Multi-unilateralism and World War

An outbreak of unilateralism. Sounds like the making of something revolutionary.

Exactly. Exactly why the United Nations was formed after World War II.

Is London, for instance, part of the broader European Union, or does it exist in a special category ? How many special categories are there, for states, actors, regimes, agendas?

When Prince Charles or Bush/Cheney meet with Saudi royalty, and arab states enter into a campaign of support for providing Iran with uranium to meet energy demands, an Iran currently in economic turmoil, does it signal, as it did with Iraq, and by most accounts, wrongly, the tendency to isolate a single state when there are any number of arab states, including Egypt, with nuclear programs ?

And what happens when one of those Arab states, not capable of governance by a union of arab states, decides to, as a western regime or agenda, or actor, even, might, act unilaterally ?

I don't known that Osama bin Laden will serve as culpable pretext with respect to an invasion of Iran, or even weapons of mass destruction, which may or not at some point in time exist in Iran, but certainly, in this round of diplomatic negotations with two of the world's largest oil suppliers, who appear to now be under a systematic demonization and raid strategy, cannot render the kind of subjective basis, to those who consider themselves rational, for an invasion of Iran, at least not without the Security Council moving to take swift action, as it did against Saddam in 1990, against states which presume to invade a state such Iran, which hasn't deemed to invade or materially threaten any of its neighbors.

Oh, I know. Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to wipe Israel off of the map. And Bush believes that North and South Korea are technically still at war. Should we simply tarverse the entire list of stupid things leaders have ever said that have never led to WW III, before this does ? Do we have to go there ? Are the Bush Rogues that simple-minded and ignorant ?

What would Americans likely support, World War III, or the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, as a measure in pursuit of world peace ? Is Bush really a greater threat to world peace than Osama ?

In fact, Iran actually supports the current Iraqi neighborly regime, a fact that Bush and the Pentagon-In-Iraq may not like, but a fact nonetheless, that Bush and his allies, of which there may be one remaining, who is known to travel under the name, Luci, will be forced to reckon, as it pertains to international law. At what point does the U.N. decide to send peacekeepers into Iraq to prevent an outbreak of war between the PIQ and Iran, with Iraq as a launching pad ? Is the PIQ not not functioning as a " state within a state ? " Hopefully, as his predecessor did, amply, Secretary Moon is well, and amply aware, of the predisposition of Americans toward the illegal war, rape, torture, brutality and atrocity occurring in Iraq as we speak.

Americans do not eat and drink while tommorrow others starve and die so that states and corporations, the fascist elite, can extort wealth from the powerless. If Oil-For-Food was not that, what was it ? How many states supported the first Iraqi invasion, led by the first President Bush ? And why ? Because there may be profit attached. And money is not a good reason to support the killing and slaughter, not to mention disgusting and perverted acts of forcible homosexual sodomy that to which Iraqis have been exposed at the hands of the second, far worse, Bush. Homsexuality and fundmametalism do not make for pleasant bedfellows and Bush knew that going in, as a fundamentalist himself, a Christian fundamentalist, but a fundamentalist nonethless, a dangerous predisposition, about which the Constitition does not distinguish or dicriminate on the basis of religion. In other words, to say that Bush was not a fundamentalist, equally as dangerous as Osama bin Laden, would be an act of discrimination, and one in which liberals would hesitate to engage.

What makes Iran so different ? That seems to be the question to which Barack Obama has been seeking an answer that extends beyond the mere rhetorical diatribe of Bush and Gingrich, the former of which appearing to not only be incapable of distinguishing between Lebanon and Iran, as it might apply to World War, which with such rhetoric, each also seems to support as a measure that neoconservatives attempt to categorically brand as that which will solve the more abstract problem of Osama bin Laden, the condition known as " nuclear proliferation," and the sum of which may result in nuclear terror of a kind that Washington is not prepared to counter or stop.

In neologic, quite simply, war is the answer to terror. Occupying Iraq to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars will somehow either solve the problem or render it soluble. We need to do battle with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, you see. Because that's where they are, right along with those weapons of mass destruction that we'd been telling you about, me and Don, right before the Iraqi invasion that has only served to not only claim the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, but arguably, an innocent Saddam Hussein, who once supported the United States.

Is it possible to commit genocide in the context of a war, as Congress has been in the process of debating with respect to Turkey ? The Iran-Iraq war of the early 1980s was a war between states that also involved elements within states resisting their own governments. If Bush were repressive in response to war opposition in the U.S. on the basis of war opposition, would it amount to genocide if causalties resulted ?

Under the Bush regime's current interpretation of international law, it appears that might be exactly the case. The response to repression in the context of intervention, or external aggression, branded " unpatriotic " by the BR, seems to be pivotal, particularly where it's more than clear that the Patriot Act was drafted some time prior to 9/11 and as thus, could not possibly represent a response to 9/11, which the BR has portrayed as the Iraqi No Weapons Invasion. What the Patriot Act represents in the broader context of civil liberties, human rights and freedom, is some not irrelevant expectation of 9/11.

Is the Patriot Act, in that sense, damning ? Perhaps. Because NPT stipulates that attacks be a matter of shared intelligence with the Security Council, G-8, NATO, and other relevant institutional actors. Did the Bush Adminstration, by not either stopping or mitigating 9/11, not only render itself complicit in the attack, which is not to say that as former-President Bill Clinton pointed out earlier this week, that it was an " inside job," but also, given the Patriot Act and its obviously expectant and pre-emptive posture - did the Bush Regime violate NPT, at a time when NPT could not be more relevant, with Osama still lurking and Bush unable to deliver ?

Might not being able to capture Osama inspire " inside job " theories ? Absolutely. People worldwide are frustrated with Bush and have been since the Supreme Court stopped the recount. They don't want to hear about democracy in the Middle East when democracy in America ceased to exist with Bush v. Gore.

There is also, has also been, a decidedly anti-liberal tendency in the media dating back to 1993, when, with the election of Bill Clinton president, Rush Limbaugh declared America to be " Held Hostage," cleverly referencing the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 in which President Jimmy Carter was depicted as having handled with ineptitude, and which may have cost President Carter a very close, though not as close as Bush v. Gore, election, to future President Ronald Reagan.