21 June, 2024


Twenty Years After US Invasion Of Iraq: Reflections On Contagious Impunity!

By Mohamed Harees –

Lukman Harees

‘Without justice, the most heinous crimes go unpunished; victims are unable to obtain redress, and peace remains an elusive goal, since impunity generates more hatred, leading to acts of revenge and more suffering’. ~ Federica Mogherini

The invasion of Iraq was the most controversial and momentous foreign policy decision in recent memory. Two decades ago, in March 2003, Bush along with his UK slavish ally Blair illegally invaded Iraq, standing virtually alone in their false claims that Baghdad had amassed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, which led to years of military occupation, imposition of a US-controlled sectarian political system, and years of death and devastation for the Iraqi people – over 1 million died in the US war and occupation, in addition to the hundreds of thousands already dead from the 12 years of brutal sanctions that preceded it. 

Although the deception practiced by the Bush led administration has been since exposed, it is rather ironic that its chief architects remain not just free but celebrated members of society, which proves that we are living in a sociopathic world. Today on reflection, this hitherto unpunished aggression underlines how justice works in favour of certain classes of people and States and the contagious nature of impunity, being replicated in other States too on the global scale, as well as the importance of accountability as a founding principle for any new system of governance.

Yes! twenty years after the US-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, the oil-rich country remains deeply scarred by the conflict. The assault by the US-led international coalition opened a Pandora’s box, traumatised Iraqis, and alienated some traditional US allies.It did not herald a new dawn for democracy in the region as was shown to the world. Corruption and sectarianism have been endemic to Iraqi politics since the invasion. Rather than the anniversary, most Iraqis are focused on “the frustrations of current reality: the kleptocracy, the lack of services. The invasion also elevated a new class of politicians, many of them exiles who returned to vie for power and continue to do so today. A Gallup index of global sentiment ranks Iraq as the third most unhappy country, behind only Afghanistan and Lebanon.

The starting point for understanding the invasion of Iraq was the grand strategy of the US under Bush—to undertake a coercive assertion of global hegemony. The 9/11 terrorist attack on the US was central to understanding the war on Iraq, even though Iraq was in no way involved in it. This attack exposed a terrible, but sub-state, threat to the US, originating in the Middle East and Muslim world, for which retaliation was necessary if American opponents were not to be emboldened. At the same time, hardliners in the Bush administration who had advocated an attack on Iraq even before 9/11 saw it as an opportunity to mobilize support for a war they thought, would be decisive in transforming the Middle East to suit US interests. 

To understand the real motives behind the war and why the Bush administration saw an attack on Iraq as the solution to US problems, we need to shift the focus from security threats to the US, per se , toward threats to its strategic situation in the Middle East and its hegemony over the oil market, as Raymond Hinnebusch (2007) The US Invasion of Iraq: Explanations and Implications, Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies) explains. First, US oil vulnerability was on the rise. Second, US hegemony in the Middle East required that US support for Israel was balanced by alliances with Arab clients and this, in turn, required US leadership in the Arab – Israeli peace process. Third, Saudi Arabia traditionally had played an effective ‘swing’ role in securing oil and moderating oil prices at the US behest, but the US was dissatisfied with its dependence on the Saudis. US hegemony in the Middle East rested on its unique ability to balance special relationships with both Israel and Saudi Arabia, but this balance was being destabilized. The conquering of Iraq was envisioned as enabling the US to acquire a new compliant swing producer, thus ending dependence on Saudi Arabia. 

The conquest of Iraq would also allow the US to achieve privileged access to Iraqi oil at the expense of its economic competitors in Europe and Asia and its emerging global rival, China. Further, it would also allow the US to secure access to Arab oil without Arab alliances and consent and to remove the last remaining constraints on total US commitment to the achievement of ‘Greater Israel’. Equally important, the war on Iraq was expected to assert decisively the military dimension of hegemony; smashing Saddam Hussein, who famously had defied the US, would send the message that the limits of American military power had been overcome.

Another underlying reason for the US invasion of Iraq appears to be a response to the threats against their petro-dollar monopoly. In the 1990s, OPEC, Russia, Iran, and Iraq, began negotiating future oil contracts in Euros and Roubles. In 2003, the Financial Times reported, “Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq’s oil be sold for Euros.” The ability to buy and sell oil in Euros, Roubles, or Yuan would reduce worldwide demand for US dollars, expose the inflated dollar, and begin the inevitable decline of value in US assets. US bankers and elite investors wanted to avoid this. After the Iraq invasion, the western bankers and oil companies got what they wanted, for a while. They overturned the Iraq/Russia oil deal in Euros and retained their petro-dollar monopoly. Further, some analysts also believe the Iraq war is an offspring of pre-emption and has dealt a heavy blow to the principle of sovereignty and worry that the Iraqi case will be a dangerous precedent that could have negative consequences on the world order, because there are some countries that have already asserted the right of pre-emptive strike in state-to-state conflicts.

As regards to the disastrous after-effects of the war in Iraq, it caused many more problems than it resolved. Diplomatically, to the US, the Iraqi Invasion showed that the cost of unilaterally forsaking diplomatic channels can be enormous, with the world opinion of the US today being is at its’ nadir. It is also a fact that  Middle East today and the instability spreading across the continents find their origins in the Iraq War, with the US led so-called ‘War on Terror’ expanding beyond Afghanistan and Iraq to envelop Yemen, Libya, Syria, and beyond. The Iraqi war created the conditions for terror groups like ISIS to emerge. As the ‘War on Terror’ transformed into a ‘War of Terror’, drones, air strikes, and special-operations forces are today replacing the massive numbers of ground troops, while the UN is being systematically relegated to side-lines as a spectator in a Machiavellian world controlled by the dictates of US Exceptionalism. 

In his book about the history of the Iraq War, Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq, British journalist Nicolas Davies writes, “As a whole, the world has made great strides toward peace, with a steady decline in conflict since the Cold War.Yet America continues to play a destabilizing role. American militarism spreads chaos and undermines the framework of international law and cooperation.” The report by the Royal United Services Institute, a military think-tank at the heart of the British establishment on ‘Wars in Peace: British Military Operations Since 1991’, concluded, ‘Far from reducing international terrorism… the 2003 invasion [of Iraq] had the effect of promoting it. ‘The rise of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was a reaction to this invasion, and to the consequent marginalisation of Iraq’s Sunni population (including de-Ba’athification and army disbandment).’‘Today, AQAP and other radical jihadist groups stretching across the Iraqi-Syrian border, pose new terrorist threats to the UK and its allies that might not have existed, at least in this form,’ without the 2003 US-led invasion’. Further, the cost of all this goes beyond Iraq. 

It is therefore the responsibility of the international community not to allow such Iraq-type invasions and US Exceptionalism to triumph to their detriment. Furthermore, in the hierarchy of the world’s international crimes, the top three are genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It’s hardly in question that the Americans and British committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq. So what penalties are their leaders paying? The enormity of their crimes seems irrelevant. For both Bush and Blair, impunity is their ultimate entitlement.

Impunity arising from this US led Invasion has parallels in Sri Lanka too, a country that has been facing an impunity crisis. The common thread for all the violent acts has been a culture of impunity that has persisted in the island from the time Sri Lanka gained independence 75 years ago. Racist monks and influential politicos with criminal records were still at large. Sri Lanka has been unable to hold accountable the perpetrators of these spate of violence, riots or the war that ended in 2009, despite its continued commitments to international organizations –a lack of substantive movement towards accountability pervaded specially in the past decade. The government continues to shield the perpetrators from any form of accountability. Rajapaksas have a history of startling public crimes committed with impunity. An exploration of judicial history exposes Sri Lanka’s Impunity Club. While the Rajapaksas have much to answer for, from alleged stolen assets to war crimes, the corruption and impunity that contributed to the current crisis had been enjoyed by Sri Lanka’s political elite for many decades before they took power.

In a ICJ report titled The Crisis of Impunity in Sri Lanka (2012), it says, ‘..in Sri Lanka,  impunity has over the years become institutionalized and systematized: mechanisms to hold state actors to account for their actions have been eroded; checks on the arbitrary use of power have been diluted, if not dissolved; institutions to protect the independence of the judiciary have been eviscerated; the Attorney-General has become politicized; and political forces have continually sought to influence and interfere with the judiciary. Blatant disregard for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary has crippled the justice system, leaving victims with little or no prospect of remedies or reparations for serious human rights violations’

More importantly, even beyond, those of us at the grass-roots, the bystanders should not take the eye off the ball and therefore should remember this day of US/UK invasion, because the war’s goals still remain in place: expanding US military domination, controlling oil and pipelines, building an empire of military bases and also the wars raging across the world. Before the war, across the globe, some millions of people, in hundreds of cities and dozens of countries all over the world including US, rose up embracing the same slogan; “the world says no to war!” The call came in scores of languages and the cry “Not in Our Name” echoed from millions of voices. Although it did not stop the war — and almost everyone knew that it could not and would not stop the war — it sent the message to the rulers that for once, citizens were not just apathetic in the face of their governments’ resort to the use of mass violence. For once, populations showed that even if it did not affect their immediate lives in their cities and countries, they cared. Even when the matter at hand was the lives of people far away, they cared. 

We must therefore in our ways help the world to understand profoundly and intuitively what the Iraq invasion was, what it did to humanity, how much suffering it caused and for how little justifiable reason. We can therefore help build up grass-root level human chains to prevent such lying, warmongering empires from playing war-games and ruining people’s lives in the future, in the way they did 2 decades ago.

As Sri Lanka stands in its own shadow, it, Sri Lankans too should reflect on the harm that impunity has caused to their country’s international image and the gradual erosion of confidence of its’ people in the process of rule of law. Failing to hold those accountable for their actions, and inactions that lead to harm and loss, and compensate the victims adequately, fails humanity as a whole.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 8

    Why did the International Criminal Court issue an arrest warrant for Putin who abducted a hundred Ukrainian children, while it did nothing when Bush and Blair murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children?

    • 1

      old codger
      Because, Machang, under the International Law, killing children is not a war crime but evacuating children for safety is a war crime.
      The ICC weaklings have never heard of a country that is at (war) ever evacuating children from conflict areas for safety and issuing air siren warnings to civilians before launching any attacks. This is one of the reasons Russia is different. Russian President Vladimir Putin is different. The charismatic leader he is. I don’t want to hide. I have great respect for him. I wish Sri Lankans had such a leader who put people before self.
      I have been writing about the Ukraine crisis for one full year. There are two things that made me happy this week.

      • 1

        One, Mr. Putin’s visit to Crimea and the Donetsk region. I watched videos of him visiting Crimea by car and the Donetsk region by helicopter and then going around several cities, especially Mariupol, driving a car and talking to pleasantly surprised people. There were other random vehicles on the road. He risked his life. Such valor is absolutely rare in a leader. I am sure his visit has given an added impetus to Russian soldiers who fight to defend their motherland. He looked so relaxed and happy, so much so, some people have even suggested that it was not him but his “double” (whatever it is). I can say it is Mr. Putin and what we heard was his voice. What does his visit mean? Did he set his feet there to seal the annexation and remind the world that they are Russian territories?
        It is so heartwarming to see the “new Mariupol clean city” with brand new condominiums, children’s parks and so on. I have written so much about Mariupol/Donbass people and their agony of hiding in gloomy basements to protect their lives. The houses they lived in were old, dilapidated houses which should have been demolished decades ago. I am so happy for them.

        • 1

          The second reason is, Chinese President Xi Jingping’s “peace mission” to Russia.
          In March last year, I suggested that the peace-trio (China, France and Germany) led by Chinese President Xi Jingping should mediate between Russia and Ukraine to find a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine crisis. After one year it is happening. France and Germany have no part in this peace initiative as they are directly involved in escalating the Ukrainian crisis.
          China’s Position Paper highlights the importance of evacuating civilians from conflict areas which will be a good start. Oh, I wish to congratulate China for its mediation in brokering a difficult peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia and I wish all the best for China, Russia and Ukraine to find a common ground to start peace negotiations. The US is the only country that doesn’t want peace in Ukraine. All the other countries anxiously waiting for it.
          (Oh, I have some other comments in relation to this article.)

    • 5

      Is it not a matter of the kid who owns the ball making the rules of the game?

    • 3


      I am just seeing it, so I will add some observations before they close the comments here.

      I firmly opposed the second intervention in Iraq by the US.
      But Iraq and Saddam had a history with Bush’s father ( Bush Snr.), going back to its aggression against Kuwait, Gulf War I, and then trying to plot the assassination of Bush Snr during the Clinton Presidency. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds.

      The US wasn’t interested in territorial expansion in Iraq. Nor did the Americans take away thousands of children without their parents for indoctrination as Americans. Russia took thousands of Ukrainian children away from their parents to convert them into Russians. Moreover, thousands in Iraq died in sectarian violence when Saddam was in control, and that has to be compared to what happened in similar sectarian violence in the aftermath of the invasion. So your attempt to show a parallel without considering all relevant facts doesn’t succeed.

  • 6

    Thank you, Lukman Harees, for bringing back to us this terrible, criminal action for which the perpetrators — as is the case in our own country – enjoyed total impunity; while the victims, a country and a people, are still suffering to this day.

    It was on my birthday, 18/3/2003, that I/we, in Sri Lanka, learnt that the West was going ahead with its shock and awe campaign, based on a tissue of lies. And with the 20th anniversary of that horrendous decision, I have been reading about the impact on Iraq and its people that continues to this day.

    As well as summaries of the Chilcot inquiry.
    Just like our politicians, Blair (& Bush, of course) got away with lying and murder. He was subsequently awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush & knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.

    What a world we live in!

    • 3

      Manel, “Just like our politicians Blair and Bush got away with lying and murder”. You are absolutely right. Accountability as now turned into blame game, used as an excuse, tit for tat, pointing at others when we Lankans have murderous Rajapaksas, among us, still representing people in Parliament and criminals (so called political leaders) who are in power with impunity, around the world.

  • 5

    I also listened to Robin Cook’s resignation speech which the English Guardian provided on 17/3/23 in a video of the complete speech at:


    Here is an excerpt:

    “Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

    Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

    I welcome the strong personal commitment that the Prime Minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain’s positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.”

    • 0

      Manal, I agree with many of Agnos and your observation on U.S / Iraq conflict. Regardless of who committed, I am not a person to defend wrongs. Like Agnos, I too firmly oppose the second invasion, based on distorted facts. I still feel happy about participating in the anti- war protest, which took place in the State where I was residing then. I was also a signatory of a petition handed over during protest ,to then Senator and Congressman. But this mere fact should not enable or excuse other aggressors who commit the same sins. Lately it’s not the U.S , but China (South China Sea, conflict with India ) and Russia are the Regional Aggressors”.

  • 0

    US invasion of Iraq. The term “invasion” is exclusively used for other countries, not for the US. Invasions by the US led NATO has a different term, “liberation”.
    There is a long list of countries that are invaded by the US including “Anowara-kowa” (The Great Turtle) which was later named by Columbus as “New World” and then “America” by mapmaker Martin Waldseemüller in honour of Italian navigator, Amerigo Vespucci. There are others who believe that America was a part of the ancient Moroccan Empire and that the name America derived from the word “Al Morocco”. Today’s America is a country invaded by European settler colonists in 1492 AD which belonged to First “Innus” or “Inuits” (humans). Before Europeans, Norsemen had been landed there calling it “Vinland” (a word derived from Wine Land). The Americans invaded and occupied America killing millions of First Innus who lived there for hundreds of thousands of years.

    • 0

      Over a period of the last 22 years, the US has dropped 344,000 bombs and missiles in the greater Middle East. Approximately half of it (about 159,000) was dropped on Iraq and Syria. The last time the US dropped bombs on Iraqi forces in Syria was February 22, 2022. The order has come from President Joe Biden to drop seven 500-pound bombs on Iraqi forces in Syria, killing 22 people.
      Just imagine, how many millions of people have been killed by the US and its allies and partners so far? At least 30 million!!!! In Iraq itself, 1.2 million people were being killed by the US. About 12 million in Congo. At least 300,000 in Yemen, 165,000 in Afghanistan and millions in other countries. This is a classic example of US led NATO’s hypocrisy and double standards.
      The term “regime change” (or “overthrowing democratically elected foreign leaders and their governments”) was introduced to the world by the US and followed by its allies and partners who constantly brag that they are at the vanguard of democracy and human rights!!!!!

      • 0

        This is a list of regime changes, attempted regime changes, meddling in elections, assassinations and coups d’état funded and encouraged by the US in other countries.
        1. Hawaii 1893
        2. Cuba 1933
        3. East Germany 1945
        4. Japan 1945
        5. North Vietnam 1945-1973
        6. Syria, 1949
        7. Albania 1949-1953
        8. China 1949 to 1960
        9. South Korea, 1953
        10. Iran 1953
        11. British Guinea 1953-1964
        12. Guatemala 1954
        13. Costa Rica mid 1950s
        14. Cambodia 1955-1970
        15. Syria 1956-1957
        16. Egypt 1957
        17. Indonesia 1957-1958
        18. Laos 1958, 1959 and 1960
        19. Cuba 1959
        20. Congo 1960-1965
        21. Ecuador 1960-1963
        22. Brazil 1962-1964
        23. Iraq 1963
        24. South Vietnam 1963
        25. Dominican Republic 1963
        26. Brazil 1964
        27. British Guinea 1964
        28. Bolivia 1964
        29. Chile 1964-1973
        30. Dominican Republic, 1965
        31. Indonesia 1965
        32. France 1965
        33. Ghana 1966
        34. Greece 1967
        35. Cambodia 1970
        36. Costa Rica 1970-1971
        37. Bolivia 1971
        38. Chile 1973
        39. Portugal 1974-1976
        40. Australia 1973-1975

        • 0

          41. Angola 1975 to 1980
          42. Zaire 1975
          43. Portugal, 1976
          44. Argentina, 1976
          45. Jamaica 1976-1980
          46. Seychelles 1979-1981
          47. Turkey, 1980
          48. Libya 1980
          49. Afghanistan 1980
          50. Chad 1981-1982
          51. Nicaragua 1981-1990
          52. South Yemen 1982-1984
          53. Suriname 1982-1984
          54. Grenada 1983
          55. Fiji, 1987
          56. Nicaragua, 1987
          57. Afghanistan, 1989
          58. Panama 1989-1994
          59. Bulgaria, 1990
          60. Haiti 1991
          61. Albania, 1991
          62. Iraq 1991-1996
          63. Somalia 1993
          64. Haiti 1994-1995
          65. Zaire 1996-1997
          66. Yugoslavia 1999-2000
          67. Ecuador 2000
          68. Afghanistan 2001-2021
          69. Venezuela, 2002
          70. Iraq 2003-2021
          71. Haiti 2004
          72. Kyrgyzstan 2005
          73. Syria 2005-2009
          74. Palestinian territories 2006-2007
          75. Somalia 2007 to present
          76. Honduras 2009
          77. Libya 2011
          78. Syria 2012-2017
          79. Ukraine 2014
          80. Sri Lanka 2015
          81. Sri Lanka 2022
          82. Then there are several other failed attempts.
          83. Which country is next or will there be an ending to Americoups?
          Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in the US?
          A: Because there’s no American Embassy there! (William Henry Blum, an American Author and Critic)

          • 4

            What — What was the US involvement in Sri Lanka in 2015?

            • 2

              Do you seriously think that the US and India played no role in the outcome of the elections held in that year?
              (This is just an example. These matters are seldom given publicity unlike certain other spy stories.)

              • 4

                SAV, sorry buddy. I was about to warn you about China Man jumping in, but seems too late. Any comment on the link provided by China Man who refuse to believe China financed Rajapaksas.

                • 0

                  Poor sod.
                  Has Manel F. hurt your feelings by jumping into your great revelation about Badiuddin’s famous speech at Galle Face?

                  • 2

                    Manel .F, is absolutely right. How can a matured honest person like her can hurt anyone feelings. It’s Chimpa, you and that imaginative autistic companion of Chimpa , creating facts at will.

                    • 2

                      Do you want Manel .F to help with your comprehension.

          • 3

            Chimpa, SillyLanka 2015, 2022, what about the rest, especially those, where China sponsored Rajapaksas to get elected. “Of course, of course , it’s important to know the background of the issue”, as in Dr . Shaffi’s case, where you and your imaginative companion of yours were hiding under operation theater bed whole night collecting information, while the doctor was performing illegal sterilization procedures in the dark with no assistance whatsoever. What can we say ????? According to Chimpa, the coming elections too are financed by U.S, because Lanka got IMF loans sanctioned. If you print the ballot paper with loaned money , then it has to be U.S financed.

  • 0

    Russia’s position on ICC’s arrest order is announced. They are correct. Under Customary International Law, a “sitting” President enjoys absolute immunity (personal and functional). In addition, Russia is not a State Party to the ICC. Therefore, even a State Party to the ICC has no jurisdiction to arrest a “sitting” President of a Non-state Party, or even a “sitting” President of a State Party, during an overseas visit. (German Justice Minister is wrong). However, some others seem to be aware that the ICC’s arrest order will never work. That is why there is renewed call for a “regime change” and “a new government” in Russia hoping that even after a decade, one day, Russia’s incumbent President’s successor/s will hand over him to the ICC. Anyway, it will NEVER happen, as Russia is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. End of the story.

    • 0

      Are there provisions for the ICC to even prosecute a “sitting” President? I don’t think so. (That is why I questioned in one of my comments elsewhere whether the ICC made reference to relevant clauses in the International Law under which the arrest order was made.)
      The ICJ clearly states that under the International Law, Heads of State enjoy immunity for all acts performed, both in official and private capacity, during their tenure in office, which means that the ICC has no jurisdiction whatsoever to prosecute an “incumbent” President. ICC’s Chief Prosecutor should revoke the arrest order made against the Russian President. Who is behind this wrong prosecution?

  • 0

    I have some information about ICCs mandate.
    1. As a Permanent Member of the UNSC, Russia can use its veto power to protect President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s Child Commissioner from ICC’s prosecution or even people in other countries. That is one.
    2. And, the other is as a Permanent Member, Russia may be able to take some action against the ICC for the arrest order against Mr. Putin for consciously violating ICJ’s ruling that Heads of State enjoy immunity for all acts performed during their tenure in office. The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC may be asked to provide details of relevant provisions under International Law that prompted him to issue an arrest order against a sitting President.
    3. Russia has already opened a criminal case against the ICC based on its national proceedings, challenging ICC’s arrest order.
    4. There are three ways for the UNSC to deal with the ICC.
    a. By way of a referral (Article 13 (b) of the Rome Statute)
    b. By way of a deferral (Article 16 of the Statue)
    c. By cooperating with the ICC on court cases

    • 0

      5. Next month, Russia will chair the UN Security Council. Other than the veto power, does the Presidency enjoy other powers? Will Russia submit a referral to the ICC to prosecute the Ukrainian President for committing war crimes in the Donbass region and blocking water to Crimea? And, there are war crimes committed by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria…… I don’t know what Russia will do.
      I am not an expert on this subject. I am sure Russia has experts on International Law. I am posting this comment for the use of Sri Lanka.
      There are reports that the US Ambassador in Colombo blackmailed high ranking military officers threatening them over unsubstantiated war crimes and issued them with orders on domestic matters. I want them to read my comment. First of all, Ambassadors have no right to summon government officials of the host country let alone issue them with orders. Therefore, they need not visit the US Embassy. If the Ambassador threatens them with war crimes cases at the ICC, tell her to go ahead. Sri Lanka can deal with it. When the time comes, I will do the needful or I will tell what to do.

  • 2

    Why Iraq, what has US imperialism learned after its failure in Korea and, even worse, utter humiliation in Vietnam 48 years ago.
    The US media will continue fooling the public with tales of success until truth strikes home.

    • 0

      I guess Russia has reported it’s losses truthfully in current Ukrainian conflict and even worse, utter humiliation in Afghan years ago. .. Russian media must be most reliable source of information after Chinese.

      • 0

        Things are getting pretty desperate for the US proxy.
        Now the sidekick of the US has offered missiles with depleted uranium to the ‘winning side’.
        There were pathetic creatures that thought that the US was having its way in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The US only destroyed countries.

  • 3

    In case anyone is interested — tho, from the paucity of comments, that is doubtful — here is a summary of the massive Chilcot Report, plus a video of Blair urging the invasion on various occasions:


    What a world that allows a man like Tony Blair to emerge unscathed & continue to win position & wealth.

    • 2

      The US wields control if not absolute power over various international bodies, even without membership.
      It is the only power that meddles in the affairs of other countries with absolute impunity through various underhand arms of subversion when it cannot act directly.
      Things have taken a noticeable turn recently, but changes will be slow even of certain.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.