By going to war, Bush has placed himself outside of the international right-order. By claiming the right to start a pre-emptive war - a concept that doesn't even exist in international right - the US have made clear that from now on, the world will have to deal with a nation that claims the right to be the world's police officer, following her own criteria, her own rules, her own propaganda, without having to take into account the facts on the field, the findings of weapons-inspectors or the wishes of other nations who once were allies. This American uni-lateralism has been shown before: the Kyoto-protocol, the heavy import taxes on non-American steal, and now the military aspect. 50 years of international political co-operation down the drain.

The question is what this one-sided decision will cause. Military experts predict a fast victory for the US. This raises a question: if that is the truth, then why is Iraq such a threat? Even more important is the question what to do after the victory: turning Iraq - a regio where anti-Americanism will raise to a new high thanks to themselves - into an American protectoriat?
And the final question: where will Bush stop? Following Bush's logic, I can think of a couple countries that are a more realistic threat than Iraq. Will he also deal with them pre-emptively? Will he dare to act pre-emptively against countries that DO have weapons of mass destruction? Countries that are willing to use them against American invaders?

Let's face it: in the generally accepted sense of the term, Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. This may sound harsh, but some gass that can kill 1000 civilians at a time is not a weapon of mass destruction.

This also is a war that will be fought in the media. I see something here that's almost turned into a tradition: American media being an instrument of propaganda for their own government.

What could make this war legal, are two things: the basis of self-defense (Article 51), or Resolution 1441 authorizing the use of force. Since their is no actual or immiment threat from Iraq that could justify 'self-defense' (as required by Article 51 - btw: any force used in response to a threat, has to be proportionate according to that same Article - the fact that Iraq has the capacity to attack at 'some unspecified time in the future', is not enough), this is out of the question.

That leaves Resolution 1441.
I've tried to explain before that Resolution 1441 does NOT authorize the use of force, and I'll try to explain again.
The words Iraq will face serious consequences if it continues to violate obligations in Resolution 1441, are the keywords. The words all necessary means are not being used in Resolution 1441 (only to refer to Resolution 678, referring on its turn to Resolution 660).

Resolution 1441
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area
There you have the all necessary means, simply referring to 678 and 660. Resolution 1441 itself does NOT authorize the use of force.
All necessary means are the words used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorized. They were used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991. Saying that all security council members, including France and Russia, authorized the use of force when they voted for Resolution 1441 is compelling, but wrong.
The only possible alternative for the US government is argueing that Iraq's failure to comply with UN Resolution 687 (the ceasefire requirements after the Gulf War) justifies the renewed use of force. That too is wrong. Resolution 687 itself does NOT authorize the use of force. The ONLY Resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq is 678 (passed at the start of the Gulf War in November 1990), and the ONLY action it authorized was the use of force to restore Kuwait's sovereignity.
It is true that Resolution 687 also requires Iraq to destroy all WMD. Article 42 though states that it is for the Security Council to decide how that should be enforced, and not the US or UK.

My final point: the US are acting against international law, wether they are right or wrong. That makes them the agressors, wether they are right or wrong. Learn to live with it.

Strength to the American and British soldiers and their families, who are the real victims of this act of aggression. Strenght to the Iraqi people who are the real victims of this act of aggression.
And please leave God out of this, Mr. Bush. He might consider blessing the Americans, but not the America you have in your mind. If God exists, I'm sure he is not a pervert.