There is a lot of talk these days about war with Iraq. Thetalk in favour is mostly by people who either don’t have a first hand understanding of war, or who putgreed and ideology ahead of the public welfare.

U.S. President George Bush is the figurehead for this policy, a man who dodged the Vietnam War by hiding out in theNational Guard. Some of his closest advisors whopush this agenda also managed to duck out when theircountry called for cannon fodder.

It is interesting to note that some like U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and others who have actually been involved in war are not too keenon the idea of sending thousands of young Americansoff to die for the glory of George Bush and theregressive neo-conservative ideology. It seems a large number of Americans are not too keen on the idea either, along with most of America’s allies.

Why is it that a nation that was instrumental in thecreation of the United Nations over half a centuryago is now flagrantly willing to violate the UNCharter and launch an aggressive war against anothermember nation? And what real justification is there for this war except for that found within U.S. politics?

The claim is Iraq poses a danger to the U.S., yetno connections have been made between Iraq and theevents of September 11 and American weapons inspectors who have been inside Iraq have said the country poses noserious threat with weapons of mass destruction.

There is also the claim that Iraq president Saddam Hussein, is an evil character, even gassing his own people, alongwith other brutalities, and he’s a threat to hisneighbours. These charges are probably true, butsince when have they been the motivating force for Americanintervention — anywhere? In actuality, the U.S.routinely supports and even encourages regimes thattorture and suppress their own people along with threateningtheir neighbours and otherwise trodding heavily uponhuman rights.

Given the course of its own foreign policy over the past fifty years, it is blatant hypocrisy for the U.S. to wrap itself with the mantle of protector of freedom, democracy or human rights. Saddam himself is a product of U.S. support, with new evidence that even his ability tomanufacture and stockpile poison gas was abetted bythe U.S.

Taking out Saddam Hussein and characters like him isnot a bad idea, but it must be for the rightreasons and through internationally sanctionedactions. Having a stronger and more effective UnitedNations would be a step forward in policing rogueregimes, but the U.S., which could drive this process,has chosen to side step the UN and the broaderinterest of all nations whenever it pleases.

A strong international court system could also advancethe case of peace and human rights, but the US hasseen fit to not only shun the recently createdInternational Criminal Court, but to threaten thosenations, such as Canada, that actively support it.

In reality, the U.S. itself has become a rogue nation,at least from the standpoint of supporting humanrights and the ideals embodied in the documents ofits own creation. Through its foreign policy it hasderailed and set back the cause of democracy in othernations, and has helped crush popular will whereverthe interests of U.S. corporations have beenthreatened.

It has become a nation noted forhypocrisy, and now it seeks, against almost universalinternational disapproval, to carry out a major actof aggression against another country, though evil itmay be, that poses no significant threat to theterritory of the United States.

Canadians everywhere should voice their condemnationof this proposed U.S. action, and the Canadiangovernment should let it be known that suchaggressive behaviour by the U.S. in violation of thespirit of the UN Charter will not be supported.Instead, Canada should make it clear that it willbecome a haven for those U.S. citizens who oppose thisact, and will do everything in its power to obstructand impede U.S. prosecution of this war.