Probably too busy with the holy shopping before Christmas and brainwashed by those disciplined propaganda workers controlling Wonderland’s thoughts, We, the people should reflect on the following:

a) the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq has violated international law and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called it “an illegal act that contravened the UN charter”, the “supreme international crime” according to Nuremberg’ trials;
b) since March 2003 Iraq is an occupied country and the so-called political process has been imposed by the occupation forces against international law;
c) the so-called Iraqi government is a quisling government, installed by the occupation forces and doing its masters’ bidding;
d) the invasion of Iraq, that “illegal act that contravened the UN charter” has caused the death of about one million human beings in less than four years and the complete destruction of a sovereign country;
e) just a few weeks ago the United Nations Human Rights Council said that "The non-observance of the relevant international standards during Mr. Hussein's trial was of such gravity as to confer Mr. Hussein's deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character"

According to the same Institut Novatris/Harris study, Western public opinion favors the withdrawal of the US-led coalition troops from Iraq as following:

France 90%
Spain 84%
UK 83%
Germany 82%
Italy 73%
US 66%

One wonders why so many people want the withdrawal of the US-led coalition troops from Iraq when at the same time they favor the assassination of the legitimate president of Iraq? This contradiction can also be found in much part of the Western anti-war movement, where groups, think-tanks and influential intellectuals have strongly opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq but have always been silent on the first political consequence of that invasion, when not advocating for it and applauding the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. One doesn’t have to be a supporter of the Iraqi Baath party or the Saddam Hussein’s regime to uphold international law and the UN Charter.

While the political position of those Iraqis who opposed Saddam Hussein’s regime and left their country for political reasons must be respected and their voice heard and taken in the most serious consideration, the international anti-war movement needs to remember that Saddam Hussein’s government has not been overthrown by a popular uprising or a political coup. On 20 March 2003, the day of the “illegal act that contravened the UN charter” by the US-led “coalition of the willing”, Saddam Hussein was the legitimate president of Iraq and his government the legitimate government of Iraq. This is not an opinion or a political position but a fact of life, a simple observation of the status quo ante bellum. Opposing the “supreme international crime” that cost the lives of about one million human beings means upholding international law and calling for its restoration. The diverse, respectable and legitimate political opinions motivated by the political judgment of Saddam Hussein’s regime must not take the place of international law because such a position would legitimate that “supreme international crime”, that “illegal act that contravened the UN charter” we want to oppose. Recognizing the so-called Iraqi quisling government and the so-called political process means legitimizing the invasion and occupation of Iraq and open the door to more “supreme international crimes” in the future.

The sacrosanct US-led coalition troops withdrawal must be the consequence of the restoration of international law to the status quo ante bellum, while the future of Iraq must be left to its own People. Anything else would be a betrayal of those principles of peace, justice and self-determination we claim to uphold.

Killing Saddam Hussein, the legitimate president of Iraq, will be the real turning point; after that - there won’t be  a country called Iraq. How can the anti-war movement be so tragically blind?

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: