myata

So, "minimization" was no longer an issue? Amazing how we make an effortless transition from high moral grounds to basic cost-benefit analysis.

The vast majority of those deaths are due to Iraqis tragically killing each other. ... as a direct result of liberation though. Then many, many more died as "collateral" damage in the act. More still because of lack of basic necessities resulting from destruction of infrastructure. We've been through this before and I'm sorry to mention it, but you failed to prove that motivation of the perpetraitor should matter one bit. Without this argument, all we have left is the result - and it speaks for itself.

They don't have to. Civilian death toll in just one country (Iraq) in just two months was over 6,500. That's way more than the combined casualties of all terrorist acts since before 9/11.

If only it was possible to bring the instigators of this fine mess to justice, wouldn't it alone go a huge way toward resolving the conflict between civilizations? But no, not in this world.

And civilian casualties at their highest, ever: CBC story. Shouldn't someone be held accountable for these? And sooner rather than later, before the blame is attributed to the West as whole, with predictable consequences?

Following "liberation", may have reached (and exceeded) Saddam's levels, according to a UN official. The Star story.

Wouldn't they need to find some kind of weapon of mass destruction for that? Or at least, a clear and present danger of an attack, if all else fails?

And we're here all for love. I should agree. Then, one question you guys always fail to answer is this: why is it that the bodycounts resulting from your "love" far exceed those of their hate?

Well, there's UNESCO, WHO and they run projects of their own - but, no, no "physical" power. In my personal opinion, there isn't sufficient will and trust in the world yet to come up with a real and legitimate power delegation scheme. Short of that, all attempts are bound to be muddled in power struggles and ad hoc.

You're right and that's one of the causes of the problem. UN pretty much ran its course as the pocket vehicle of the West to legitimize its projects in the world. And the West is highly unlikely to agree to any kind of reform that'll make it appear more democratic (and diminish its powers). So, a stalemate? Will it eventually end up as just a talking club (i.e. -SC) plus cultural, humanitarian and medical organizations?

Maximizing, minimizing... We'd have to read the mind to know. Why don't just put two numbers, side by side, plain and simple. Is one is any better than the other just because it was maximizing (sorry, the other way)?

No, it's OK. But please remember to add the most deserving democracy of Montenegro with a stellar record of 3 (three) full months of unfickled democracy on your distinguished list.

Even though the (modern) history of some of the unfallables on your list can barely count couple of generations?

Uhmm ... what about Christiands flying bomber jets?

CBC link While Chavez (as Ahmadinejad earlier this week) may have certain image problems, there's a ring of truth in that the UN's current structure as a talking club controlled behind the curtains by few and mostly Western powers does not bode well for its credibility and legitimacy in the feature. Has the UN been stillborn from the start? Has it's mandate been too ambitious? Most human communities have some notion of authority. Power is either imposed from the top (authocracy) or delegated from the bottom (democracy). The problem is, in its current state the UN is lacking the first and does not have credibility to garner it through the second. Perhaps the whole idea was a bit premature?

It'd take a PhD to correctly evaluate the state of affairs in all countries of Islamic world and another few to argue all the controversies. But just from the air, those that we hear on the news most often in the context of deep crisis would be: 1) Palestinian territories; 2) Afganistan; 3) (most recently) Iraq. It's hard to not see the pattern. And sure, there probably are other causes as well.

Me too, I'd like to hear about those deeper roots, why stop when the intrigue's at the highest? (Just to compare, it's been what, two, three centuries? since British colonized Ireland and they're still sorting out consequences. Would be interesting to examine those roots as well, ne c'est pas?)

Just wondering, what logic made you include Israel, and leave out France and Germany from the esteemed list?

It's possible but it's up to the church to interpret its own doctrines. If a Catholic feels they may have been misinterpreted in some cases, there should be (I assume) avenues to appeal. My point is that there's absolutely no reason to impose religious doctrines on the secular society.

What if it isn't even possible to install a stable friendly to the West regime in these countries, ever? You seem to be taking for granted it is. Yet there isn't much historic evidence to prove it. The choices we'll have would be i) permanently occupy them, at near infinite cost; or ii) leave (i.e., be kicked out) at the least convenient moment. Again, we should consider all possibilities. Maybe, it's less costly and more efficient to contain the threat than to completely eliminate it.

No matter what happens if / after the mission fails, we'll have to live with the outcome and manage the consequences. Locking yourself in a desperate mission will only prolong suffering and raise casualties. No I'm not saying that's what it looks at this point. However, checks must be in place to react quickly in case it starts turning that way.

I can't disagree. Religions should be allowed to function according to their teaching, within their congregations (with all the appropriate qualifications). By the same token, there's no reason whatsoever to "impose" religous concepts (such as interpretation of what a marriage should be), in a secular society, on the people who have nothing to do with those religions. We should be able to agree here.

I agree. Afganistan proved to be a tough nut for greater military powers before (British, Soviets). As in any project or undertaking, the questions that need to be discussed and answered should be: - what is the strategy used to win this war (I wonder if to base it solely on the number of killed Taleban is the best one - they are all local and have families while NATO no matter how many lollipops they hand out to kids will always be viewed as foreigners); - criteria to assess progress (or lack thereof); - clearly defined goals; - contingency plans in case things don't develop as expected; - cost (i.e how much, in resources, time, lives) we're willing to invest. And, to keep this from spinning out of control (as American adventure in Iraq seem to be headed to) the discussion should be ongoing. We owe it to the people on the ground - and it has nothing to do with abandoning the mission (although it can be one of the possible outcomes - it'd be foolish to deny that).

To be fair (and after reading and making an effort to understand the pointiff's point) I still can't quite figure out how the quote in question fits in his line of thought and why this particular quote was chosen to be in that place. Which leaves only two possibilites: unintentional messup or deliberate attempt to insult. So this is a valid question. Personally, I don't see any gain in the second, so my vote is for the "goof". Which still doesn't reflect well on his ability to lead such an important institution. I'm all for the the "reason" argument and only wish it'll be (eventually) applied in the everyday practice as well as in learned discussions.

No, they aren't forthcoming. Case closed.