The war to come

[Mike Seebeck]

I have been turning over the recent thread involving several people and the war.   One thing occurs to me.   A lot of the anti-war crowd assumes it’s all about oil.  Others assume it’s revenge by Junior for Saddam attempting to kill Daddy.  Others just don’t like the aggression, nation building, and interventionism by our government (for the record, I fall into this group).   But what if this war is about the legitimacy of the UN as a body of government?   It has been said repeatedly that this war, with the US going it alone, will marginalize the UN in world affairs.  This has been treated as a side consequence of the entire situation.   But what if that conception is bass-ackwards?  What if that isn’t a side consequence of all of this, but actually the entire point of this?   Black helicopter ideas aside, because I have to admit this sort of sounds like it, what if this is all an attempt to show just how utterly useless the UN is, and Saddam just happens to be the poor sap dictator that has been chosen as the case example out of convenience or design?  What if this war isn’t about Saddam at all, but about the UN?   I readily admit that the UN should have been evicted from our shores long ago, and that they are the only legitimate threat to out nation’s sovereignty in existence (for now).  Both the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations, were bad ideas.  So if the UN is the problem, and Saddam is just a symbol of that problem, then in the classic case of curing the symptom and not the cause (typical of government!), going after Iraq makes perfect sense for perverted government rationalization.   I had to think this paradigm shift through very carefully and it does present some very interesting aspects into better focus than before.   Thoughts?   Mike   PS What happens if nations declare war on us like they did with the Nazi aggression of Poland in 1939?  Is WWIII inevitable?