Sunday, January 17, 2010

A Major War Crime: How the USUK systematically destroyed Iraq

Among the many hollow arguments produced by the warmongers' apologists is perhaps the most desperate one: it was necessary to invade Iraq to liberate its people from an evil dictator. But any reasonably intelligent reader with a passable understanding of the significance of geostrategics as expressed in documents such as Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard, and the neocons' Project for a New American Century, would understand that the real prize to be had was Oil and the hegemonizing of the Middle East.

A new book, Cultural Cleansing in Iraq, contends that the Bush administration’s objectives were to demonstrate US global dominance and remake 'the strategic Middle East' to suit the US. “To that end, the invasion of Iraq would display America’s crushing military power to a world reduced to the status of spectators in a spectacle of a state’s destruction, marked by massive civilian casualties, cultural devastation and the pauperisation of its people.”

Subsequent chapters show how Iraq’s state structures were systematically destroyed along with the independent secular nationalist socialist regime.

This began with the looting of the country’s museums and libraries, schools and universities. Although Iraqis carried out most of the pillage and destruction, the US was responsible for what took place ...

... The 13 authors of this work say the US set out to destroy Iraq’s national identity, reduce and marginalise the educated class and wipe the Iraqi slate clean in order to build from ground zero a weak state which would be dependent on the US. This experiment in “state ending” has left a black hole at the heart of the eastern Arab world.



  1. It's a comprehensive and timely analysis, Rory. I doubt, though, that the Bushco boys will be dragged to the Hague. I have a glimmer of hope that Chilcott might shine enough light on the scuttling beetles that their narcissist sophistries will be exposed for all to see. A faint hope, I agree. Best Regards from Wolves In The City.

  2. A faint hope, yes, because Chilcot will be nothing more than a hugely expensive excuse for a real inquiry.

    Tony, you forgot to give your link to a blog which I would recommend all to visit,