I momentarily faltered, but if I don't e-mail the UN General Assembly contacts that a great US peace activist and author, Jackson Thoreau has listed, then I'll be without any hope. While I'm making this futile gesture I'm thinking in the back of my mind that this situation is really hopeless.

My fear is that I will be setting myself up for a huge disappointment, but if I don't try I will always hate myself for my inaction. As I do this I know that France has said that if Hussein uses weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the forthcoming days then France will join the countries that comprise the coalition for this war.

The countries not in that coalition -- 99% of the world -- know that they can't militarily fight the US. I've read that the US military budget surpasses that of the next 15 countries added together. So the world fears, and consequentially hates, the bully.

This war is economically based! France has, just 1 day into the "shock and awe" portion of this, called for the UN to unite against the US and England. France rightfully doesn't want the UN to allow the US and England to take control of Iraq's oil after the occupation starts.

My fear is that this is all economic. These countries know that if the US gets all of the contracts for Iraq's oil then they will be in great economic danger. As things stand now, many GOP detractors prattle that France and Russia in particular have deals with Iraq, and they want to keep them intact. Aren't other countries allowed to protect their economic interests?

Jackson Thoreau tells of a Jack Walters, a former GOP county chairman in Missouri who resigned March 8 because he hated the GOP Iraq war. Tony Blair had one P.M. resign and another threaten to recently because of the Iraq war.

Every one in the world, except for a few  top 1% "Pioneer" buddies, and ignorant ditto-heads who get their opinions from Murdoch's media empire and Allies' FOX see this war for what it is: A bold effort for hegemony and for 43's buddies to get bundles of cash. Still, right wingers and uniformed people fall for lies from FAUX media run for GOP gain.

I saw Fred Barnes on FOX's Brit Hume's show tell all of the ditto-heads that the US has the largest coalition in the history of US wars for this Iraq War. I knew it was a lie. I heard Limbaugh and Hannity -- GOP operatives in the media who are in such lock step synchronicity they might as well have one tape his show for both of them to use daily -- say the same tripe as Barnes.

The thing about Hume's show is that he has two purportedly left-leaning panelists, and neither of them called Barnes on his lie. On Hannity's show he usually steam rolls over Colmes, and when he said this lie Colmes, as he typically does, vaguely debated the point, but not sufficiently to sway anyone.

Here from the Washington Post's article, "United States Puts a Spin On Coalition Numbers", by Glenn Kessler, "It's a bald-faced lie to suggest that" the coalition for this war is greater than that for the 1991 war, said Ivo H. Daalder, a former Clinton administration official now at the Brookings Institution who supports the war against Iraq. "Even our great allies Spain, Italy and Bulgaria are not providing troops."

The administration asserts that 44 nations are part of the coalition. Hoever, Bush officials reach that number by lumping nations providing military units or logistical assistance with an eclectic group of nations -- such as Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Honduras, Rwanda and the Solomon Islands -- that only offer political support. The administration further suggests another 10 or so nations support the campaign but do not wish to be publicly identified."

From the CNN WOLF BLITZER'S REPORTS, which aired March 10, 2003:

The U.N. Security Council, of course, has 15 members. Only four so far, the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and Bulgaria have voiced strong support for a new resolution backing potential military action against Iraq.

 

Five Security Council members, France, Germany, Russia, Syria and China oppose a new resolution. The other six nations, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Cameroon and Chile remain undecided.

This was typical of the analysis before the Azores Summit. At the Summit this number dropped by 1. Bulgaria was not at the Summit for who knows what reason.

The Azores Summit was only for those who agreed with the boy "leader of the free world, who doesn't do nuances". After the Summit the plan was not to ask for a second 1441 resolution, because the US knew it wouldn't pass!

From the CNN WOLF BLITZER'S Late Edition, which aired March 11, 2003:

BLITZER: How much of a rupture, how much damage has there been to US relations not only with France, but with Germany, Belgium, others who are saying to the Bush administration right now, "You are wrong?"

 

KISSINGER: No, there has been a serious rupture, and one has to define that rupture. It is not just caused by the fact that France and Germany and Belgium are telling us that we are wrong, it is the first time that NATO nations have actively worked in the United Nations to oppose the United States and to thwart what the administration is doing. That has never happened in 50 years of previous controversies, which have been conducted as family controversies.

 

And when the United States is on the verge of going to war, for close allies to take a position in which they in effect called the briefing of the secretary of state erroneous and misleading and actively work against us in Africa and in other places around the world, it's a shocking experience which will have serious long-term consequences and cannot be blamed on the American administration.

 

BLITZER: Is this about as bad as you've seen the US relationship with some of these NATO allies?

 

BRZEZINSKI: I think Henry is right in saying that this is very serious, but I think we have to ask ourselves, how have we conducted ourselves? We have in effect said to them, "Line up." We have treated them as if they were the Warsaw Pact.

 

The United States issued orders, and they have to follow. Now, let me give you one striking example. The president since 9/11 has uttered the phrase "He who is not with us is against us" -- mind you, "He who is not with us is against us," anyone who disagrees with us is against us -- no less than 99 times.

 

We have a concept of the alliance, inherent in this kind of conduct, which involves giving orders and others falling in line. The issue of Iraq is a complicated issue. It's related to the whole question of proliferation and global stability.

 

Ultimately, it points even to the issue of North Korea, that we haven't talked about at all. And how we conduct this problem, how we deal with it is essential to the effective exercise of America's global leadership. We are literally undercutting it right now. We have never been as isolated globally, literally never, since 1945.

43 knows, his advisors have drummed it into his attention deficit disordered intellect, that the world doesn't matter. If we own the military might that surpasses that of the next 15 combined nations, then the world will follow the rules of the bully.

His father, who had extensive foreign policy experience, built a huge coalition for the 1st Iraq War. The father, 41, was a better man, than his son, 43.

We can't afford this war, either for the bloodshed it will cause or for the gutting of domestic policies it will inevitably cause. In Iraq war 1 the allies paid 90% of the expenses. If we try to cut them out of Iraq's oil riches, they will saddle us for the huge bill of nation building in Iraq!

Our deficits will mount so 43 will say he regrettably will have to slash domestic budgets. It won't be a surprise, every GOP president comes around to this as soon as conditions permit.

France has already started to say that the US and England can not be allowed to control Iraq's oil after the war. He said that would legitimize their war that didn't receive U.N. approval. The U.N. has been de-legitimized by 43 and his cronies. Nothing that the U.N. can do will scare big bully 43!

From "By Whose Authority?" of the washingtonpost.com, by Michael Kinsley, "Bush's suggestion that the furtive nature of war in this new century somehow changes the equation is also dubious, and it contradicts his assertion that the threat from Iraq is "clear."

Even in traditional warfare, striking first has often been considered an advantage. And even before this century, nations rarely counted on receiving an enemy's official notice of intention to attack five years in advance.

Bush may be right that the threat from Iraq is real, but he is obviously wrong that it is "clear," or that other nations as interested in self-preservation as we are (and almost as self-interested in the preservation of the United States as we are) would see it as we do, which most do not.

Putting all this together, Bush is asserting the right of the United States to attack any country that may be a threat to it in five years. And the right of the United States to evaluate that risk and respond in its sole discretion. And the right of the president to make that decision on behalf of the United States in his sole discretion.

In short, the president can start a war against anyone at any time, and no one has the right to stop him. And presumably other nations and future presidents have that same right. All formal constraints on war-making are officially defunct.

Well, so what? Isn't this the way the world works anyway? Isn't it naive and ultimately dangerous to deny that might makes right? Actually, no.

Might is important, probably most important, but there are good, practical reasons for even might and right together to defer sometimes to procedure, law and the judgment of others.

Uncertainty is one. If we knew which babies would turn out to be murderous dictators, we could smother them in their cribs. If we knew which babies would turn out to be wise and judicious leaders, we could crown them dictator.

In terms of the power he now claims, without significant challenge, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world. He claims to see the future as clearly as the past.

"Let's hope he's right" spells out that the world is spell bound in fear and terror by 43. He is a chuckle headed boob, who just a few years ago was being mocked by news reporters for his lack of foreign experience. After 9-11 the representative of Saudi Arabia, kindly told the world that 43 was a nice chap, but knew nothing about the Middle East.

From Jackson Thoreau's "Liberty and Justice For All" site, in his article, originally in From America Held Hostile, titled: 'Call For a Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly to Stop Bush's Immoral War."

On March 19, 2003, the splendid Texas-based writer, who is a symbol of pacifistic, clear thinking writes, "No matter what you think of it, the United Nations is our best hope to stop Bush. We must stop what we are doing right now and contact our UN representatives to demand they convene an emergency special session."

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, Greenpeace, and others are calling on all members of the UN to convene an emergency session of the General Assembly to avoid Bush's immoral war on Iraq by using little-known UN resolution 377.

We must answer the call, once again. We must join this campaign. Known as "Uniting for Peace," the resolution allows the General Assembly to call an emergency session when the Security Council is split on the issue of how to maintain international peace and security.

As Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "The 'Uniting for Peace' resolution may be the last hope to avert war. If passed, it will put the US and the U.K. on notice that a war without Security Council authorization is utterly illegal and a crime against the peace."

Mr. Thoreau is correct! He further correctly states, " Resolution 377 says that if there is a "threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and the permanent members of the Security Council do not agree on action, the General Assembly can meet immediately and recommend collective measures to UN members to "maintain or restore international peace and security."

Since adopted by the UN in 1950, the "Uniting for Peace" mechanism has been used ten times, most frequently and ironically by the US.

The last time was in 1997 over the Israeli-Palestinian issue. One UN member state must request that such a meeting be convened to consider adoption of a resolution. Either seven members of the Security Council or a majority of the members of the General Assembly must agree.

"It's now up to all the world's countries, not just a few of the powerful, to meet together to avert this march to war," said Steve Sawyer, a spokesman for Greenpeace. "If it wanted the world to be ruled by the cowboy with the biggest guns, the international community wouldn't have created the UN in the first place.

The UN, including the General Assembly, was created to preserve the rule of law and promote multilateralism. It's time the UN fully exercises its mandate and unites as a whole to defend its founding principles and stop the impending attack on Iraq, which would be the most horrific example of unilateralism. It must take this last chance for peace."

This is thoughtfully considered, correct analysis of a dreadful situation. The US preemptive aggression against Iraq is now in the terrible 'Shock and Awe 'phase. This administration has forced this bloodshed upon the world.

Mr. Thoreau's article lists contacts which everyone of you with a shred of conscience, or an 18 year old boy, or who loves the US of A. and wants our country to act properly, must send your heartfelt plea to stop this war to.

They are in e-mail addresses, phone and fax numbers. I initially thought incorrectly that once the US co-opted the world, their push for Iraq 2 couldn't be stopped. Maybe it can! Try!

You can email Bob Connors at n323c@erols.com