Political wind is near hurricane strength these days, over a country that the US, didn't quite finish walking over back in '91. With what appears to be very little to go on, a great deal of rhetoric started leaking out of DC (which I'm convinced now stands for 'Du Capital') about America's next target on terrorism securely focused on Iraq.

Since early September of this year, the roar from the white house to get America's young men and women into the ring against alleged chemical warfare has gradually crescendoed into a roar of discontent. Basing America's needs to throw themselves into another campaign towards fostering a greater growth of hatred towards us into the country of the oldest existing city on earth to keep its name, is a document that George W Bush cited on September 7th 2002, as proving our need to engage in conflict.

I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied - finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic - the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need," President Bush said awkwardly.

Fortunately, this statement is but a lie directly from the lips of another Bush in office. According UN's IAEA, chief spokesman Mike Gwodzecky "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency."

The White House's Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan came back declaring that Mr. Bush was mistaken, and was in fact referring to a 1991 report "saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."

Again, fortunately, this statement is but another lie from the Bush Administration, as no such report ever existed, in 1991 either, from the IAEA according to Mr. Gwozdecky. In fact, in 1998 the UN weapons inspectors reported to the UN Secretary-General Kofi Anon that, "There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." No Evidence of an Iraqi Nuclear threat, and yet still we are ready to war.

So what reasons remain for invading Iraq? Are we willing to kill over a list of broken UN agreements and crimes against humanity? Both of these reasons are excellent reasons. However, for fear of being the pot calling the kettle a cooking utensil, how is America doing when it comes to compliance within the UN?

In May of 2001, the United States was kicked off of both the UN Human Rights Commission at about the same time that Iraq was being granted a seat on the same committee. Outraged, the US publicly stated that they were given the boot by their enemies, when in fact, they were voted out by their Allies on the basis of its Foreign Polices specifically criticized for its "go-alone" stance on international issues. Kyoto, Stance on Death Penalty, International Landmine Treaty, and International Criminal Court being a few of the issues that America has chosen not align themselves with the global community on. In addition to this, America also lost its seat on the International Narcotics Control Board. However, the US was able to gain its seats back by withholding $224 million in dues that it owed to the UN.

Despite the fact that if Iraq were to try such a maneuver with the UN today, America would see this as cause for imminent attack, this really only leaves one real bit of reasoning for invading Iraq.

On September 27th, George Bush stated, "Other countries of course, bear the same risk. But there's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us…After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

--Diatribe