the ‘loose ends.’ For one thing, those loose ends are not just minor details. If bin Laden has left Central Asia, he’ll be hard to find. Who knows how long it may take? Meanwhile, history moves on, and the clock is ticking in Iraq. If too many months go by without a decision to move against Saddam, the risks to the United States may increase exponentially. And after September 11, those risks are no longer abstract. Ultimately, what we do or do not do in the coming months about Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq will decisively affect our future security.

“Only now we know that it was an imprudent course. The failure of the United States to take risks, and to take responsibility, in the 1990s paved the way to September 11… But it is more horrible to watch men and women leap to their deaths from flaming skyscrapers. If we fail to address the grave threats we know exist, what will we tell the families of future victims? “

The West then invaded Iraq in March 2003. This is when Australians turned out to protest in huge numbers.

All of the undoctored intelligence reports from the Intel agencies concluded that Saddam no longer had any usable chemical weapons or WMDs. Hans Blix (the chief UN Weapons Inspector) stated as such. What went wrong at ASIO?

The intelligence was not faulty. It was accurate — but ignored. This group, along with the media, followed their plan — and destroyed Iraq.

What has all this been for?

A Final Note:

And of Benjamin Netanyahu — he was in New York on September 11, 2001. (His long time friend, Larry, said that they had to “pull” Building 7.)  Netanyahu was also in London during the 7/7 False Flag bombings — and he was leading the march in Paris over the Charlie Hebdo False Flag (as seen in the photo below). Even a leading Israeli investigative journalist, Barry Chamish, went public with his suspicions that the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris were a false flag – and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a key suspect.




  1. My first problem with this article is the use of the term Neo-Conservative that is a phrase that does not fit the meaning – which is New Conservatism.

    True Conservatism does not promote the interference or the intended destruction of countries. That kind of thinking is within the realm of National Socialism or Communism.

    True Conservatism is about protecting, preserving and promoting those things that have been proven to work over time and that are of benefit in maintaining the structure of a society that values its existence and longevity, and to live and to let live.

    Those who call themselves Neo-Conservatives are in reality Nazis who were all ‘tutored’ through the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission. Both ‘think tanks’ were funded by the Rockefella’s who did much business with the real Nazis during the Second World War and who were bribed by agents of David Ben Gurion into obtaining votes from South American countries (again Nazi roots) into voting for an Israeli state.

    There seems a lot of guilty finger pointing in this article toward Netanyahu, but does he deserve it?

    One must realize that during the times mentioned in this article concerning Iran, Iraq and Syria, that all three countries were sponsoring terrorism against the Israeli state – any wonder Netanyahu would have liked to see them neutralized. Saddam was paying the families of ‘Palestinian’ suicide bombers who killed Jews a financial ‘reimbursement’ for their loss and as an incentive to keep doing it. Syria and Lebanon were using Iranian Hezbollah terrorists with which to kidnap Jews or kill them where they stood. So if one has an open mind, one can then understand why Netanyahu was all for taking out those countries so named.

    Only a few days ago Netanyahu asked Putin to force Assad into removing Hezbollah from Syria otherwise Israel would undertake that task. So the terrorism threat is perceived by Israel as a clear and present danger.

    As for those who organized the destruction of Iraq we could keep on writing up the many possibilities and still not arrive at the why.

    • Nem,
      Neocons is a term created for describing this group. EVERYBODY knows that this is just a label — and not the definition.

      The question is who was driving this agenda to destroy the Middle East? Arron Russo last interview gives us a little light as to who might have wanted this to happen.
      As for Netanyahu — he is always there… like Cheney and the rest of the gang… Guilty? Many of these people including N were advocating destruction on a mass scale.
      You try advocate for the “destruction” of your neighbors property and family– using the same language — even if they might be crims, and you’d be in court so fast.

      Why do we as a society accept this kind of language?

      As for your countries sponsoring terror (your BS tit for tat debate) — Maybe consider the US and its allies as the biggest culprits.Iran has not INVADED anyone for 600 years — with the exception of US intervention…

    • Strange that you justify the destruction and invasion of 26 million people (then) because the leader was or might have been doing something.
      It is the same thinking as those countries sponsoring ISIS and its off-shoots. That is what is wrong with us… we accept killing everybody because we wanna teach a few —
      that’s right DESTROY the whole orchard, and juice ALL the apples because you found a few bruises. We accept the most insane logic. Soon — we will wake and find there are no more apple seeds to regrow the garden.

      • Dee, could you please point out where I have justified anything?

        What you have written barely touches the surface of the real problem – and those problems began a long, long time ago. One cannot just walk into a point in history and take things from there, one has to look at the BIG picture, and that means a trip back down the time tunnel to where all of what we now behold began.

        But it appears that many on this site simply refuse to consider that there may actually be another side to every story or point in history. That is being selective and is not conducive to a proper understanding of how, why, what, who and when.

        Call what I put up whatever you like, but what I put up is based I what I have taken the time to learn through research not what I choose to believe because it happens to fit my view of the world.

        • Whoa! big fella. What’s this crap about “learn through research”? Hey, you want to “take a look at the big picture” and a “trip down the time tunnel”. Well, Bunky haven’t you read Douglas Reed’s book ‘The Controversy of Zion’?

          It is a very long read, something most people won’t attempt. There’s HEAPS of research in that book, you just have to have the will to work through it. It took me a fair while to grasp it all. It should be required reading in every school.


          • Terry, why is it crap to learn through research? How does one become knowledgeable about the world if one does not do their own research? Are you of the opinion that only Teachers are endowed to provide one with all the knowledge that is available?

            Douglas Reed was a noted anti-Semite his bias against Zionism was already well established in his belief that it is through Zionism that the New World Order will rise. So why would I bother reading someone’s biased book when I know exactly where it will lead?

            The book travels down the wrong road, just as the author did.

            Have you ever looked over Eustace Mullins’ work? Now there is a fresh and unbiased mind.

            I’ll put this to you: If Zionism will give rise to the New World Order, and if America goes, so will the New World Order arise, why does the NWO government in waiting, The United Nations, now uphold the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) opinion against Israel in every instance. The OIC, whose hated enemy (according to the Koran) is world Jewry, and as a result of their book, so too Israel, and it is one of their missions to wipe out all Jews. So, doesn’t that strike you as a little bit odd for Zionists, who are mostly Jews, to be attempting to exterminate all Jews when all the evidence points to the clear and present danger to Jews, that it s the Islamic elephant in the room that needs to be watched?

            And there are many Jews who refuse to acknowledge that simple truth, just as they refused to believe the Nazis would do what they did to them right up until the time of taking that shower.

            And if you choose to answer that question, here is another; Why has the Jew been used as the scapegoat for nearly two thousand years by those who take to deflecting attention away from what they should not be doing?

            And there are many recorded instances of that throughout history and the present.

          • Dee, one of my peeves in life is that no one ever asks why something was done the way it was done, just that it was done and it was either right or wrong in the doing of it. But there is a reason for everything and why it was done a particular way. If the reason is exposed the action for the reasoning is exposed also.

            That kind of thinking can isolate the innocent from the guilty.

          • No I’m not against Jews or Israel. I have countless friends who are from that linage. I am against war mongers —
            But I do understand the violent, “aggressive” nations rise like cream with more land than others.

        • Nem, this article is about people born in the last 50 years… and are born and alive… while a small group plot the complete destruction of the Middle East (at least SEVEN countries) — and we are FED BS about their distorted plans in the MSM — LIED to — RE: that we must kill them because they have WMDs… and then watch (on TV) while the countries are destroyed, CIVILIANS KILLED in the hundreds of thousands… all this in the lifetime of a 30 yr-old.
          It is BS to talk about going back in time… Yes we must learn from history… but we are not learning form recent events.

          As Terry says — RESEARCH — what about taking Israel out of the equation for a moment. How many Iraqi’s killed Americans, British, French and Australians before 2003. And we all know 19 Arabs (non were Iraqi) did NOT do 9-11. HOW F— many? A handful? Check the EQUATION… At least 1,400,000 Iraqis died after the “JUSTIFIED” invasion.

          Nem, to quote you: ” what I put up is based I what I have taken the time to learn through research not what I choose to believe because it happens to fit my view of the world.”

          The above maths does not have a world view — it is a NUMBERS GAME based on lies.

          • That is what this article is about — REMOVING THE WORLD VIEW of neocons, liberals or otherwise. It is about LIES being told, RESOURCES grabbing, and NUMBERS killed. Almost anything can be justified from a distorted worldview — and that’s the point. Society has mostly lost the ability to dissect and disagree with a worldview that leads to chaos and fear.

          • I understand where you are coming from. But you cannot point fingers of blame without understanding the reasons for why people do what they do – and I am referring to Netanyahu.

            All those other SOBs can rot in Hell for all I care.

            He has done what he has done and still does to protect Israel and his people – it seems the whole world is against four million people because they are Jews and because they are being held accountable for all the ills of the world?

            Doesn’t that strike anyone on this site as being a convenience, a side issue to distract from the real NWO agenda, the similarities between what happened in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and what is happening now is only too real!

    • More obfuscation and theoretical fluff.
      Any chance of getting out and counting the bodies and examining the destruction in so many targeted countries?
      Simple answer: don’t invade, destroy and kill.
      You have a problem with that concept?

      • My argument is not with what has obviously happened in the middle east Ned, my argument is with why it happened. Simply taking a point in history and then adding a few figures from an event of that history and then pointing fingers at them based on what you believe they did, not what you have obtained firm evidence for what they did, supported or allowed to happen and then wiping your hands clean because you believe you have solved the why it happened, just doesn’t work for those who seek the whole story for why it happened and the reasons for it happening.

        • Nem,
          Go back to Adam and Eve and theorise everything that has happened since if you want all that bs to justify all the crap you present
          We are in the present.
          Deal with it and why argue as to why it happened?
          Put your energy with us, who want to stop it happening?
          You in or out?
          As a start, shall we stop doing mass home invasions, theiving lands and resources, bombing and the killing of innocent people?

          • As an old copper if someone was caught by you on a home invasion, would you arrest the areshole thief or get a history from the arsehole thief?

          • Discuss his ancestry first — if his great great great grandpa was a convict — then lock ‘im in chains. If he was a gov’ner send ‘im on his way with a flask of whisky and an ipad.

          • You would know as well as I Ned, that antecedents in criminal matters can play a large part in a conviction at court.

            So why do we rely on antecedents? Because a person’s history is a window into their character and their past criminality.

            Yet such information is shunned on this site simply because some cannot come to terms with the simple reality that not everyone pointed at is guilty of what they think they are guilty of.

          • Nem,
            If you were a copper you were an unInformed ignorant dumb copper and show naught about antecedents NOT being used to determine guilt.
            YOU ARE BS.
            Terry: nemy and especially our readers could do with a second opinion.
            This suspect officer needs serious contemplation.
            Enough rope has been rolled out. ……… and Nemy you have entangled yourself in it.
            You are out of your depth here find another forum for your bs.
            Though we have enjoyed the entertainment and challenge, we might miss you.

        • Nem, “then pointing fingers at them based on what you believe they did, not what you have obtained firm evidence for what they did,” — see my MATHS COMMENT.

          • Antecedents are not used to help determine guilt. However, they are looked at during sentencing. – Should the judge give the guilty a break during sentencing? Not with that freaking rap sheet!

        • Ned and Terry, if the Defendant has a history of violence then his/her antecedents may be taken into account during the hearing or trial and prior to a conviction or sentencing.

          • Buuuuuuulll sssshhhhiiiittttt!
            Only on ‘similar fact evidence’ rarely allowed by the court on a successful Crown application relating to the circumstances of the particular offence being ‘evidentiarily’ similar to a prior.
            E.g. simple example being a sexual assault having the same modus of a previos allegation/event.
            Ever heard of that?
            You are off the planet and completely unreliable.
            Terry and me have about 70 years experience in these matters in NSW and you dispute the issue with what appears to be a supremist arrogance.
            What jurisdisdiction are you subject to.

          • Really Ned? I submitted many Briefs of Evidence before the Local Court with the history of the Defendant as being a violent one in the Facts Sheet and a referral to their past behaviour in their antecedents.

            When was the last time you put someone before the court?

          • Hey officer sunshine.
            I have done many trials as a crown prosecutor and if the court obtained a whiff of antecedents being raised the trial would end right there and then.
            You ignorance can only be explained by some confusion in the nature of the proceedings, such as a bail application or upon sentencing after a plea of or finding of guilty.
            End of matter: Period.

          • Well, what can I say Mr Crown Prosecutor? Call me a liar if you will, but I got the sentence, or words to that effect; The Defendant is well known to police and has a history of violence toward the victim.

            In the bloody FACTS SHEET!!!!!

            And at no time was I told to amend any of my Briefs, well not that I can remember anyway.

          • Dear, Ned, Terry and B Antcliffe, I owe all you guys an apology. I was wrong and after much thinking and it being a long time since I put a Brief of Evidence together, I realized my memory is not as good as I thought it was.

            Please accept my unreserved apology.

  2. Marvelous article Dee………. a walkley for you……. if you would deign to be in the same room as any of the fake msm liars and apologists for killers.
    How relaxing all these exposures are, having being pissed upon by aplogists for criminal for 13+ years..
    I think I may take up knitting soon and watch the parade at the scaffold……. I think I might recognise quite a few lined up.

    • What I find so staggering is that the MSM commentators “normalize” this war mongering language and behaviour (in addition to fabricating stuff up)

      • Start knitting classes. Tea coseys are useful.
        I will provide your fold up chair for us to get a front seat at the scaffold when the murderous presstitute msms and ‘whoremongering’ apologists are exposed for their killings, thievery, crimes and lies.
        Silly fake buggers are ‘dreamin’ if they think it will not happen, they are 0.000001- percent of the reality.
        Perhaps they should read up on some history.
        As Kennedy forecast; if peacefull revolution is denied, violent revolution is inevitable. Or something to that affect.
        Seems that he had history lessons?
        So what does our 4th estate know about history? Probably never read or learnt any!

  3. Dee, you say “Cheney worked his way into the White House from 1975 to 1977.” That’s mainly 1975-76 when Ford was prez. After the 76 election, Executives stay on in the new year only til the 20th of Jan, or if i may go out on a pedantic limb, only till High Noon on Jan 20 (which was Inauguration of Carter in 1977.)

    But of course Cheney didn’t “work his way in” to such an amazing job as Chief of Staff. He must have been a protegee of the person who ran Gerald Ford’s presidency. That is often credited to Nelson Rockefeller, but I am not saying it is him.

    As for Ford, Cathy O’Brien says, in The Trance-Formation of America (good title!), that Ford and Pierre Trudeau ran a massive pedo scene in Mackinaw Island which is part of Michigan that is very close to Canada.

    Later in her book she reports Cheney’s hunting habit:

    “It is my understanding now that A Most Dangerous Game was devised to condition military personnel in survival and combat maneuvers. Yet it was used on me and other slaves known to me as a means of further conditioning the mind to the realization there was “no place to hide,” as well as traumatize the victim for ensuing programming.
    “It was my experience over the years that A Most Dangerous Game had numerous variations on the primary theme of being stripped naked and turned loose in the wilderness while being hunted by men and dogs. In reality, all “wilderness” areas were enclosed in secure military fencing whereby it was only a matter of time until I was caught, repeatedly raped, and tortured.
    “Dick Cheney had an apparent addiction to the “thrill of the sport”. He appeared obsessed with playing A Most Dangerous Game as a means of traumatizing mind-control victims, as well as to satisfy his own perverse sexual kinks. My introduction to the game occurred upon arrival at the hunting lodge near Greybull, Wyoming, and it physically and psychologically devastated me.”

    Dee, I am guessing that both Gerald Ford and Cheney were just as badly treated as Cathy O’Brien in their youth. And our First Lady Betty Ford must have been in on it too as spouses of MK-Ultra are either Mk-Ultra victims or handlers. Poor things, all of them.

    Dee, thanks for pushing the Wesley Clark stuff till you’re blue in the face. Americans simply do not know of it.

  4. Dee, it isn’t just the media that speaks glibly of smiting one’s enemy. We all do it.

    There is never compunction when killing an enemy. See my 1990 book “Morality among Nations.” (Conclusion: there is no morality among nations.)

    I’ll grant that Iraq was not our enemy (and you should see the way the MSM in US right this minute is proclaiming the danger of North Korea). Nations and tribes are always joyful over their kill rate of other nations and tribes.

    IHL — “international humanitarian law,” that is, the Geneva conventions — is a bad joke. It plays the game of saying nations are restrained in war. No they are not. This makes me think the Geneva’s are actually sinister in their purpose.

    It would be better for us to cut the crap and stop talking about IHL. Instead we should recognize our genocidal habits and deal with that as a problem — NOT sweep it under the carpet. In US there is domestic law against genocide. Yes, we can prosecute our own for doing it, and we should. Not via international law but via domestic law.

    As for Australia, it is party to anti-genocide treaty but does not have specific domestic law against it as far as I am aware.

    America’s killing of Iraq (aided by Oz) is horrendous. Keep yelling about it, Ned, as you always do. Thanks, seriously.

  5. I think the question that really needs to be asked is what sort of Australians have participated in this and why.

    And what would happen if the msm stopped entertaining the Country’s mindless reverence for sport and sports celebrities.

    • An unforeseen opportunity is presented by the fact that gratuitous violence and “Australia-says-no”ads are being promoted by the same channel, but I guess its unlikely to be seized save by a few fringe-dwelling weirdos

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion