The other political parties have responded as predicted to Bush's decision to bypass the UN, and inject a strong dose of lead straight into Saddam's veins.

The Conservative/Christian People's Party coalition tried to give the impression all along that they would make their own, independent decision after the UN had made its. It was obvious to anyone, though, that they were going to agree with the UN no matter what, that being what they saw as the least risky path, politically speaking. Consequently, PM Kjell Magne Bondevik has decided to oppose the war, saying that it is without basis in international law.

- There is no clear basis in international law for the US the use force against Iraq. Norway will therefore not support an attack, [Bondevik says]. On the other hand, neither he nor foreign minister Jan Petersen will go as far as saying that the attack is a violation of international law, as for instance the Swedish prime minister Göran Persson has done. [..]

- There has been clear violations of resolution 1441 by the Iraqis. Despite this, the Security Council failed to reach a decision. This is most unfortunate. The basis we asked for does therefore not exist. There is no basis in international law for an attack, added Petersen. [..]

- The main responsibility falls on Iraq for failing to cooperate by following the demands of the international community, [Bondevik] said.

The main problem with this position, (besides the fact that I disagree with it), is that it is inconsistent. The Norwegian government claims to see the Iraqi danger. It supports demands for disarmament, and is clearly aware that Saddam Hussein has knowingly violated resolution 1441, which Norway voted for. It strongly disagrees with the French and German line. And yet it now opposes the only conceivable way that resolution can ever be enforced. That's not being principled, that's being self-contradictory.

The Labor Party has reacted in much the same way as the government, strongly critical of Iraq, but unwilling to do anything without UN approval. This is no surprise, as the Conservatives and Labor are the main supporters of Norway's traditional foreign policy: Support the UN first, NATO second, the US third.

Leader of the Socialist Left Party, Kristin Halvorsen, no less predictably calls the coming attack a violation of international law, a provocation against the international community that it will likely increase recruitment for terrorist organizations. Oddly, she also claims that "the US is now about to waste all the sympathy everyone felt after September 11". Is about to? Whatever sympathy she felt for the US after September 11, Kristin Halvorsen herself seems to have lost only one month later, when the US attacked Afghanistan. Perhaps the sympathy the world felt after the WTC massacre really was bottomless, because no matter how many times the US wastes that sympathy, there always seems quite a lot of it still left to waste.

And finally, six of ten Norwegians oppose Bush's decision to go to war, with two of ten supporting it. Eight of ten agree with Norway's decision not to support Bush, with one of ten believing we should have supported him. Why these numbers don't match is beyond me - they're from the same poll. One can only conclude that there's a significant number of people who secretly support Bush, but would rather that the Norwegian government kept silent about it anyway.

Oh, and interestingly, the Oslo Stock Exchange has been up two days in a row, now, ever since Bush's 48 hour announcement. With every single bad day on the stock market having been explained with "war fears" for several months now, is this upturn in the face of certain war a symptom of "war relief"?

I see that the staffers at Aftenposten newspaper (Norway's venerable old national paper) have gone totally berserk now that the invasion is going forward. Today's paper is full of anti-American invective — including an article that asserts that the U.S. may use chemical weapons against the Iraqis. Wait a sec — did I read that right? Yes, indeed. According to Aftenposten, the U.S. has stockpiles of VX and other deadly gasses at its disposal. (Actually, I thought that we had destroyed or decomissioned those weapons.) Aftenposten then says that Rumsfeld has talked about using CS in Iraq. (Same gas, according to Aftenposten, that was used by the Russians when they stormed the Chechen-held theater in Moscow some weeks back.) Seems to me very unlikely that we would use CS in Iraq — even if we have it in our arsenal. But I have to admit that this is exactly the sort of impolitic remark that one can imagine Rumsfeld might have let fall. Aftenposten concludes its article by saying, "UN weapons inspectors haven't found any trace of chemical or biological weapons ... in Iraq ... According to weapons inspectors, pretty much all of the old stockpiles were destroyed in the mid 90's ...
Whether Saddam Hussein has anyway managed to hide some away is an open question, though leading experts contend that these weapons have long ago passed their expiration dates."
As usual in Aftenposten, America is the bad guy — even when compared to Hussein's Iraq. How do Norwegians survive this kind of media? Is it possible for them to correctly assess world events when an important paper like Aftenposten stokes the fires of anti-Americanism with articles like these, day in and day out?

Again, without a Biblical understanding you will never see what is happening. There are two spirits on this planet influencing people. God's spirit called the Holy Spirit, and Satan's spirit called the spirit of antichrist. The spirit of antichrist infuses the majority of the news media, entertainment media, academia, and political and religious establishments of the world. What do they hate? Let me see... The United States. Britain. Israel. The center-of-gravity of Christianity on Earth (despite England's empty 'post-religious-society' notice Blair is inspired to do the right thing, 'surprising' his supporters and other onlookers, but now of course they just say, "Yes, of course, but we obviously underestimated his religious fanaticism..."). They mock and scoff at anybody and anything that - truly - believes in and fears/reveres God. The masses are vacuous and unconciously 'channel' the displeasure of the Devil on any and all issues where the Devil is taking a hit. This is why you see these people arguing that up is down and black is white. They have no protection from the Devil and unconsciously say and do anything he inspires them to say and do. There are a thousand justifications for any word or deed or stance, but notice how the opposition to America, Britain, and Israel like a gyroscope, no matter which way they have to turn and twist and contort (and no matter what new shape they have to morph into) always maintain their focus in targeting their displeasure and hatred for anything having anything to do with God and the people of God. If you're one of them you won't understand this. If you have the discernment given by the Holy Spirit (however that came to you, though it inevitably will have included at some point a genuine effort, with good will, to read and absorb the Word of God) you will understand. If you are in the sleepy middle you will be confused. (The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.)

ct: God, Bible, yadda yadda, - yawn. Try to contribute something worthwhile for us to read. Not that I read your whole piece: I got bored by the first sentence.

First, if my writing seems useless to you then by all means don't spend any of your time or effort on it. Second, influences (other than my writing of course) that are currently beyond your understanding or interests require more effort on your part. If you are merely reading things that 'draw' your attention you will not be increasing and developing beyond your current limits. If a post on the subject of God or the Bible (or related subjects) causes a person to write a response like this it usually means that that person has yet to come to an understanding of these subjects. People who have come to some degree of understanding of these matters tend not to complain in this manner when they come across such thoughts and writing. Try to go against the mechanical urge to compose a response to this response I've written to you that will merely have the intent of protecting or salvaging your vanity. "The fool says in his heart there is no God." "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding..."

>>>Try to contribute something worthwhile for us to read.

It's been my experience that people who react negatively in some manner towards mention of God or the Bible often adopt the collective first person plural in their complaint ('us' in this case). When you are a believing Christian it is assumed that you are a stranger passing through this world... So be it.

The only problem is, there are significant percentages of atheists who are staunchly pro-America, UK, and Israel (see many of Bjorn's own links), and a great many of the stauchly religious who are bowing to Chirac's rhetoric. I'm just saying, I don't think the divisions are nearly as clean as that.

Yes, but I was explaining people who have that unique, unreasoning, vehement, rancid, juvenile, automatic, hatred of America, Britain, and Israel on this and similar issues.

I didn't mean to imply that the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, explains all people who support the war or America, Britain, and Israel. There are also things like 'the spirit of Ayn Rand'. Or the spirit of people who understand freedom and the necessary conditions needed to cultivate and maintain freedom. Or the spirit of Adam Smith. Or the spirit of fashion that thinks burkas are unattractive. People who like comfort. People who like well-engineered automobiles. People who like indoor plumbing. Etc., etc. No, you don't have to be inspired by the Holy Spirit to support this current war or to support America, Britain, and Israel generally...

Ignorance, though, doesn't fully explain the opposition. For that you have to go to Biblical understanding...

Regarding Norway and other Scandinavian countries support or lack of support for the U.S. in this action: this American is feeling more and more disgust. Finland is now coming down on us? Do these people understand geography? Do they grasp geopolitical security realities? Do they know history and human nature? Can they be this stupid? And why are people always reported as "warning" the U.S.? Warning us? Jesus. I think there's a mass Walter Mitty-ism infecting old Europe. Not just Chirac...

I am an American of Norwegian desent. On this side of the pond we truly believe that a.) Saddam is a bad man. b.) He has weapons that he agreed to give up 45 days after the end of the Gulf war. c.) Saddam, given the opportunity, would use such weapons (or sell them to an entity that would) use them in a surreptitous manner against us.

From what I have read in the European media, none of these points is in dispute. Furthermore, even Hans Bliks has said that the probability of disarming Iraq was near to nil.

If it is the feeling of the Norwegian people that the US and the rest of the Western world must wait to have a city leveled or a nation poisoned before protecting itself, then perhaps my Grandfather chose wisely when he left.

It occurs to me that the European nations that are now calling for more time to allow sanctions and inspections to work are the same nations that cried that sanctions were killing Iraqi civilians at extreme numbers.

A paradox has presented itself which has caused the US and Great Britain to defy thew UN to save it. After twelve years of resolutions, sanctions and inspections, it is past the time for men to come foreward as leaders. I am proud to say that one of those men is my president.

UPDATED AND CORRECTED:

First off, please allow me to acknowledge that

I do appreciate, for the moment, Mr Bjørn Stærk,

I disagree with him on practically everything politically, but he is man enough to allow differing points of view to be posted at his website. I congratulate and thank him for that.

Second, America has not the slightest reason to Blitz Iraq with our enormous military machine, why the hell are we doing it?

FUCK YOU neocons (jews, kikes) we in the States will not forget this. Israel first, right? You have turned our once wonderful nation into a microcosm of ancient Rome. PLEASE explain why in fucking hell are we attacking this third world nation Iraq that has done nothing to us but for some reason does not suit the United States administration?

You useless fuck republicans, you troublemakers will pay, and I look forward to it. I'm gonna help you pay, and I'm gonna assist you getting your rewards when that time comes. You people sicken me, and your screaming for the blood of Iraqis only makes me ill, you "true blue" americans. I loathe you kike friendly sonsobitches, you mental dorks bore and disgust me. But thanks for the web space Stærk, although you disgust me as well. America ist kaput.

We have become "that shitty little cuntry."

FUCK YOU REPUBLICANS, and thanks for destroying what used to be the USA, you gd wimps and kikes.

Mark Konrad
VNN

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/default.asp
-
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/readerMail/default.asp

Mark,

You and your kind spew filth and claim the protections of the very Constitution you dishonor. It makes me sick that you can claim to be an American. Good people have died in opposition to the garbage you believe in. Go ahead and continue to spread hatred, just stop wrapping yourself in the flag that most of us love.

As for your failure to understand how and why America is in Iraq, there is no point to disputing it with you. I suspect you lack the basic intelligence to appreciate why.

I will not respond to anything else that you say. Just note that while you plot your sick little fantasies, people are watching.

Mark: Ok, so first you thank me for my hospitability, and then you _abuse_ that hospitability by personally insulting - even threatening - a large number of my readers and myself?

I don't care if you're against the war, if you believe that Jews control everything, or that the moon is flat. But you _will_ be polite to the other guests at my website. There's not always a clear line between calling a person's beliefs stupid, and calling the person itself stupid, but this is way, way beyond anything I can accept.

If you can't follow that simple rule, if you can't explain how you feel without shouting "FUCK YOU REPUBLICANS" and calling everyone who disagrees with you mental dorks, then you are not welcome here. I expect your next post to be an apology.

(Jeremy, that rule applies to you too. Insulting the guests is my perogative.)

Bjorn,

I'm sorry if you feel as if I've abused your hospitality. Insulting the guests may be your prerogative and I do not deny it. However, and I say this respectfully, it is equally my prerogative (and I think my responsibility) to stand up to a racist and to tell him that his fellow citizens, in whose name he claims to speak, despise him and his morally bankrupt ideology. I actually think that my post back to him was quite mild. But, as you say, its your house and I will refrain from attacks on Mark's intelligence (which, upon rereading my post, is the only thing I think you are referring to).

Jeremy: Yeah, that was all. Don't worry about it.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/98