jbg

In retrospect, I think that Carter was abysmal. At the time, the harder, more effective neo-con approach largely pioneered by Reagan had not been tried, and was barely open to discussion. His tools, and imagination, were limited.

Sadly, that has been the reputation of the United States as well. Too many despots have gotten their support over the years. Saddam Hussein was one of them. The problem isn't that the UN sometimes supports despots. The problem is that the despots purport to tell other countries what they must do. Supporting Saddam was a necessity because of the Iran situation.

My problem with the UN is that the countries that contribute to the UN are largely democracies, and the countries that the UN sides with are largely despotic dictatorships. I resent being subject to the whim of a majority vote of despots representing no one but themselves.

Many Metis are unilinigual English. They are often indistinguishable from other people in Manitoba. The Metis themselves will have a hard time determining who is Metis because many Metis themselves are not aware that they are considered Metis. Interesting. Riel's neck ached over that question.

Heterosexual organization of society has worked well for thousands of years. Why fix what ain't broke.

For the English speaking culture, the rules are they lose no matter what. Heads they win, tails they lose.

jbg, I think you're setting the bar pretty high. There are examples of skirmishes and conflicts that they've stopped, but perhaps the visibility hasn't been high enough. Does that mean they should be dismantled ? Seeing how internation relations have been put in the hands of relatively inexperienced statesmen, of late, I think it would be negligent to eliminate one line of security altogether. One line of security, at what cost to taxpayers of corruption? More importantly, it creates a bogus "world opinion" that is shared by the chattering classes of diplomats. All I can say is - thankfully you have no say - thinking people around the world support the UN. Abolitionists are few and far between and usually, as in this case, poorly informed. If the uneducated and ignorant ever have their hands on the reins of power, they can do untold damage. Look south for a good example. South? To New Jersey? Or to Mexico?

From your link, maybe you missed it: This sounds to me as an ultimatum that does not call for the destruction of Israel. Rather, like the rest of the international community, it is asking Israel to abide by standing UN resolutions and leave the Occupied Territories. Much of Hezbollah is displaced Palestianian nationals, for your information. Get it? I'm going to respond rationally, though I'm tempted to rant. The Arabs consider even "pre-1967" Israel (the borders, now, for about just over 1/3 of its modern existence) to be "occupied territory.

Mr Annan and Mme Arbour are pretty quick at the lip when it comes to making accusations against Israel. Of course. It's well known that Israel is behind evey senseless massacre, such as September 11, the Mumbai train attacks, the slaughter at the Russian opera, etc. As a very great leader of a very great democracy once said: "A proof is a proof (Link) What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven."

The trouble with that false neutrality, the Kofi Anan/Paul Martin/Jean Chretien/Bill Graham approach, is that the terrorists are deliberately hiding among innocents to force just such condemnation. If these "innocents" wer truly such, they wouldn't tolerate fighters hiding among their midst. Remember, most of the votes for Hezbollah in the Lebanese elections came from the southern part of the country. Can you imagine residents of upstate New York electing to the New York State Assembly or Senate people bent on suicide attacks in Montreal, Kingston or Niagara? Would you then say that the Canadian Army was wrong to attack through "human shield" civilians? I think not.

Why is Israel almost the sole focus of the UN? What about Dharfour? Zaire? Congo? Aren't there some real atrocities to go around?

What good have they done? Create a bogus "world opinion" consensus among people from dictatorships given plush positions in NYC?

Calling the UN terrorist sympathizers "peacekeepers" is a stretch. As this article demonstrates, they're human shields for the terrorists.

This article from the New York Times, excerpted below (link), points out why a "negotiated" approach to Mideast peace, at least the way MSM wants it, is doomed to failure July 25, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Another Man's Honor By JOHN TIERNEY To Hezbollah, there is no such thing as “collateral damage” from its missiles. Israel keeps telling the world that its army aims only at military targets, but Hezbollah doesn’t even pretend to. Its soldiers proudly fire away at civilians. These terrorists consider themselves men of honor, and unfortunately they are — by their own definition. We in the West can call them barbaric, which they also are, but they’re following an ancient social code, even if we can’t recognize it anymore. *snip* The problem today, as Bowman sees it, is that the whole concept of defending one’s honor has been devalued in the West — mocked as an archaic bit of male vanity or childish macho chest-thumping. But if you don’t create a civilized honor culture, you risk ending up with the primitive variety. “The honor system in Arab culture is the default honor system, the one you see in street gangs in America — you dis me, I shoot you,” says Bowman, a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “We need a better system that makes it honorable to be protective of those who are weaker instead of lording it over them.” When you’re confronted with an honor culture like the one in the Middle East, there are two rules to keep in mind. One is that you are not going to placate the enemy with the kind of concessions that appeal to Western diplomats. “Hezbollah is fighting for honor, to humiliate the enemy, not for any particular objective,” Bowman says. “Israel has no choice in what it’s doing. Nothing short of victory by either side will change anything.” The other rule is that you’re not going to quickly transform an honor culture. The Iraq war was predicated on the assumption that democracy would turn Iraqis into loyal citizens with new civic virtues. But for now the old loyalties to tribes and sects still matter more than any universal concept of justice. The men would rather have honor than peace.

jbg, I think you're setting the bar pretty high. There are examples of skirmishes and conflicts that they've stopped, but perhaps the visibility hasn't been high enough. Does that mean they should be dismantled ? Seeing how internation relations have been put in the hands of relatively inexperienced statesmen, of late, I think it would be negligent to eliminate one line of security altogether. One line of security, at what cost to taxpayers of corruption? More importantly, it creates a bogus "world opinion" that is shared by the chattering classes of diplomats.

The same was true during the days after WW I, when Brits had a romantic idea of tribes and tribal life. The results, in the historical development of places like Iraq, were horrifying.

OK, I shook my head. What now do you want?

I know it's hard to get used to, GH, but Harper is not basing all his decisions on polling data. I'm not suggesting that. Obviously his words were based on nothing more than inexperience and ignorance. Maybe it's having a moral compass (I know, strange these days), not inexperience and ignorance.

I guess you're happy so long as they aren't bombing your children. Well maybe these sudden pacifists should have thought of that when they voted Hezbollah into a minority position in the Lebanese government?

40,000 Canadian vacationers in Lebanon? I didn't know their beaches, mountains or sightseeing were that thrilling.

It should be done as a joint command, like NORAD, and NOT include Mexico in the joint command. The US and Canada are relatively similar countries; US and Canada on one hand and Mexico on the other are not.

For once, someone's basing policy on what's right, not what's politically expedient. Harper gets very few Jewish votes, but he's doing the right thing.

Oh yes, JFK and Dief got along famously? Or Johnson and Pearson? ("Don't p*ss on my rug"). Oh sure. Geography makes that impossible. It's simply cheaper to ship and receive from the US than over water.

It's a moral position.