1) The U.N. calls itself a democratic body. But in reality is it one? Five so called "Permanent Members" of the Security Council have the power of Veto, thus preventing any matter which is not in their interests or liking from being discussed in Council. Is this provision not a ridiculous one and not compatible with norms of provision in any democratic body. Does not this make the U.N. more a farce than a force?

2) We hear a lot these days of the "International Community". Does this mean that there is a body consisting of the 190 odd world countries or is it a body comprising Bush and a few of his cronies? Why are other countries especially small ones like ours hanging on to the coat tails of this farcical "Community of a few bullies"?

3) Now Bush and Blair are shouting about Saddam and his so called "weapons of mass destruction". What are such weapons? In my view they are firstly, nuclear weapons and delivery systems, then chemical weapons such as napalm bombs and agent orange which were extensively used by Bush’s ancestors in Vietnam. I vividly recall a picture of a small naked Vietnamese girl with her back ablaze after being caught in a U.S. attack with napalm bombs. Also the horror pictures of the civilian victims (500,000 of them) after the American nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Has the U.S. and a few of its cronies, the exclusive right to arm themselves to the eyeballs such weapons even now whilst righteously proclaiming that no others should have them? Why can’t Saddam have them too in self defence against monsters who perpetrated inhuman nuclear attacks? The Pot can’t call the Kettle black?

All this humbug on the part of Bush and Blair doesn’t hold water with an octogenarian like me and I am sure many others. Bush appears to be building an American empire. But has he forgotten that empire building does have an end? Remember that the Greeks, Romans and Britishers had empires too, which all came to a sorry end.
Hawk Eye