There are four horsemen of the Apocalypse: Famine, War, Pestilence, and Jim. Three of these four are already gaining steam, with War in Iraq, Pestilence in southeast Asia, and Jim Burton in Evansville, Indiana. We have only to fear where a famine will pop up! Then, friends and neighbors, is the Apocalypse upon us!

But on War news, the Anti-war/Anti-american/Anti-Bush crowd is losing steam, and I say good riddance. Peace is all fine and dandy, and definitely what you want in Your Neighborhood, unless, of course, your neighborhood is downtown Basra. One thing you don’t hear mentioned in the media, for example, are peace protests in Iraq. I’m not sure why that is. Maybe it’s just not as good for news people as unsubstantiated reports of American Missiles hitting markets in Baghdad. Now that’s good news. I just wish there were as many people who were critical of the United Nations’ failure to defuse this situation as there were of the United States’ failure to win over the Security [sic] Council.

A little history lesson for ya, as if I were the expert on the subject. (Hey, my URL, my forum)

When was the last time, I ask, that the United Nations did anybody any good?

Gulf War? Sorry, not a UN action. That was a coalition led by the US acting on a resolution by the Security Council (sound familiar?)

Bosnia? Buzz, wrong answer. The UN botched that one. NATO had to come in and save the day, led by...guess who! (The US, that’s right!)

Somalia? Well, (a) that was indeed a UN-undertaking, from start to finish. And (b) They fucked that one up so badly, that most people still think it was a “unilateral” American operation, because no UN official wanted to mention it after 1997.

Rwanda? Ahh, Rwanda. Rwanda has a long and distinguished history in African culture. Unfortunately, African culture ended about the time the White People from Europe moved in and declared the people to be savages, and sold half the continent into slavery. The U.N. did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda during the 1990s. Nothing. There’s no oil in Rwanda, so there’s no reason to pay any attention. They sat there and watched as thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of members of the warring tribes systematically wiped out their ethnically-chosen rivals.

Afghanistan? Well, Afghanistan was all Anglo-American. It was right. It was exactly as illegal or legal as Iraq, but nobody said anything bad about it. Why? Cause there ain’t no oil in Afghanistan. Plus, the Russians hate Afghanistan, for obvious reasons.

Ivory Coast? Ivory Coast? What’s that? Well, the Ivory Coast is a former french colony, that had themselves a little revolution about 5 years ago. Last year, the french sent in the troops to effect a regime change, i.e. to install a french-friendly government instead of the local-yokels. And, if I might mention it, they had little or (actually) no UN support for their actions. Just for a little side information, this is colonialism. This is imperialism. This a left-over of Europe’s bloodthirsty colonial period. Think about that next time you hear anything about American Arrogance and Imperialism.

I’m gonna make an online quiz out of these questions, I tell ya.

You see, there’s a big discrepancy in all this: Nobody argues when it’s the U.N., and the U.N. don’t care unless it’s white people. Why has the U.N. never condemned Israel? Because they don’t kill whitey. Why don’t the U.N. committees condemn Palestine? Well, actually because Palestine isn’t and never has been it’s own country.

I’m no lawyer, but I’ve taken a little time to see what the other side is talking about these days, and to figure out for myself whether or not what the Americans and British and Australians and Italians and Spanish and Danish and Dutch are doing is illegal. I think it’s documented enough that there are 16 resolutions from the U.N. Security Council that authorize military force against Saddam if he doesn’t allow U.N. weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of weapons*. That alone is enough to “legally” prosecute a war. But sometimes you need overwhelming reasons. Technically, and, dare I say, morally, the U.N. is required to prosecute Saddam under the 1948 Genocide Articles. You see, the segregation, and attempted genocide of the north-Iraq Kurds in 1988 is a crime against the U.N. Genocide Conventions. And those conventions state, under no uncertain terms, that perpetrators of genocide are to be dealt with by member states as criminals, and apprehended. That’s not a justification for the War at all. It also isn’t meant to be. It’s meant to be yet another example of why the current structure of the U.N. does not work.

But, enough about that. It’s boring. Like I said, shooting down antiwar sentiment is like shooting ducks in a barrel these days. I’m not really pro-war, but I really see absolutely no problem with going into Iraq and ousting Hussein.

In other news, the french surrendered to the Ivory Republic today.


[*] A common misconception is that the U.N. inspectors were there to find weapons of mass destruction. Actually, that’s not the case at all. The existence of the weapons was already documented and acknowledged by the Iraqi regime. The resolutions call for the supervised destruction of the weapons, which are assumed by the U.N. to exist.