Tuesday, October 26, 2010

WPost Downplays Iraq War Crimes

By Robert Parry
October 26, 2010

The judges at Nuremberg after World War II had a much deeper understanding of the horrors of war than the neocon editors at the Washington Post do. Assessing the barbarity unleashed by the Nazis, the Nuremberg Tribunal identified “war of aggression” as “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Read on.


rosemerry said...

The whole invasion, following the vicious sanctions which were mainly US/UK supported,destroyed a civilised, educated country whose leader had been armed,supplied and encouraged for decades by the "West". The Post continues its dishonest, mean-spirited "troubled" response, which should surprise nobody.
"It's the war, stupid", and Saddam Hussein, for all his faults, held together a diverse country where intermarriage was common and fundamentalism was not tolerated.

Anonymous said...

Moslems have different conception of human rights than us so I think this whole document release is simply making a mountain of a mole hill. we in the west are ever so persnickety worrying about the teeniest scratch on our chosen enemies. Our innate kindness is what weakens us where we should be resolute.

Ethan Allen said...

Yet another excellent and succinct piece of factual reporting by an actual journalist. Thank you once again, Robert Parry!

Re: "rosemerry said..."
While much of what you say seems well intended, it would serve the veracity your narrative well if you drilled back a little further into the beginning of the relationship between the U.S. government and Saddam Hussein; back, for instance, to the point in time when he was merely a violent fundamentalist thug being employed by the CIA to disrupt, and eventually prevent, the most educated and progressive people in the region from establishing a democratically elected government.

Re: "drkissinger said"
How is it that you presume to speak for "us", "we", and "our"? Is that not symbolic of a very egotistical pretense that you speak not only for yourself, but all the people of the Western world? Does simply having a different opinion qualify another person as your enemy?
The mountain that is at issue here is one comprised of the hundreds of thousands of people killed, maimed, tortured, and otherwise violated; who were not party to any political, economic, or petty ideological dispute, and whose lives can not be allowed to be callously disregarded by such ignorant charlatans as yourself.