arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Remember what came out of the White House after the Al Qeada attacks of the Twin Towers. 'Osama Bin Laden was the big evil doer and he was going to be smoked out his caves'. Then after some months a blind war against poor Afghanistan was begun, bombing an already destroyed country.

Then during the heat of the fire suddenly in a sneeky way also the name of Saddam was thrown into the media. And later it was repeated more and more often, as if a new drum had to be started. Public opinion was quite puzzled and so were European and other political leaders: the whole West stood behind the US for its 'war against terror', but now that he had his support of his 'Allies', the leader of that war made a sudden side jump towards a country that was clearly not involved in this matter.

When questions about this sudden twist started to rise, the answer came: 'He has to allow arms inspectors, he is not following the UN resolutions'.

Arms inspectors were voted for and UN resolution 1441 was agreed. Arms inspectors went and inspected.
Now the White House's new sound was: 'Saddam is not allowing them enough inspecting'. So more inspections followed, and more openness from Iraq. Finally the report, demanded for so greedily by the US, was released and even high-jacked for a night by that one UN member, the US. And instead of admitting that their claim had been fullfilled the US started new claims, and new claims, and again other claims...

Today they are claiming even a new resolution, allowing them to officially end their long cherished wargame. BUT if no resolution is voted, then they will play alone. ???

What is this logic? It leaks like an old oil tanker:
- we want Saddam to allow new inspections.
- we want Saddam to disarm of mass destruction weapons.
- we want a regime change in Iraq.
- we want Saddam to leave is country
- we want a new UN resolution allowing us to attack Saddam because he is not committing to the UN resolution.
- we will attack Saddam even if no new UN resolution is voted.
- ???

Conclusion: one UN member is willing to attack another UN member, because that other UN member is not committing to the UN resolutions, reflecting International Right. The attacking UN member will therefore dismiss International Right.
- ???

If they do not intend to follow the UN resolutions, then why blaming Iraq not to do so? Why bother about Iraq at all, if the UN is not important?
So the US are treathening and blackmailing the UN to do themselves exactly that what they blame Iraq to be doing: not following the UN prescriptions.
Is this diplomatic madness? Or is it just the dreadfull end of the last super power's credibility and the beginning of a real new World order of nations standing for themselves?

But in both cases: has the White House been high-jacked by a handfull of western fundi's? Or is is just being ruled by... the Maf.