The focus to this essay is the question: Who should bear responsibility for the death, damage, and destruction that arises from conflict(s) between nations that upon close, verifiable examination of the facts (originally given by the aggressor nation in support of the conflict), are found to be false and/or misleading?

The advent of any conflict between nations, especially those that demand global attention, do not just manifest from one day to the next; typically, their reason or reasons for inciting are orchestrated over a period of weeks, months and often years. The buildup of political rhetoric especially on the part of the aggressor nation is infused with accusations toward the opponent nation, utilizing every medium of the main stream media to its avail.

The so-called facts in support of such aggressive buildup are directed equally and strategically to both the domestic as well as the international audience to garner as much support as deemed needed to fully substantiate the inevitable, desired conflict. What comes into question here has to do with the ‘so-called facts’ in terms of their validity and veracity given their potential for dire consequence not only to the nations concerned but, all world nations.

It can be confidently said given the tactical nature of conflict in the 21st century being one of guerrilla style terrorist or use of sophisticated, autonomous drones to target specific people and/or assets versus conventional front-line embattlement as experienced in prior decades; there is likely no other period in time in the history of humanity that the importance to truth to information in support of major aggression between nations, then that of the last decade to the present.

Since the attack on the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001, a.k.a. 9-11, the world has seen by virtue of an almost paranoid concern for a similar scaled, repeat attack on the soil of western allied nations, the imposing of the most Draconian, security measures that could be said to constitute a dramatic, evolutionary change to the course of global human culture.

Examination of the developments that led up to the 9-11 attack has been intense however, depending on the view-point of the examiner, alternate postulations to the causes and the perpetrators responsible, are diverse. So much so, not unlike the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963 which has yet to be confidently resolved, it is likely too, 9-11 will befall the same fate. That said however, the war against Afghanistan that was fully substantiated on the strength of 9-11 and, the case for war against Iraq supported initially by accusation of its purported support given to the terrorist perpetrators to the attack and further, the more serious of accusations made by the United States and its western allies; it’s manufacture of weapons of mass destruction (a.k.a. W.M.D’s) that posed a potential threat to the Middle East region namely Israel, have come into question and since proven to have been false and misleading.

It is becoming increasingly known that the primary motivation for these conflicts to have arisen stems more from economic matters than those of national security namely, that just prior to the attack on Iraq, Saddam Hussein was intent on demanding all future purchase of Iraqi oil no longer be dominated by United States’ currency but, that of the Euro dollar. This was viewed by the United States administration namely George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as a direct attack on its national, economic security and a direct blow to its dominance as global super-power.

So on the premise that this information is factual, herein lies the crux of the question: it has become well known that the leaders of the nations that comprised the Coalition Forces principally; the United States, Britain and France further supported by other smaller contributing nations are responsible for the death of countless thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghanistan civilians. These aggressors are also responsible for the destruction of the entire, relevant infrastructure of the respective “target” nations took decades to build on the strength of information since proven to be substantially false and misleading.

Whom of the aggressor nations should bear the responsibility for the dire outcomes of what can be asserted to be illegal wars on nations and, what international judicial body should have jurisdiction to hold those cited to account for the atrocities they participated in manifesting?

The relevance to this question grows in its importance to be addressed in light of current events in the broadening Middle East conflict instigated by the public revolt in Tunisia and subsequently in Egypt labelled by the western nation’s main stream media as the Arab Spring.

This revolutionary uprising that finds the Middle East and North African nations including Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and increasingly, Iran growing in conflict with western allied nations led unsurprisingly by the United States, have too been fuelled by the same broadly media distributed rhetoric that was fed domestic and global nations in support the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The recent brutal killing of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi following the eight month NATO supported rebel uprising against his forty-year regime is becoming increasingly known to have been affected by Gaddafi’s intention, like that of Saddam Hussein, to institute the use of a gold standard Denary currency for the future purchase of its high-grade oil reserves. Should this knowledge not be put under the spot-light of investigation in examining the rationale of reason put forth by the NATO allied western nations led by the United States to the United Nations Security Council given what is confidently now known with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Is it not reasonable that other global nations not directly involved in the conflict against Libya, demand a full and comprehensive investigation of the case put forth and if found to have be misleading or knowingly falsely stated, to hold those directly and indirectly responsible within the respective governments of NATO allied nations, accountable?