legal". (To say nothing of their being deliberately contrived in such a fashion as to render them virtually unacceptable to any self-respecting nation - a trick not without precedent in America's dealings with the UN.)

I've used the word "farce" quite deliberately and intentionally, for that's what the entire play-acting of the past few weeks has been. Nothing more than a charade to provide the raw material for propaganda that will claim that, from hereon in, all of America's aggressive acts have been "legitimised" by the international community.

And of course vast numbers of people will buy it at face value. They'll do so because the population en masse has a short memory, and because too many of us are quite happy to let the mainstream media do our thinking for us, so that we can pluck therefrom ready-made, pre-cooked opinions whilst we focus our thoughts on the really important things like what to eat tonight, or what football match is on television at the weekend, or how we can increase our income without having to work harder. So, the lies will become "received wisdom", the "facts", and we can rest easy with our comfortable little lives whilst even more poverty-stricken and oppressed Iraqis suffer and die at the hands of yet more state-sponsored terrorism, masquerading as the "legitimate use of force".

Does that sound too cynical. Well, maybe it is. But I find it absolutely incredible that so many people can be so gullible. And I'm angered by the self-centred laziness of those who can't be bothered to do their own thinking, and their own research. Who can't even be bothered to look at what's actually happening. I'm even more angered by those who, confronted with the real facts, simply ignore them, brush them aside, in order that they may preserve their own prejudices and preconceived opinions. Such attitudes are an insult to all rational thought and reason.

So, if only as a record for posterity, let's have a quick review of events.

First, a plot is hatched between President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and all their chums, that entails Colin Powell, Blair, etc seeming to persuade President Bush to take his case against Iraq to the UN. This of course is the classic "good guy, bad guy" routine, with Blair, Powell, et al coming out as the moderates, and Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice etc lined up as the hawks. Brilliant piece of theatre. For now all of us with consciences can relax in the knowledge that there are some "good men" exerting a dampening influence on the more extreme forms of American imperialism. This technique has been aimed directly at all those people of goodwill amongst us who don't really like to rock the boat, to satisfy them that the whole matter is being conducted in an orderly and legitimate fashion. Hence, no need for them to protest.

And so the scene moves to the UN, with Bush encouraging the Assembly to reaffirm its authority by - with urgency be it noted - approving a Resolution that effectively strips Iraq of its sovereign status; that effectively commands it to bare itself, lay back, and allow itself to be raped.

The technique that Bush used was rather curious though. When petitioning a recognised authority to reaffirm its power it is customary to do so with an attitude of respectfulness, and a willing acknowledgement on the part of the petitioner that they too will submit to that reaffirmed authority. It is certainly not customary, or indeed consistent with the professed intent, to say "do this or else". Yet that's precisely what Bush did! Call it threat, call it blackmail, call it whatever you like. But Bush made it perfectly plain that unless the UN did what he wanted, he'd simply ignore them and go ahead with his plans anyway. So what's he saying? That the UN should exercise its authority over Iraq, but has no similar authority over America?

What if the UN had drafted a resolution expressly forbidding military action against Iraq on the part of America? What would Bush have done? Can we really pretend we don't know the answer to that question? So much, then, for Bush's "respect" for UN authority which, essentially, equates to the support of the international community. Basically he's saying that he cares not a fig for the international community, or its opinion, or its interests, or indeed even its welfare. Is this not the same language that a Saddam Hussein would use? That an Adolf Hitler would use?

Wherein is the difference? The difference is in the forces, and the resources, that Bush can command. He's simply too big, too powerful. He has too many weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, biological, chemical.

And of course he doesn't play by the rules. Whilst he's urging the UN to formulate a "legal framework" within which he can pursue his nefarious intentions, and whilst he's claiming sanction for his actions on the basis of Saddam Hussein being in breach of legal requirements, he's perfectly willing to blatantly ride roughshod over international law when its suits his purposes.

Even to the extent of planning and approving the assassination of foreign nationals on foreign soil by his own covert operatives. And then proudly announcing his intention to continue with this criminal activity! (Nor let us forget that he's already refused to accept that the International Criminal Court shall have jurisdiction over American nationals - I wonder why?)

Let's pause to dwell on this for a moment.

None of us can fail to be aware of the vast resources of America; the sophisticated technology, the advanced weaponry, the intelligence infrastructure, the manpower, the global reach, the funding. Given the will and the determination, virtually nothing other than that not constrained by the laws of physics etc should be beyond them. Nor can any of us fail to be aware of the Bush administration's total contempt for morality, or even the legal niceties. If Bush truly is a friend to the Iraqi people (as he claims) and is simply opposed to the Saddam regime, why then doesn't he just assassinate Saddam and his henchmen? Why seek to rain bombs and devastation on the people of Iraq? Why seek to humiliate them beyond human endurance? Surely it can't be that such a task is impossible for him? Surely it can't be that there's a limit to America's reach after all? If so, there's hope for us all yet.

Moving on, we then get a breathing space for America's mid-term elections, through which the innocents amongst us believed that Bush's "mandate" may be overturned by the will of the people. But what do we actually, and predictably, see? Surprise surprise again. A massive "endorsement" for the American dictator. Whilst we're waiting for all the sordid details to emerge of what truly went on behind the scenes (which they surely must, given sufficient time), we could do worse than take on board this little gem...

Just under a week before the elections, public opposition by the American people to military action in Iraq was running at 34% in an upward trend. OK, that's not a majority (yet!), but it is a significant minority. So why wasn't it reflected at all in the mid-term election results? We're talking here of just over a third of the American population. Curious.

We now move into the next stage of the farce, first with a discussion about whether a new UN Resolution would automatically bestow upon America the right to initiate a war upon Iraq in the event of breach, or require a second session of the Security Council. Which led of course to all the bickering over the precise words. The game kicks off with America and the Brits on one side, and the rest of the world on the other (sorry... with China being, as usual, its normal Orientally inscrutable self). And it ends some seven weeks later with a unanimous accord on the part of all the current members of the Security Council including, would you believe, Syria. (And, funnily enough, an embracing by America of China, despite all their well-known human rights violations.)

We then witness all the world's "honourable" statesmen hailing this as a victory for the cause of peace, and an effective restraint on Bush's war-making ambitions. Whilst, at the same time, we have the Bush team proclaiming "business as usual" and that they'll still do what they want anyway. Why am I left with the sense that nothing, fundamentally, has changed? Why am I also left with the highly disagreeable taste of deals being struck, coercion being applied, and other forms of immoral skulduggery going on behind the scenes?

But let's not kid ourselves. The situation has changed. Bush has acquired for himself a rather questionable patina of "legality". More to the point, the mainstream media suddenly kicked into top gear to churn out intensive propaganda intended to brainwash us into accepting that its now all a "done deed". There's no turning back. There's no reversal possible. And, if Iraq accepts the Resolution, what are the odds on, at some point (probably within the next couple of months, the ideal window of opportunity for Bush's war) their being found in "material breach"? If it doesn't accept the Resolution, well, no prizes for guessing what happens then.

The reality is though, its not all a "done deed". So far its all just words. And the politicians (canny bunch that they are) recognise that it will remain all just words until the first plane dumps its first load of limb-ripping bombs on the already suffering people of Iraq - on the fathers, mothers, and children of the families that are already oppressed by a tyrant who, compared to Bush, appears as a rank amateur. (Well, at least it'll put them out of their misery I suppose!) Then it will be a "done deed". Until then there is still time for common sense, humanity, morality, even true justice, to prevail. Until then we may still have a chance of living with our consciences. Until then we may still be able to foil this monstrous plot. But our eminent world leaders, our leading men of integrity, honesty, and truth, are gambling that us lot, the lumpen proletariat, the common people, are simply too thick, too gullible to realise this simple fact. But, just in case... hence all the carefully crafted propaganda and disinformation.

The perversity doesn't stop there though. Nor does the propaganda. For we're also being forced to swallow the notion that in some miraculous way this superb performance re-establishes and reinforces the authority of the UN. I don't know about you lot, but when I'm forced to swallow something rotten, my stomach has this somewhat disturbing tendency to want to throw it up again rather rapidly. So threatening the UN then buying off or coercing its members reinforces its "authority" does it? Would someone care to run that by me again please, for I'm sure I must've missed a whole lot in between. Seems to me the UN's even more of a mockery now than it was before, and it was bad enough then. If the tattered remnants of the UN's authority has been undermined, its not so much by anything Saddam Hussein's done as by this recent arrogance of GWB.

Well, the light of life and caring has not been extinguished entirely... not just yet.

For whilst this whole despicable public relations exercise has been crafted to con us all into believing that the best possible solution to Iraq (the Final Solution, did I hear someone utter - in the style of Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish problem" maybe?), the solution best suited to secure "peace in our time" has been achieved, the truth is almost exactly the opposite - we've had an almost sure-fire recipe for war foisted off on us.

So now is the time, not for all anti-war campaigners to sit back and rest on their laurels, but to renew and even intensify our efforts. The "done deed" so far is just words - and they can be withdrawn, retracted, changed, even overturned. C'mon folks, they're only words! And not even words uttered by a reputable authority any more. Rather, words squeezed out of a malleable, compliant, spineless bunch of career-orientated politicians who're more concerned with how the material proceeds of the war will be carved up than with the welfare of the world's population, and especially the population of Iraq.

Within the anti-war movement, as within any large popular movement, there are many factions, many angles of approach, many differences in agenda. But all with the common aim of opposing war, of working positively for peace.

So now is the time, more than any other, for us all to put aside our differences, our petty disagreements, and focus upon the one common aim... all else can be resolved later.

Come on people, let's concentrate on what's really important. The fact that people are dying in Iraq now due to America's interventions in the past, and that many more will die if Bush is not opposed. And don't be fooled into thinking it will stop at Iraq. It won't. All bets are off regarding which Middle Eastern country, which country that's part of this fictitious Bush-fantasy of an "axis of evil", will be next.

Nor be fooled by those who would argue that such matters of international relations are "best left to the experts". Which particular "expert" is it that you'd trust with your conscience? Which particular expert is it who's so infallible as to utter unarguable pronouncements on moral rights and wrongs? Those who advise the stockpiling of nuclear weapons? Those who conduct research into biological and chemical warfare? Those who sanction the plundering of the resources of third world countries? Those who seek to control every aspect of your life, who contaminate the environment just to earn a few extra bucks, who repress all innovative and environmentally-friendly ideas? Those who would even dictate what values we should all live by, regardless of culture, tradition, religion, or any of the other wonderful differences that contribute to the beautifully rich and diverse nature of Mankind. Are those the experts we should trust to make such grave decisions for us?

Neither be suckered by those who say we can't make a difference. Who say that the future will unfold at the behest of the select few, and that the rest of us, insignificant as we are, just have to submit, like it or lump it. Such persons live in cloud-cuckoo land, oblivious to the realities of life. Sure, the default state is for us all to tick unresistingly along whilst those "in power" oil the machine that makes things happen. But, at virtually every significant crossroads in the development of races, and our species, there has arisen one (or more) from among "the masses" who has seized the moment, inspired the people (i.e., us lot), and irreversibly changed the course of history.

The truth is that those "in charge" are actually fully cognisant of their real power-base. And that power-base is the people. More specifically, it is the sanction of the people, customarily expressed by no more than passive acquiescence, a "going with the flow". Those in charge recognise the absolute necessity of maintaining that acquiescence; of kidding us all that we're helpless and can - and should - do nothing; of being very careful not to goad beyond the point where the ire of the people becomes aroused. They rule by virtue of our doing nothing; by virtue of our focussing on the small things, rather than the big things. But there is no natural law that states this must always be the way, or inevitably will be the way. And they, more than us, recognise this. Why else, in tyrant-ruled states, the need for fear and repression? Why else, in supposedly "democratic" states, the need for propaganda?

Because the will of the people, once truly aroused, is an awesome and terrible force, capable of overturning politicians, governments, even ideologies. It is as a dragon, sleeping, waiting only the call to wakefulness.

And this, for the anti-war campaign to succeed, is what must be tapped into. And it must be done by countering all the rhetoric and propaganda that is constantly being churned out by the pro-war brigade. We must arm ourselves with the Lance of Truth, the Sword of Openness and Honesty, and the Shield of Love, proffering the golden Chalice of Peace to those who would drink therefrom. And then sally forth into the battle, determined to overturn the spectre that casts its shadow over all Mankind, and presently masquerades as the President of the United States.

The time for the charade to end is upon us

Mike

Britons vs Bush

http://members.fortunecity.com/britonsvbush

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/ambiguities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------