I've come to realize that when I post something that irks me, the problem usually goes away. Case in point: Possible MTA Strike. The day after posting it, they averted one. Another example? Trent Lott. He's no longer Speaker. So I've come to think that maybe, just maybe if I post, things might be better.

P.S. I realize I'm delusional in thinking this. But what the hell, right?

So let's talk war.

That's right. War. Did anyone catch George W. Bush's State of the Union? I couldn't watch for more than five minutes, but I think one of my friends put it best: "Who would have believed that we were actually WINNING the WAR?"

That's 'cause we're not. We haven't finished what happened in Afghanistan, why the hell would we want to go to war someplace else? I just want to thank god for Colin Powell prevailing over W in terms of the UN. This brings me to something that I argued in high school when I went to DC in '96 to see the second Clinton Inauguration. Me and three friends from high school did this program where we not only went to the Inauguration but also spent a week in DC, etc. Basically, we had to also pretend to be in Congress and debate a point.

Our debate of choice? Whether or not the US should withdraw from the UN. Okay, we were Model U.N. geeks. But I still think it's valid, don't you?

Maybe you don't see the connection, that's okay. But what we feared then might be realized now. If George Bush continues on this rampage - this "we'll go to war whether you're with us or against us" then we're in some serious shit. But let me tell you why:

1. Going into an unsanctioned UN war against Iraq is a violation of the UN Charter. You can see the obvious problems here. Let me remind you that if we go to war without proper UN guidance and sanctions then we will be doing the same thing to Iraq that Iraq did to Kuwait back in 1992. At least in 1992, George the first could use that as proper reason for UN support, though we also went for oil. It's bad enough that under Jesse Helms, we allowed our UN dues to skyrocket to the tune of $3 million - which Clinton actively lobbied Congress to pay. The problem is that by doing that, we already had the world thinking we were assholes. Guess what? They think it again.

2. While the proof is pretty heavy, it pales in comparison to the evidence against Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis. We have strong suspicion that they have nuclear capablity and that they are breaking arms sanctions, but no real proof beyond someone's word against Saddam's. If we have learned anything from Saddam in the past, he's a smart cookie. Yes, the threat is real, but it is also imagined unless we can come up with at least one picture of one missle aimed at the US - AND THE POSSIBILITY OF IT HITTING THE US. The pictures of Cuba in 1962 are undeniable evidence. The pictures of 2003 aren't. We have a lot of circumstancial evidence that points to POTENTIAL threat. I realize that we are in a precarious state right now as a country, but putting us at war in Iraq will endager us even more.

3. Going to war with Iraq without the proper support will further harm our standing in the Middle East. We have connections to Al Queda in Iraq, but even that is shaky ground. As far as I know, there are plenty of people in the world with Al Queda connections - and don't think for a minute that I'm being flippant about this. Remember where I was on September 11th? That's right. What I am saying now is that Al Queda is our opponent and we shouldn't lose sight of that. I'm not sure that going to war against Saddam is a way to quelch that threat. In fact, it seems like it's something we added on at the end. "We want to rid the world of terrorists and evil-doers. So we will find the people who knocked down our buildings and make them pay. Oh, and while we're at it, we'll also finish the job we've been meaning to in Iraq." Connecting the dots later does not make for diplomacy. We go to war in Afghanistan, we go to war in Iraq - and what do you think the Arab world will think of us? They already hate us. What makes us think that by getting rid of Saddam we get rid of the hate - that we end the cycle? No, we promote the cycle of hate and war and death by going to war. I'm already upset that we went to war in the first place, now it seems to me that we are inadvertantly starting a holy war that I'm not sure we'll ever erase.

4. If we move without UN support, we will further diminish our standing in the world and regain the standing of us as bullies. Are you willing to let the President of this country invade a nation to protect our way of life? Would you wage war as a means to and end? I'm realize that I'm not aware of what he knows - all the super intellegence that has been gathered that is at the White House. But you know what? I'm not convinced that this is the means to an end. I know that Saddam Hussein is a delusional and evil dictator. But I need to be convinced that the threat is REAL, not IMAGINED. I need to be sure that when we move, we move with the world behind us, a unilateral effort to rid the world of Saddam. Globalization doesn't only occur on the economic level, it can happen on the political one, too. It helped calm my fears about going to war in Afghanistan, it would sure help now. There's something that one of my professors in college said - and he was only at the school for a year - and many people did not like him, but I found his words to be intriguing: "The United States and Western world are constantly worried about nations developing the nuclear bomb. It makes sense to fear something you know that is so terrible. But the thing is just this: why fear other countries developing them? We should all be more afraid of the country that actually has used them."

5. Going to war does not erase what is happening at home. Unemployment is rising. Homelessness is rising. The economy is awful. Drug use is at an all time high. George, there are things at home that you should be concerned about...or maybe that's why we're going to war...

This is what I feel. Maybe it's illogical, maybe contradictory, but you know what? I'm not entirely against this war - AS LONG AS IT'S FOR THE RIGHT REASONS AND WITH THE RIGHT SUPPORT. I admit again that I am not aware of all the intellegence on this issue. There's probably a whole hell of a lot more that we don't know. But I'd rather be a dove than a hawk and I'd rather us try to settle our issues in the proper manner than invade a nation that we think poses a possible threat. I'd rather see our country working towards peace than war and stop scaring us into believing that this war is necessary. If I had five seconds alone with George W. Bush, I'd have this to say to him:

"It's okay George. Daddy will still love you."