Trademark Jaw-Dropping US Hypocrisy On Display re Saudi Aggression vs. Russian “Aggression”
By Robert Barsocchini
29 March, 2015
Washington has for months been screaming about Russian “aggression” against post-US-backed coup Ukraine. The screams are never accompanied by any clear evidence (perhaps highlighting why the screaming is so important), which the governments of Germany and other European countries recently announced is for good reason: the claims are merely more of Washington’s characteristic, self-serving distortions.
Condemnation of Russian “aggression” was already a case study in US-American hypocrisy, as the US is the country that has carried out, and is continuing, the worst case of aggression of the century, the invasion of Iraq, which, as part of its ongoing, wider war for hegemony over the Middle East, has slaughtered somewhere on the order of 1 to 2 or more million people in the last ten years, according to a new study by the Nobel-winning Physicians for Social Responsibility. (This is in addition to the approximately ten thousand of its “own” people the US has slaughtered domestically in the last ten or so years.)
Adding to this, the US is now openly coordinating another act of naked aggression committed by a tandem force of two US-collaborator countries competing for the title of world’s worst domestic dictatorship: Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Amazingly (though typically), the US and its media partners, such as NBC, are trying to spin the Saudi invasion as a Saudi “proxy” war… It isn’t. The Saudis are not using proxies. They themselves are doing it… openly, as terrorist states backed by the US are often wont to do. If it is a proxy war in any way, it is a US proxy war, since the Saudis are using US planes and being coordinated by the United States, making them, arguably, US proxies.
All of this serves to continue to underline, for the X-thousandth time, the cornerstone operating principle of the United States: We can do anything, and places we want to conquer can do nothing (the principle of any unreasonable person or group with a lust for power over others).
Part of this principle involves ignoring that, while the Saudis are “desperate to portray this [their invasion of Yemen] as a counter to Iran”, and that is supposed to be the excuse for the aggression (legally, excuses for aggression are irrelevant and to be ignored), Russia would not be allowed to use “countering the US/NATO expansion” as a reason for supporting Ukrainian anti-coup democrats. That would be violating the US principle: you are not allowed to counter the terrorism of the US or its collaborators, such as the freedom-loving Saudi “royal” dictatorship. Thus Russian can have no involvement with eastern Ukrainian democrats, while the US can organize a terrorist army to destroy Syria, as it continues to do.
Also of continued note here is that Saudi Arabia is a semi-nuclear state: it has a deal to order nukes at any time from Pakistan (which the US openly helped go nuclear in the early 90s), and the Saudi Ambassador today announced that Saudi Arabia will not rule out making nukes, and will never negotiate about making nukes. (The idea that the US cares about Islamic fundamentalist states having nukes was debunked long ago, as noted above re Pakistan.) The US-backed Saudi example stands in contrast to Iran, which invades no one, loudly disavows nuclear weapons, has no nuclear weapons, is not pursuing them (according to the US’s own spies), and is the most inspected country in the world. Millions of Iranians have been killed with US support since 1953, and Iran remains under harsh US-led threat and siege (sanction), with its civilian nuclear program as the pretext. The international community supports Iran’s right to a nuclear program.
Also see Antiwar.com’s “No Proxy War: Saudi Invasion of Yemen just Flat Out Aggression“.
A researcher from the above-cited Physician’s for Social Responsibility body-count study notes: “A politically useful option for U.S. political elites has been to attribute the on-going violence to internecine conflicts of various types, including historical religious animosities, as if the resurgence and brutality of such conflicts is unrelated to the destabilization cause by decades of outside military intervention,” they write. “As such, under-reporting of the human toll attributed to ongoing Western interventions, whether deliberate of through self-censorship, has been key to removing the ‘fingerprints’ of responsibility.”
Comments are moderated