U.S. President George W. Bush again confirmed his intention to continue
waging wars of aggression in his
State of the Union message on January 20, 2004.
He began his address:
" As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American service men
and women are deployed across the world in the war on
terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to
the violent, they are making America more secure."
"Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American
people... America is on the offensive against the terrorists..."
Continuing, he said:
" ...our coalition is leading aggressive raids against the surviving
members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.... Men who ran away from our
troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows."
In Iraq, he reported:
"Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or
killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600
patrols a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids a week...."
Explaining his aggression, President Bush stated:
"...After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough
to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their
supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got."
Forget law. No more legal papers, or rights. Forget truth. The claim
that either Afghanistan, or Iraq declared war on the U.S. is absurd.
The U.S. chose to attack both nations, from one end to the other, violating
their sovereignty and changing their "regimes", summarily
executing thousands of men, women and children in the process. At least
40,000 defenseless people in Iraq have been killed by U.S.
violence since the latest aggression began in earnest in March 2003
starting with its celebrated, high tech, terrorist "Shock and Awe" and
continuing until now with 25, or more, U.S. raids daily causing mounting
deaths and injuries.
All this death-dealing aggression has occurred during a period, Mr.
Bush boasts, of "over two years without an attack on American
soil". The U.S. is guilty of pure aggression, arbitrary repression
and false portrayal of the nature and purpose of its violence.
President Bush's brutish mentality is revealed in his condemnations
of the "killers" and "thugs in Iraq" "who ran away from our troops
in battle". U.S. military expenditures and technology threaten and
impoverish life on the planet. Any army that sought to stand up
against U.S. air power and weapons of mass destruction in open battle
would be annihilated. This is what President Bush seeks when
he says "Bring 'em on."
President Bush declared his intention to change the "Middle East" by
" As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair
and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that
threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing
a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We
will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror,
and expect a higher standard from our friends."
"...America is a nation with a mission... we understand our special
calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom."
He extended his threat to any nation he may choose:
" As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting
the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them
with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The United States and
our allies are determined: We refuse to live in the shadow of this
President Bush's utter contempt for the United Nations is revealed in
his assertion that the United States and other countries "have
enforced the demands of the United Nations", ignoring the refusal of
the U.N. to approve a war of aggression against Iraq and implying
the U.N. had neither the courage nor the capacity to pursue its own
His total commitment to unilateral U.S. action, was asserted by President
Bush when he sarcastically referred to the "permission slip" a
school child needs to leave a classroom:
" America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security
of our people".
President Bush intends to go it alone, because his interest is American
power and wealth alone, though he prefers to use the youth of
NATO countries and others as cannon folder in his wars.
President Bush believes might makes right and that the end justifies
the means. He declares:
"...the world without Saddam Husseins regime is a better and safer
So U.S. military technology which is omnicidal- capable of destroying
all life on the planet-will be ordered by President Bush to make
the world "a better and safer place" by destroying nations and individuals
President Bush presided over 152 executions in Texas, far more than
any other U.S. governor since World War II. Included were
women, minors, retarded persons, aliens in violation of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations and innocent persons. He never
acted to prevent a single execution. He has publicly proclaimed the
right to assassinate foreign leaders and repeatedly boasted of
summary executions and indiscriminate killing in State of the Union
messages and elsewhere.
The danger of Bush unilateralism is further revealed when he states:
" Colonel Qaddafi correctly judged that his country would be better
off, and far more secure without weapons of mass murder. Nine
months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great
Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with
Iraq did not."
Forget diplomacy, use "intense negotiations". If President Bush believed
it was "diplomacy", which maintained genocidal sanctions
against Iraq for twelve years that failed, rather than an effort to
crush Iraq to submission, then why didn't he use "nine months of
intense negotiations" to avoid a war of aggression against Iraq? He
was President for nearly twenty seven months before the criminal
assault on Iraq, he apparently intended all along. Iraq was no threat
What President Bush means by "intense negotiations" includes a threat
of military aggression with the example of Iraq to show this in
no bluff. The Nuremberg Judgment held Goerings threat to destroy Prague
unless Czechoslovakia surrendered Bohemia and Moravia
to be an act of aggression.
If Qaddafi "correctly judged his country would be better off, and far
more secure, without weapons of mass murder", why would the
United States not be better off, and far more secure, if it eliminated
all its vast stores of nuclear weapons? Is not the greatest danger
from nuclear proliferation today without question President Bush's
violations of the Non Proliferation (NPT), ABM and Nuclear Test
Ban treaties by continuing programs for strategic nuclear weapons,
failing to negotiate in good faith to achieve "nuclear disarmament"
after more than thirty years and development of a new generation of
nuclear weapons, small "tactical" weapons of mass murder, which
he would use in a minute? Has he not threatened to use existing strategic
nuclear weapons? The failure of the "nuclear weapon State
Party(s)" to the NPT to work in good faith to achieve "nuclear disarmament
these past 36 years is the reason the world is still
confronted with the threat of nuclear war and proliferation.
None of the many and changing explanations, excuses, or evasions offered
by President Bush to justify his war of aggression can erase
the crimes he has committed. Among the less invidious misleading statements,
President Bush made on January 20, 2004 was:
" Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related
program activities and significant amounts of
equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."
Three days later, Dr. Kay told Reuters he thought Iraq had illicit weapons
at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but that by a
combination of U.N. inspections and Iraq's own decisions, "it got rid
of them". He further said it "is correct" to say Iraq does not have
any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in the country.
He has added that no evidence of any chemical or biological
weapons have been found in Iraq.
Iraq did not use illicit weapons in the 1991 Gulf war. The U.S. did
- 900 tons plus of depleted uranium, fuel air explosives, super
bombs,, cluster bombs with civilians and civilian facilities the "direct
object of attack". The U.S. claimed to destroy 80% of Iraq's
military armor. It dropped 88,500 tons of explosives, 7 1/2 Hiroshima's,
on the country in 42 days. Iraq was essentially defenseless.
Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians perished. The U.S.
reported 157 casualties, 1/3 from friendly fire, the remainder non
U.N. inspectors over more than 6 years of highly intrusive physical
inspections found and destroyed 90% of the materials required to
manufacture nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. U.N. sanctions
imposed August 6, 1990 had caused the deaths of 567,000
children under age five by October 1996, the U.N. FAO reported. Twenty
four percent of the infants born live in Iraq in 2002 had a
dangerously low birth weight below 2 kilos, symbolizing the condition
of the whole population.
In March 2003 Iraq was incapable of carrying out a threat against the
U.S., or any other country, and would have been pulverized by
U.S. forces in place in the Gulf had it tried.
More than thirty five nations admit the possession of nuclear, chemical
and/or biological weapons. Are these nations, caput lupinum,
lawfully subject to destruction because of their mere possession of
WMDs? The U.S. possesses more of each of these impermissible
weapons than all other nations combined, and infinitely greater capacity
for their delivery anywhere on earth within hours. Meanwhile
the U.S. increases its military expenditures, which already exceed
those of all other nations on earth combined, and its technology
which is exponentially more dangerous.
The U.N. General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression
of December 14, 1974 provides in part:
Article 1: Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against
the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another
Article 2: The first use of armed force by a State in contravention
of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of
Article 3: Any of the following acts ... qualify as an act of aggression:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory
of another State, or any military occupation, however
temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack;
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory
of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the
territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces
of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air
forces, or marine and air fleets of another State.
If the U.S. assault on Iraq is not a War of Aggression under international
law, then there is no longer such a crime as War of
Aggression. A huge, all powerful nation has assaulted a small prostrate,
defenseless people half way around the world with "Shock and
Awe" terror and destruction, occupied it and continues daily assaults.
President Bush praises U.S. soldiers' "...skill and their courage in
armored charges, and midnight raids." which terrorize and kill innocent
Iraqis, women, children, families, nearly every day and average
180 attacks each week.
The first crime defined in the Constitution annexed to the Charter of
the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) under Crimes
Against Peace is War of Aggression. II.6.a. The Nuremberg Judgment
" The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged
aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity. War is
essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the
belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world."
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international
crime, it is the supreme international crime...
The "seizure" of Austria in March 1938 and of Bohemia and Moravia from
Czechoslovakia in March 1939 following the threat to
destroy Prague were judged to be acts of aggression by the Tribunal
even in the absence of actual war and after Britain, France, Italy
and Germany had agreed at Munich to cede Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland
The first conduct judged to be a war of aggression by Nazi Germany was
its invasion of Poland in September 1939. There followed a
long list, Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg,
Yugoslavia, Greece. The attack on the USSR, together
with Finland, Romania and Hungary, was adjudged as follows:
It was contended for the defendants that the attack upon the U.S.S.R.
was justified because the Soviet Union was contemplating an
attack upon Germany, and making preparations to that end. It is impossible
to believe that this view was ever honestly entertained.
The plans for the economic exploitation of the U.S.S.R., for the removal
of masses of the population, for the murder of Commissars
and political leaders, were all part of the carefully prepared scheme
launched on 22 June without warning of any kind, and without the
shadow of legal excuses. It was plain aggression.
The United Nations cannot permit U.S. power to justify its wars of aggression
if it is to survive as a viable institution for ending the
scourges of war, exploitation, hunger, sickness and poverty. Comparatively
minor acts and wars of aggression by the United States in
the last 20 years, deadly enough for their victims, in Grenada, Libya,
Panama, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Sudan, Yugoslavia,
Cuba, Yemen with many other nations threatened, sanctioned, or attacked,
some with U.N. complicity and all without effective United
Nations resistance, made the major deadly wars of aggression against
Afghanistan and Iraq possible.
Failure to condemn the massive U.S. war of aggression and illegal occupation
of Iraq and any U.N. act providing colorable legitimacy to
the U.S. occupation will open wide the gate to further, greater aggression.
The line must be drawn now.
The United Nations must recognize and declare the U.S. attack and occupation
of Iraq to be the war of aggression it is. It must refuse
absolutely to justify, or condone the aggression, the illegal occupation
and the continuing U.S. assaults in Iraq. The U.N. must insist
that the U.S. withdraw from Iraq as it insisted Iraq withdraw from
Kuwait in 1990.
There must be no impunity or profit for wars of aggression.
The U.S. and U.S. companies must surrender all profits and terminate
all contracts involving Iraq.
There must be strict accountability by U.S. leaders and others for crimes
have committed against Iraq and compensation by the
U.S. government for the damage its aggression has inflicted on Afghanistan
and Iraq, the peoples injured there and stability and harm
done to world peace.
This must be done with care to prevent the eruption of internal divisions,
or violence and any foreign domination or exploitation in Iraq.
The governance of a united Iraq must be returned to the diverse peoples
who live there, acting together consensually in peace for their
common good as soon as possible.
The identical letter has been sent to:
Members of the UN Security Council
The President of the UN General Assembly
The Secretary General of the UN
The President of the United States
On March 20, join Ramsey Clark and thousands of others in the mass protest
at Times Square in New York City to demand
"Impeach Bush" and "Bring the troops home now," and more. If you have
not yet signed the demand to Impeach Bush, click here
to cast your vote, and to access the materials available at the new
Impeach Bush Resource Center, click here. Check your email in the
coming days for more information on the March 20 demonstration in New
York City and those being held around the country to learn
how you can join the Impeach Bush contingents.
Good Works On Earth is a
charitable and educational non-profit organization.
Good Works On Earth All Rights ReServed World Wise
Burnishings to the
Gold Standard began on : 20051213
This page was last updated in some way on : 20090110