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?
