Lemmie recite to you beefy parts of an article I read intoday's (<-- yes, I DO think that should be a legitimate, one-word, English word) Winnipeg Free Press paper (Freep),in a useful following of paragraphs because the initial disjointed but otherwise well written pile of crap was hard on my brain even as I drank my second coffee. It is about the UN, UNSC, US, North Korea and internationally illegal nuclear arms and nuclear arms programs. Then I am going to discuss. Remember kiddies, do not drag religion into the comments. You have no idea what aggrivation you will cause me if I see the world "semite" here. Let's begin:

in October (2002), when the United States (US) said North Korea admitted having a secret nuclear program in violation of the 1994 pact... North Korea then kicked out United Nations (UN) nuclear inspectors and announced its intention to withdraw from the treaty... Washington seeks a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff... hopes that Pyongyang will not reject deplomatic efforts to address its nuclear program... The US was seeking United Nation Secutrity Council (UNSC) approval of a statement condemning North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty... The UNSC expressed concern yesterday about North Korea's nuclear program but failed to condem it's withdrawl from a global weapons treaty as the US demanded, because of Chinese and Russian opposition... the dispute is North Korea's insistence on direct talks with the US and Washinton's insistence that the problem be address in a multilateral forum... North Korea has warned that... it would regard UN sanctions against its isolated regine as a declaration of war... Negropont (US Ambasador), said... "I don't think we rule out the possibility of action by the UNSC in the future. We haven't taken any option off the table"... UNSC president, said: "The council will continue to follow-up developments of this matter. There is nothing else to add to this"... Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov said... "condemnation is not going to solve the problem"... "The only way the problem is going to be solved is direct bilateral dialogue between Washinton and Pyongyang".

Well, shit.

I picked a quotation from our Prime Minister Jean Chretein as my title because it was said in a familar context: The string of potential wars with the US against nuclear arms and terrorism. The US claims it is ousting Saddam Huessein because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Resolution 1441 was passed late last year, around the same time the US uncovered North Korea's illegal nuclear arms program. What little I know of North Korea is from watching M*A*S*H and my role in the play with the same title as the second male lead from drama class in grade 11. North Korea has these weapons, in violation of UN constraints, meanwhile the US is on the frantic hunt, now that Bagdhad has been peirced, for such weapons in Iraq. It is very... scary, to think the US is both doing what it wants and attempting to follow UN regulations: thou shalt not go to war against a country without the UNs approval. Which leads me to wonder the reasons why the US is strongly seeking UNSC assisstance on the North Korea issue.

We're not sure exactly who all is on the US list of dangerous countries because they haven't provided one, illiciting Jean Chretien's comment in my title, as a tension breaking jest. If the US is adamant about doing the "right thing" with or without UN approval, why seek it with North Korea? North Korea has already said it is willing to talk with the US, and only with the US. A small part of the article discussed pressure from China, Russia and the European Union on the US to make bilateral (one-on-one) talks with North Korea and avoid UN intervention, perhaps based on North Korea's stance on UN intervention: that being a declaration of war. Don't tell me how stupid that sounds, I already know.

Let's look first at what North Korea might gain by circumventin UN intervention: I have no concrete idea. Maybe they want special deals with the US, a bargaining position. Obviously the US would not want to trade money, other arms, or a lesser force at North Korea's border in exchange for North Korea to back off on their nuclear arms program but could it hurt North Korea to ask for it? North Korea cannot be trusted to keep their word on halting any nuclear arms program as they already started a one under the nose of the UN and against UN regulations on their country.

What can the US possible gain by backing the adamant North Korea into a fighting corner with the UN? It gets to say it is truly committed to international peace with UN aid, and is not totally gung-ho on being a vigilante country; the picture it began to paint with Iraq. Obviously the purpose of the UN cannot be swept aside because of North Korea's ill-chosen form of response to sanctions. That is North Korea's choice for war, not the UN's. But if you want to avoid war, then the US ought to go to the bargaining table with North Korea. How badly does the US want to avoid war? How badly would it rather polish it's tarnished image and support international coallitions initiated by UN approval against North Korea? Then lastly, who is next on the list? Syria? Will the North Korea issue be completely overshadowed again before it comes to the front? I am extremely glad I live in Canada but at the same time I can't ignore what is going on in the world. I can't help but fear a very rocky, dangerous, war-filled future. So rather than ask who is next, I'm afarid I must ask: when will WWIII be, and how can we avoid it?