Netfriend (4th March 2003):

I'd like to avoid war. I think any person who wouldn't is either insane, ignorant or morally bankrupt, or perhaps a combination of the three.

But is it unavoidable? If so I'm a bit ambivalent. There may be some plusses to getting it over with. The sooner the current regime ends the better. Where I don't trust the "coalition of the willing" is in the assurance that casualties will somehow be reduced by a strike sooner rather than later.

And I'm not quite ready to give up. That's why I'd like to see the inspectors given more time, and support.

Someone else wrote:

What would be even better would be to have a march, but one with a different agenda. Call for peace, and support the UN. This means backing a war if the Security Council so decides, with Australian involvement, and steadfastly rejecting one without it UN backing.

What happens if you're cynical enough (like me) to think that perhaps the US has sufficient political clout, and manipulative tendencies, to "persuade" enough members of the UN Security Council to make the decision they (the US) want? Response:

A very good question.

I don't think anyone even pretends that the UN is perfect! It's a bizarre organisation. The General Assembly represents everyone, but its resolutions aren't binding on anyone. The Security Council has only a few members, but its resolutions are binding on all members.

And of course, even the General Assembly is hardly representative. Australia has one vote. China has one vote. Even New Zealand has one vote. Those electorates are hardly equal in size, are they? That's one thing the permanent membership of the Security Council, and the power of veto they possess, is supposed to address.

Nor do I think that the UN will last forever. In fact some have suggested that the current crisis may even be the beginning of the end for the UN. I hope not. The UN has scored some successes recently, notably in the former Yugoslavia and of course in East Timor. Afghanistan is a bit too early to call. The world would probably be worse off without the UN. And of course, last time a similar organisation fell apart it was a symptom of what became the Second World War.

To answer you, the USA doesn't appear to be getting everything its own way in the Security Council. So perhaps the Security Council is not quite as toothless as you suggest in dealing with them. Whether it has any teeth that Iraq will respect is another question. And how long the USA will sit around, paying for an enormously expensive expedition, is another question still.

I think Annan is doing very well. He has an impossible job preventing this war, but he's having a really good try at it. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see the peace movement support him.

Or perhaps I should say, would like to have seen. I don't think it's at all likely to happen.

If you've got a better idea, I'm all ears!

YiCaa