Yesterday I met an acquaintance at a store, and he said he was worried about Kim Jong Un firing a nuclear missile at the United States. I told him that Kim Jong Un is like a wild animal, and if the United States left him alone, we would have nothing to fear, that our government has backed him into the corner with sanctions and six party talks, and then parades air craft carriers past him to flaunt our superior military power. Who is the victim here? The United States or North Korea?
Genocides start when one person believes he or she has been victimized, and the one person in American history who clarified this question best of who is the victim is John Adams in his defense of the British troops after the event known as the Boston Massacre. His argument was that a guard's post is like his castle, and he has the right to defend it, and what man would not try to defend himself from an attack?
There is a kind of flip-flop effect, and that is the perfect time to take the case to court to decide. Who is the victim and who is the villain?
In the case of Captain Preston and his British troops, John Adams believed they were victimized by the crowd made up of angry colonists, not the other way around. At the time, the Revolution had not yet started, and the colonies were still subject to British rule, and the British troops had every right to be there, defending their post. It took the signing of the Declaration of Independence and a Revolutionary War to drive the British from our soil.
In the case of North Korea, Kim Jong Un has the right to defend his nation from what he sees as acts of aggression by the United States, yet we see ourselves as victims of his acts of aggression.
In the case of the Iraq War, the Iraqi people have had the right to defend themselves and their nation from the act of aggression perpetrated by the United States as a result of the preemptive strike, which went against the intent of the UN Charter, and was justified by a lie.
What man would not try to defend himself, his home and his nation?
Universal Law is what clarifies this in our minds. "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you." As a nation, do we want foreign governments to declare they have the right to invade our shores, or to topple our government because we don't agree to their policies?
Citizens who are uninformed about what is going on in the world, and who believe the justification to perpetrate acts of aggression against another nation because we are being victimized, like what occurred in Iraq, start genocides and play into the hands of those who function entirely for their own interests when they judge another person to be evil. No one has the right to judge another person as being evil, even governments.
The plan for the international government has been opened to debate, and under our plan, disputes between nations will be decided in court rather than the battlefield. No one has to do more than to agree to turn responsibility for handling the dispute over to the international government and its associated court system to end disputes all over the entire planet.
The existing structure has proven it cannot end or prevent wars because the UN Charter has five main flaws, including the fact that it does not treat all nations fairly and equally, which was proven by the fact that the United States was able to justify the preemptive strike on Iraq. There was no John Adams who stood up to defend the Iraqi people from the acts of aggression perpetrated by George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Now, to end this war and to prevent many others, it is time for this dispute to be decided in court.
But, what about the courts? How can there be a fair trial to decide a genocide, which is based on weaving an illusion? That is what we are addressing with our Exit Strategy for Iraq.