That said, it would be foolish and remiss of me to pass up such a gilt-edged opportunity to say what everybody with a brain cell is thinking...

We do not need a poll to tell us that George W. Bush is vastly more dangerous than Kim Jong-Il of North Korea, Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran!

Kim Jong-Il has developed, built and tested a nuclear weapon and yet this "lunatic dictator" from Communist North Korea is showing his new hand by agreeing to further six-party talks that the US administration had all but claimed were dead in the water, has offered words discussing self-defence rather than discussing an aggressive policy and has not, repeat NOT fired a nuclear missile at anybody, EVER!

As opposed, of course, to the US who are the only nation to have fired one and, after apparently enjoying the extravaganza of death and destruction so much the first time, could not wait to do it again...

So they did.

Now, call me crazy, but surely the fact that the short period of only 61 years has passed since the senseless murder of around 140,000 people* is about as long as the blink of an eye in a historical context and the fact that Kim Jong-Il was four and a half years old when the bombing took place and not only remembers it happening but may even harbour some sort of grudge against the US for it, he is yet to take his "ultimate revenge".

Let's have a quick look at the two scenarios of Iraq and North Korea compared:

IRAQ: Saddam Hussein, a personal friend of Donald Rumsfeld who sold him chemical and biological weapons, might have a chocolate bar shaped like a rocket somewhere near Baghdad.

RESULT: Over three and a half years of a futile and desperate war which cannot be won as there is nothing to gain, has ushered in a previously unheard of era of almost global hatred towards the US and has helped to kill well in excess of 500,000 people and will, in all likelihood and considering the widespread use of Depleted Uranium weapons, eventually reach the millions in Iraq alone.

NORTH KOREA: Outspoken Communist dictator and self-confessed America-hater, Kim Jong-Il, withdraws from the six-nation talks that are being held in an attempt to stop North korea from taking the final step of actually building a finished, working nuclear missile. Stating that they would never agree to direct talks with North Korea, the US is left to do no more than wonder what Kim Jong-Il is likely to do next, hidden as he is behind the shroud of secrecy that surrounds his country so successfully. Not to forget that all the while the US are actually supplying him the materials to make a nuclear missle in the first place!

RESULT: Well, apart from a lot of hot air, rhetoric, BS, posturing and a return to the six-nation talks, absolutely nothing whatsoever has been done...

Does the US administration know something that we don't? Why are they not reacting to this ACTUAL threat from a nuke-toting nutjob as opposed to reacting to a perceived threat (although only perceived by themselves and a few of their close friends and allies) from an American-installed, American-made no actual chemical and biological weapons-toting friend of the Bush administration?

Incredibly, the poll goes on to ask some other questions that receive some fairly "telling" answers.

When asked whether the world was "less safe" - surely that should be MORE DANGEROUS? An example of "Newspeak" at its finest - due to the foreign policy of Dubya and his war-criminal cabinet, the poll, which took place in Great Britain, Canada, Mexico and Israel, showed that the vast majority of people believe that the world is indeed "less safe"...

...with the exception of Israel.

When asked if the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified, the vast majority of those polled stated that it was not justified...

...with the exception of Israel.

So, whilst this leaves us with many new questions such as:

Why did the US and UK governments lie about Iraq's WMD program to invade Iraq when they do not need to lie about North Korea's but are choosing to do no more than sit around a table with their despotic leader?

Why did the US administration sit back and allow Kim Jong-Il to design, build and test his nuclear weapon and do precisely NOTHING about it?

Why is the US administration not pressing the UN for an all-out attack on North Korea as it did with Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion?

It also leaves us with some interesting answers to some old question such as:

The US and UK governments clearly knew that Iraq did not have WMDs but chose to attack anyway whilst North Korea has proved that they have them and is sitting pretty. Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were NOT those stated.

We now also know that the US and UK governments chose to start a pre-emptive war against Iraq. This can be safely deemed to be the waging of an aggressive war and that alone is a war crime. Incidentally, it is the same war crime that most of the Nazis were charged with and convicted of at Nuremberg.

Either the US and UK governments were aware, like most of the rest of the world, that North Korea was building a nuclear missile and they chose to do nothing to stop it or they have only just found out and it is too late to stop it. Either way they should all be relieved of their positions in government and sent to Guantanamo Bay to await war crimes trials in Saddam Hussein's new house in Kentucky where, as the new president of the US, he will appoint the judges and the defence counsel (who will not be able to have private meetings with their clients) as well as deciding which people are allowed to give testimony in defence of the accused.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well it is just about exactly what they have done to Saddam Hussein in Iraq and anybody (apart from you rabid Republicans who cannot recognise a non-partisan issue even when it is stapled to the bottom of a dirty great boot that is being used to repeatedly kick you in the face) who has an ounce of desire to see justice done should feel physically ill at the idea of Saddam being offered a trial which is as bad as any that he himself would have offered his enemies in Iraq when in power.

The US president has become as bad as if not worse than Saddam himself...

There is much more to discuss here but I will leave you with two final questions that I hope are thought-provoking, challenging and, above all, as sarcastic as hell!

1. Consider the following two irrefutable facts:

a) The US and UK invaded Iraq without any valid justification at all whilst lying and cheating at every turn and at every level to create the illusion of necessity and consent in the minds of the people of their nations.

b) Israel are the only nation with any involvement in US and UK policy that still think the invasion was a good idea, that did not make the world "less safe" and was justified in the first place.

Now, with that in mind, ask yourself who wanted an invasion of Iraq to take place and why?

2. How on Earth can Osama bin Laden be considered the most dangerous man in the world when he is probably dead and the office that was set up in the FBI to find and catch him has been closed down?

Like I said, polls are rubbish!

* - Unfortunately the history of the Hiroshima bombing is written, as ever, by the "winning team". The winning team in this case is the US, so objectivity and reality are a little hard to come by on the topic. Suffice to say that even the US agrees that around 140,000 people were killed and so that will have to be the figure we accept for the purposes of this examination.