If have to loose my thoughts here a bit. I get emails from pro-war supporters from the US that tell me it is a good thing that the evil man Saddam Hussain is going to be removed as the president of Iraq. I agree with that, he is indeed an evil man with a very bad history towards his own people.

But one of the many things that bother me is how Saddam Hussain is the national problem of the United States.

I can give you a fine example to explain the life of a national problem:

In the Netherlands there was a nationwide deed to collect money for hungry people in Africa this month. Yes, people die there because of thirst and starvation as the economy is corrupt and totally out of balance to feed millions of people.

Organisations like Unicef and the Red Cross jump in and launch this big media attack where everybody will be confronted with these hungry people. You'll see them every half hour on TV and you'll see the bank account number you can deposit your financial support on and call different phone lines for information.

Understandably, the whole nation wants to fight the hunger in Africa. Dutch celebrities (yes, we have a handful) join in live television broadcast and complete the entire period with a big spectacle.

"Hunger in Africa should be prohibited and we are helping them out!!!" is the national thought in The Netherlands. During a few weeks over 1,5 million euros were collected.

But what did the rest of the world? Not much. Here in Canada I heard nothing about hunger in Africa, not a word in the English media to be sure. That's because it was made a national problem in The Netherlands only.

This is what happened in the USA the same way!

Only this time it's not about how bad the situation if for starving people in Africa, no it's about the people who live under the regime of Saddam Hoessein. So instead of removing hunger by donations, Saddam should be removed. (And how this is down is a different subject) What I mean to say is that in America Saddam Hussain is made the national problem. The person that you are confronted with in the media every half hour. (now don't tell me that he's a national problem because Iraq could harm the US, that's another discussion again)

But this time there is no Unicef or Red Cross involved in it, only the government. And that's where I get my concerns. Because since when does a government care about the situation of people in another country? Well?

Unicef and the Red Cross in The Netherlands of course wanted to collect a lot of money to stop hunger, what would the US government try to get out of this?

Oscar winning documentary maker Michael Moore[ seems to know what the government of the US is after: "After you 'win' the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!"

And if Saddam Hussain has been a very bad boy, what about all the other world leaders that don't enjoy democracy that much and prefer to keep corruption and other problems rule their country? I don't hear any American media about them and I am sure they can be found.

Or are the US going to get them too as the police agent of the world? Is that a good thing? Or are the US only going after this Saddam to answer fear that has been awaken since 9/11? It sure must feel good then...

That's my entire thought I want to pass on to American readers who feel offended by the fact that I oppose the war on Iraq. Opinions (!!!) are there to be shared.

It is not made a national problem for the rest of the world and that's where opposition against America is coming from the most.

If you (dis)agree with me, I invite you to the news-discussion board on the forum.