Ten Years On. The Bloodiest War. the Dirtiest Lies.

History is littered with easily defined tyrants, and their lust for power, resulting in wars quite justifiably deemed criminal and unjust. Some were so good at waging war that history views them with awe rather than horror. Figures such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and the Emperors of the Roman Empire come into this category. Although there was no justification for their acts of aggression, there is a kind of ‘they were good at what they did’ attitude which sees their exploits viewed as momentous rather than callous, murderous and greedy; chiefly because of the huge mark they left on recorded history.

In more modern times, when a more liberal and reasoned view of the causes of war could reasonably be expected to bring about a more civilised means of settling disputes, we nonetheless saw the bloody carnage of the First World War, with foot-soldiers massacred under the onslaught of heavy artillery, their fervent goals of King and Country converted to little more than mincemeat and fertiliser. Some ten million military personnel, and seven million civilians died in the ‘Great War’ for little more reason than it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Twenty years later the second World War, for which the seeds had been planted by crippling reparations included in the armistice of the first, resulted in a wrecked economy and crippling inflation, bringing about the conditions which enabled Hitler to seize control of a humiliated Germany. His evil is so pervasive that he may never be viewed with the awe of his bloodthirsty predecessors. The Japanese too, undertook an aggressive expansion, in part because of a dearth of energy and manufacturing supplies from the West, and in part because of humiliation at the hands of a Western expansionist arrogance which saw Asia as a Colonial plaything of pompous Empire builders. Whatever justifications the aggressors thought they might have had, there is little doubt that evil, bloodthirsty and expansionist tyrants were soundly beaten by allies united in justice and honour.

The Korean War served as a chess-board on which the mutual paranoia between the Western purveyors of Capitalism and the Totalitarianism of Communism played out a deadly draw; and the Vietnam War, a Chop Suey of of rotting imperialism, paranoia and domino theory, saw the slaughterhouse of the US withdraw like craven dogs, despite inflicting deaths in the millions upon their third world opponents.

The Vietnam War was the first war which included participants from civilian ranks, whose mass demonstrations and exposure of the Allied lies through the myriad forms of mass media, but especially through that of our television screens, saw ‘rat-bag’ protesters take considerable credit for the U.S.’s ignominous withdrawal; minus 50,000 war dead.

It is sobering and depressing, therefore, to have lived through an era in which the greatest mass movement in history, armed with the most revolutionary means of communication yet devised, in the form of the internet, found itself impotent against a regime who had suffered the traumatic humiliation of 9/11, and was determined to demonstrate what havoc it was capable of inflicting in retaliation. The evil Saddam Hussein was the convenient recipient of this demonstration, and Iraq, the cradle of civilisation, was the modern secular Middle Eastern country chosen to be blown into ruins and chaos through the implementation of Shock and Awe, and the dehumanisation of the Iraqi people.

The lies and distortions of the perpetrators were supplemented and augmented by News Ltd., the Murdoch Press, which unequivocally downplayed the protestations of weapons inspectors, and inflated every exaggeration, distortion and downright lie of the aggressors. Saddam Hussein, in no doubt as to the intentions of the US, released thousands of CDs containing information on previous weapons caches, (his harbouring of Weapons of Mass Destruction being the justification for the invasion) and gave carte blanche to weapons inspectors; and millions of demonstrators around the world, seeing through the lies, marched hopelessly against a tsunami of propaganda released by the Murdoch Empire.

Bush, Blair, Howard, and their Liars-in-chiefs, the Rumsfords, the Cheneys, the Downers, literally drove honest men to their graves in their crusade, and Bush’s Secretary of State, the respected Colin Powell, perjured himself in a televised performance at the United Nations, a humiliation he will never live down.

What could be more ironic and hypocritical, than a country accusing another of harbouring weapons of mass destruction while raining a torrent of bombs and rockets on a hopeless opponent, an attack designed not just to hit military targets, but to wipe out the power, the television stations, the roads, and the water supplies, to the extent that ten years later, such services remain crippled.

As the ‘war’ continued, The Australian delighted in showing the heroic invaders giving water to their captives, as examples of the humanitarian way the US and its allies were conducting the war. Not even the Oz could disguise the slaughter on the streets though, as vehicles full of families were blasted into oblivion, and American thugs invaded houses full of families and dragged men away from their wives and children; ultimately to subject them to the unspeakable and barbaric conditions of Abu Ghraib Prison.

No weapons of mass destruction were found. Not one.

That champion of free speech, that paragon of a free press awash with blood, which questioned the patriotism of those opposed to the war, which lauded the destruction of Iraqi society, (still suffering regular bomb attacks to this day) and which attacked those who did not whole-heartedly support this wanton slaughter, such as the ABC, was supportive of an invasion, a war of aggression, mass human rights violations, and a naked abuse of power.

It is now engaged in a holier-than-thou campaign against a mild reform of media laws which would see, in some small degree, some answerability for a failure to report fairly, to be answerable for distortions, to forgo bias. It is not hard see why they don’t like it.

The Bloodiest War. The Dirtiest Lies. The Murdoch Press.

11 comments on “Ten Years On. The Bloodiest War. the Dirtiest Lies.

  1. Mark says:

    Saddam’s Iraq was a “modern secular Middle Eastern country”? Do you know anything about it at all?

    • BobInnes says:

      Saddam’s Iraq was modern, because of oil riches. Universities, hospitals, a high standard of living until the US chose to punish the people for Saddam’s crimes. It was secular in that there was freedom of religion, and certainly no extreme Islamism. No Burkas or veils for instance. It is in the Middle East I believe? Anything else you need to know?

      • Mark says:

        No “modern” government leaves power at the hands of an unelected, unnacountable tyrant; no “modern” government uses those very hands to gas by the million; no “modern” government raises a religious minority (Sunnis) into a sort of ethnic aristocracy; no “modern” government runs its only industries into the ground as its ruler basks in palaces.

        For all you might say about today’s Iraq, it is at least a democracy with secularism bound up with the constitution. Most Iraqis, even in 2006 at the height of sectarian warfare, supported the invasion. Don’t tell them they can’t have it.

      • BobInnes says:

        I don’t believe I referred to a modern ‘Government’, I was referring to a standard of living which has been blown back to the stone age by a ‘modern’ opponent who brought us (with your approval) Abu Ghraib Prison.

        “Most Iraqis, even in 2006 at the height of sectarian warfare, supported the invasion”? Do you know anything about it at all?

      • Mark says:

        Look at this: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/feb06/ViewsIraq_Feb06_graph5.gif

        In 2006, only one country had a vast majority of people support the war. Iraq. What’s your conspiracy theory for that?

      • BobInnes says:

        You’re joking aren’t you? Who conducted the poll, the BBC going door to door in Iraq?

      • BobInnes says:

        I had to stop Mark’s comments. A pity because I don’t mind a debate, but he insists that in 2006, when it was unsafe to step onto the streets of Iraq, BBC journalists were conducting a door to door survey of Iraqis, who told them how they loved being invaded. And he was serious!

  2. Brian Kent says:

    Great writing bob, and love the layout, so glad the Desert Star got to see the light of day, I think the US has to have a war going somewhere at all times or their economy would compltely crash. Which would not be a bad thing. The daily bombings that continue in Iraq are planted by the people of Iraq I think its a tribal war between the Sunni and the Shia, correct me if I am wrong. The Internet has become the only honest press, with people like yourself, the problem is getting the truth to the people. Murdoch has made certain that the US, UK and Australia get biased reports on all subjects.

    • BobInnes says:

      That’s right Brian, the bombings in Iraq are caused by internal power plays, the point being that there was no such conflict under Saddam’s iron rule. He was certainly a tyrant, but everything has gone backward for the people since the Yanks decided to kick someone’s arse because of 9/11; even if they did have nothing to do with it.

  3. I couldn’t agree more. Murdoch enjoys the status of being unelected and unaccountable, and makes or breaks politicians of all shades of the political spectrum (particularly those from the Left) at whim. A purveyor of big business and small government, Murdoch makes plutocrats such as Beaverbrook and Hirst look pale in comparison. I suspect that Rapacious Rupe may in fact be the Anti-Christ. When he dies, I hope that they bury the bastard face down – otherwise he’s likely to rise again. Enjoyed the article, keep up the good work.

  4. G.W. (Frodo) Krochmal says:

    Good article, ‘tho a little proof-reading for spelling errors etc might not have hurt. Pardon my fussiness, but I have been known to proof-read. More importantly, I agree with most of what you write. I, too, understand that Hussein was the best of a bad lot, and I also don’t believe that Howard, Bush or Murdoch are any better – in the same situation, they would be at least as bad, if not worse, than Hussein. At least he supported a good health system, which is more than the afore-mentioned scum would do.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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