The Business Blog at Intuitive.com

Dave Taylor has been involved with the online world since 1980 and is recognized globally as an expert on both technical and business issues. He has been published over a thousand times, launched four Internet-related startup companies, has written twenty business and technical books and holds both an MBA and MS Ed. He's a columnist for the Boulder Daily Camera and Linux Journal and frequently appears in other publications both online and in print. Additionally, Dave maintains four weblogs: The Business Blog at Intuitive.com, Ask Dave Taylor, Dave On Film, and GoFahterhood. Based in beautiful Boulder, Colorado, Dave is an award-winning speaker, sought after conference and workshop participant and frequent guest on radio and podcast programs, as well as active member of his community and busy single father to three children.

Agitprop and modern times

I dunno, this all feels like Bush and his team have been itching for a fight and are just waiting for some excuse. Since the inspectors have been given free and open access, and have found nothing suspicious or of concern, the latest U.S. government agitprop (if you will) is to say "that doesn't matter. We want Iraq to meet the United Nations edicts on disarmament, and we are going to make 'em toe the line." Our complaints against Iraq seem to just be one thing after another.

And this from an administration that have already come out and stated that "if the United Nations won't let us go into Iraq with our miliary, we'll do it anyway." Consider this quote, for example: President Bush debated whether to formally declare Iraq in violation of a U.N. arms resolution that threatened war unless Saddam disarms.. Why is Bush making this decision? Isn't that the responsibility of the United Nations itself, and our ambassador to the UN?

So isn't this a classic double standard? Bush is "angry" because Iraq won't follow the rule of the UN, but at the same time refused to have the UN tell him what he can or can't do as President of the United States.

And as Americans, we just get this never-ending stream of anti-Iraqi and, now, anti-North Korea information from the government, with no substantiation. Other than hand-waving and statements of secrecy, there's still no proof that the Iraqis have any weapons of mass destruction any more than any other nation in the region possess.

Of course, I suggest that all of this is a huge game of misdirection since we have proven ineffective in fighting al Queda, catching the evil, but nonetheless demonized Osama bin Laden, and in "defending our honor after 9/11"...

But what's most concerning is that I believe the United Nations is a tremendous force for peace in the world, and I support their UNICEF program, for example. I believe that if the United States were more squarely behind the United Nations (things like our perpetual foot-dragging on paying our annual dues to the organization) then we could lead by example, rather than lead by having the biggest club in the cave. It's a scary world to imagine a place where the UN has been shut down and we're back to the global tensions that lead up to, among other things, World War I. Plus all the technological and military advances of the last century. It's not a pretty picture.

Before you leave a comment, a tip: If you're interested in blogging, you should sign up for my Blogsmart News so you can stay up to date on the latest insider tips and ideas for your Internet business and marketing efforts. Sign up right now and you'll get a free copy of my "Insider's Guide to Blogging" ebook too!