Canada's much-vaunted "neutrality"

[Argus]

I've seen a lot of protests over the last couple of weeks, in particular, and even before then, anguished protestations that by working with NATO in Afghanistan (for the UN) and supporting Israel Canada is somehow foresaking its position as "honest broker" where we can do so much more, that we will no longer be seen as "neutral' and as such, won't be listened to equally by all sides. Why, to listen to some of these people, like Bill Graham, the chair of the Canadian ambassador to the UN is elevated several inches higher than anyone elses, on a platform, with a special golden light playing down upon the golden circlet aorund his head as he nobly sits and presides over the squabbling of lesser mortals, and shakes his head sadly at their lack of enlightenment. Oh if the were only as noble and cultureda and mature as Canada!

I'm not entirely sure where this ludicrous self-image came from, though obviously it can be traced back to Pearson's Nobel prize. But it kind of makes me want to write a skit for Saturday Night Live, or perhaps even This Hour has 22 Minutes. It'd show a high powered meeting of world leaders dealing with a tense situation. Then the ambassador from Russia would say "Perhaps we should call Canada and see what they think".

Pause for effect.

Then wild laughter and knee slapping hilarity ensue, followed by the French ambassador saying "Let's find out what Burkino Faso thinks too!"

The truth is, in in diplomatic matters, Canada isn't even on the radar. What the Liberals and liberal media likes to call our "neutrality" is nothing more than a refusal to take a stand on anything until we've thoroughly tested the winds, both foreign and domestic to see where we should lean. Even then we mostly abstain. This has not led to international admiration.

On the Israeli matter, despite the anguished hand-wringing in the Canadian media, no one else in the world, except, perhaps, Israel, seems to have noticed. There were no international reports of the G8 meeting that i saw which mentioned Canada at all. This even though the subject of Israel was highly important. No, it was portrayed as the US, and to some degree, UK, against everyone else in that respect. Nobody even thought to ask what Canada's position was. Nobody cared.

Canada as an honest broker? If we're a broker we've had an empty waiting room for 50 years. No one is coming to Canada asking us to supervise difficult negotiations. No one is asking us to get the parties together at the table in the middle east or anywhere else. If a broker, a third party is needed or wanted, if there is someone who is going to exercise some degree of influence, it's going to be the Americans or the British, the French perhaps or Russians. Canada? Phhht. Might as well ask Burkino Faso to be the arbitrator.

So where has this deep rooted belief, which seems to be honestly held even by the natioinal media, come from, that Canada is an admired neitral "honest broker?" What have we done since Pearson that made use of this much vaunted "neutrality" in helping along tense negotiations, in settling important issues, in resolving dangerous disputes? Help me out here, you liberals! Give us a list of all Canada's diplomatic triumphs, without which the world would be a more violent place.

And tell me why being too gutless to take a stand on anything should be admired.

[jdobbin]

So where has this deep rooted belief, which seems to be honestly held even by the natioinal media, come from, that Canada is an admired neitral "honest broker?" What have we done since Pearson that made use of this much vaunted "neutrality" in helping along tense negotiations, in settling important issues, in resolving dangerous disputes? Help me out here, you liberals! Give us a list of all Canada's diplomatic triumphs, without which the world would be a more violent place.

And tell me why being too gutless to take a stand on anything should be admired.

Since the vast majority of Canadians in the country have expressed neutrality on Israel/Lebanon/Palestine's conflict according to polls released this past week, I think the answer that has been that people feel that Canada won't make a difference in the fight one way or the other because they will *always* be fighting.

[Argus]

So where has this deep rooted belief, which seems to be honestly held even by the natioinal media, come from, that Canada is an admired neitral "honest broker?" What have we done since Pearson that made use of this much vaunted "neutrality" in helping along tense negotiations, in settling important issues, in resolving dangerous disputes? Help me out here, you liberals! Give us a list of all Canada's diplomatic triumphs, without which the world would be a more violent place.

And tell me why being too gutless to take a stand on anything should be admired.

Since the vast majority of Canadians in the country have expressed neutrality on Israel/Lebanon/Palestine's conflict according to polls released this past week, I think the answer that has been that people feel that Canada won't make a difference in the fight one way or the other because they will *always* be fighting.

That's not at all true. First, most of those in Canada who would describe themselves as "neutral" do so because they really don't know what's going on there. Second, the shrill demands coming from the NDP, and Liberals, and from the liberal media right now, is to condemn Israel, and to demand Israel stop.

Second, you don't join a group to abstain. You don't get elected to office to not vote. Canada is in the UN. It should vote its conscience when the time comes. In point of fact, when I said 'abstain' I'm not entirely correct, at least in the UN. There, Canada usually doesn't abstain. Usually it supports condemnation of Israel, or has in the past. Canada has repeatedly voted in favour of unfair, one-sided anti-Israeli resolutions which are put forward by the 56 member Muslim block. Without criticism or even notice from the Canadian media.

However, when, of late, Canada's position began to shift, last year and of course, moreso this year, suddenly we got all these media notes expressing concern that Canada was "pulling back" from its traditional neutrality - neutrality apparently meaning mouthing anti-Israeli phrases while quietly, behind the scenes, voicing support of Israel (where it presumably wouldn't cost the liberals any Muslim votes).

Canada should vote to support the right and condemn the wrong - unless there is some overriding issue of national imprtance to us where we need to vote in our own interest.

[jdobbin]

That's not at all true. First, most of those in Canada who would describe themselves as "neutral" do so because they really don't know what's going on there. Second, the shrill demands coming from the NDP, and Liberals, and from the liberal media right now, is to condemn Israel, and to demand Israel stop.

Second, you don't join a group to abstain. You don't get elected to office to not vote. Canada is in the UN. It should vote its conscience when the time comes. In point of fact, when I said 'abstain' I'm not entirely correct, at least in the UN. There, Canada usually doesn't abstain. Usually it supports condemnation of Israel, or has in the past. Canada has repeatedly voted in favour of unfair, one-sided anti-Israeli resolutions which are put forward by the 56 member Muslim block. Without criticism or even notice from the Canadian media.

However, when, of late, Canada's position began to shift, last year and of course, moreso this year, suddenly we got all these media notes expressing concern that Canada was "pulling back" from its traditional neutrality - neutrality apparently meaning mouthing anti-Israeli phrases while quietly, behind the scenes, voicing support of Israel (where it presumably wouldn't cost the liberals any Muslim votes).

Canada should vote to support the right and condemn the wrong - unless there is some overriding issue of national imprtance to us where we need to vote in our own interest.

Until the meeting called with Peter McKay, I don't know that Canadians have heard much from Liberals, Bloq or NDP. I can't remember the last time I saw Jack Layton on TV. Ignatieff only made a comment this weekend in the Globe. The Bloq had a few line message from Duceppe's home in France.

The media has been all over it like they are with most conflicts. I think most people agree that Israel has a right to defend itself and disagreed about whether it was measured or not.

In the end, most people are not convinced that Canada taking one side or the other helps the conflict in this case.

[watching&waiting]

Even in sleepy Canada there are not many people who would say that the Israeli and Lebanese people are ever going to be good friends and neighbours. I think we all recognize that there are too many long standing arguments going on in this was between the two, that no one is listening to the people of Lebanon or the people of Israel. The fight is going to rage until one or the other has the their opponent beaten very close to submission.

Most here in Canada can see that it will most likely be the Israeli army who will be the victor, and then that makes a case for mnay to take sides with the under dog. The trouble is the under dog is a rabid pitbull, and probably needs to be put down anyway. I am more of the mind that we should just let Israel go about doing its business and finally put an end to this once and for all. To me I would believe that if Israel was to over take power in Lebanon, it would govern the lebanese people far more fairly then their past leaders. Also I think Lebanon would thrive under Israelli governance, and it would be a much safer place for people then it has been in a long while.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I'm not entirely sure where this ludicrous self-image came from, though obviously it can be traced back to Pearson's Nobel prize.

I believe Pearson's quote when he won that prize was "The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants, and for peace like retarded pygmies"

Canada as an honest broker? If we're a broker we've had an empty waiting room for 50 years. No one is coming to Canada asking us to supervise difficult negotiations. No one is asking us to get the parties together at the table in the middle east or anywhere else. If a broker, a third party is needed or wanted, if there is someone who is going to exercise some degree of influence, it's going to be the Americans or the British, the French perhaps or Russians. Canada? Phhht. Might as well ask Burkino Faso to be the arbitrator.

Firstly, I don't think the 'last 50 years' (of strife and conflict) can be fairly compared to even the last 5. Things are much different now.

Secondly, no one really asks (or had asked) for a third party to broker a 'difficult negotiation' with a rebel force trying to overthrow a legitimate, or even illegitimate government. Canada's 'neutral peacekeeping and humanitarian' role was to defend the non-combatants, whomever they may be. True, they tried to 'broker peace', but if troops went in it was more likely that they weren't on any side, save those who wished to simply live their lives in peace, no matter who ended up running their country. The role of Canada used to be to provide food, shelter and water, and if possible, a 'fire-free zone', where people could go to be safe from the conflict that they often had little stake in. In Sudan and Rwanda, some of these efforts were terrible failures.

However, times have changed, where everything isn't so clear, so cut& dried. It used to be a case of some Soviet (or US) rebel force trying to overthrow some proxy US (or Soviet) government somewhere, and it was easy to see that neither side held the 'moral high ground' (at least during the conflict, but often regardless) and it was easy to side with 'the innocent civilians'. Now, not so much.

[Hicksey]

We're becoming brokers of irrelevance.

There is no value in being a fence-sitter. Either you're for or against something. Rarely is one viewpoint entirely correct, so just pick the side you agree most with and voice your remaining concerns so they may be addressed.

My experience is that fence-sitters are just people that refuse to be wrong. They sit on the fence and then righteously proclaim with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight what happened and that they surmised it would happen all along. Fence-sitters -- IMO -- are the most intellectually dishonest of all. I'd much rather take a side and end up being wrong than to become a fence-sitter.

By sitting idle and try to maintain some neutrality politically we make friends, but also anger others. When will our idiot leaders Liberal and Conservative realize that they cannot keep everyone happy? Just take a side for Christ's sake.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hicksey,

Fence-sitters -- IMO -- are the most intellectually dishonest of all. I'd much rather take a side and end up being wrong than to become a fence-sitter.

Well, lets take Angola as an example. From the CIA world Factbook...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ao.html

Background:

Angola is slowly rebuilding its country after the end of a 27-year civil war in 2002. Fighting between the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), led by Jose Eduardo DOS SANTOS, and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), led by Jonas SAVIMBI, followed independence from Portugal in 1975. Peace seemed imminent in 1992 when Angola held national elections, but UNITA renewed fighting after being beaten by the MPLA at the polls. Up to 1.5 million lives may have been lost - and 4 million people displaced - in the quarter century of fighting. SAVIMBI's death in 2002 ended UNITA's insurgency and strengthened the MPLA's hold on power. DOS SANTOS has pledged to hold legislative elections in 2006.

Now, Angola has desirable resources, among them; oil, uranium, diamonds and gold. The US funded UNITA, led by a brutal would-be dictator, Savimbi. The Marxists, Cuban and Soviet funded, led MPLA. They each fought for control so they could 'fatten themselves' with those resources, both driven to extremely inhumane acts by greed. Problem: the US-backed dictator was worse. Which side would you pick? Should Canada have fought the US over the plight of the civilians in Angola?

[Guest Warwick Green]

So where has this deep rooted belief, which seems to be honestly held even by the natioinal media, come from, that Canada is an admired neitral "honest broker?" What have we done since Pearson that made use of this much vaunted "neutrality" in helping along tense negotiations, in settling important issues, in resolving dangerous disputes? Help me out here, you liberals! Give us a list of all Canada's diplomatic triumphs, without which the world would be a more violent place.

And tell me why being too gutless to take a stand on anything should be admired.

Since the vast majority of Canadians in the country have expressed neutrality on Israel/Lebanon/Palestine's conflict according to polls released this past week, I think the answer that has been that people feel that Canada won't make a difference in the fight one way or the other because they will *always* be fighting.

I have been following the middle-east situation in various British media, also media in Poland, the Czech Republic, Australia, Holland and Germany and if Canada has any sort of "special" role to play in the peace process it doesn't seem to be obvious to anyone. I think the only reference I have seen to Canada is to a hockey player who is with the Leafs.

[Rue]

Again for a poster to write in and say Canada should remain neutral about Lebanon, do they read what they write?

How does one stay neutral about terrorism?

That is the point Steven Harper and his foreign Minister have had the guts to not shy away from. Canada has not taken sides. All it has done is to say it will not under any cicumstance excuse or remain silent when terrorists attack nations. That is what it is saying.

For years many Canadians have been brough up on this naive notion that if we ignore terrorists and don't say anything when they engage in terrorism, they won't harm us and we will be seen as good guys and the only reason the US or European nations are attacked or Israel is attacked is because they deserved it by questioning or challenging these terrorists.

Harper has been the first politician to finally stand on principal because he believes in what he is saying knowing it is not popular and is refusing to ignore terrorism.

For many of you, you would love to be like France and lecture the world and Israel on injustice and say nothing about terrorists. Its hippocracy at its worst.

I am proud of Steven Harper's moral integrity and honesty. I am proud of his Foreign Minister's measured responses to that shrill Alexa from Nova Scotia.

You can't sit on the side lines while terrorists kill.

Do I want Canadians in Afghanistan to die? No. Do I believe they should be their? Ideally no. But they are there because the reality is if they do not show Taliban our society has the moral fortitude to stand up to them, they will spread and they will come.

In case you have not noticed, these terrorists are not interested in coexistence with you and your desire to be neutral is seen by them as weakness and fuels their belief they can come and defeat you and the way you live.

I can understand living in a country like Canada with all its luxuries and freedoms that you take for granted being neutral seems like the nice thing to do but it is time to grow up.

The days of being sweet and innocent and wanting to be loved by everyone is pure b.s.

This notion that Canada can be a good guy internationally is absolutely no different then this pathetic myth Chretien tried to promote of himself being the little guy from Shawinigan when he went across Canada.

It is a myth. It is fantasy.

[Argus]

Now, Angola has desirable resources, among them; oil, uranium, diamonds and gold. The US funded UNITA, led by a brutal would-be dictator, Savimbi. The Marxists, Cuban and Soviet funded, led MPLA. They each fought for control so they could 'fatten themselves' with those resources, both driven to extremely inhumane acts by greed. Problem: the US-backed dictator was worse. Which side would you pick? Should Canada have fought the US over the plight of the civilians in Angola?

I don't think anyone is suggesting there aren't situations where Canada shouldn't remain neutral, esp if we have nothing inbolved and both sides are equally evil. That is not the case with Israel however. Further, looking at Canada's UN votes over the past decade or so seems to indicate we have leaned more towards the Muslim world's continual denunciations of Israel than real neutrality.

I think that where a democratic state with a free press and an independant judiciary is confronting brutal thugocracies and vicious terrorist groups we ought to in almost all circumstances, stand with the democratic state. That is most especially true in cases where the terrorists are the obvious agressors.

[jdobbin]

Again for a poster to write in and say Canada should remain neutral about Lebanon, do they read what they write?

How does one stay neutral about terrorism?

This notion that Canada can be a good guy internationally is absolutely no different then this pathetic myth Chretien tried to promote of himself being the little guy from Shawinigan when he went across Canada.

Neutral in this case meant condemning the attack by Hezbollah and critiicizing Israel's "meaured response."

It is 20 days in and I don't think anyone can say the situation is better. The multiateral force will be seen as keeping Israel secure and be seen by Lebanese as just another occupying force. In other words, sitting ducks.

If Reagan were alive he'd be telling the world that Lebanon is not a good place to put your troops and hope to come out unscathed.

[betsy]

In the end, most people are not convinced that Canada taking one side or the other helps the conflict in this case.

But calling for an immediate ceasefire IS taking sides. This means we take the sides of Lebanon...who's harboring Hezbollah!

Why don't the Liberals and NDP call for Lebanon to dismantle or kick out Hezbollah?

Why is the Lebanese government letting Hezbollah use the poor "innocent" Lebanese citizens as human shields?

Hezbollah has been deliberately using the citizens...casuing them to be in harm's way. Why hasn't anyone call on them for that?

Why are we protecting terrorists????

[scribblet]

I think this article addresses Canada (and the Liberals') supposed neutrality. Personally I am heartened that we finally have a gov't who speak up for what is right in this world.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...d2-25753405e102

As several eminent military historians told the National Post this week, it is a myth that Canada has always taken a "neutral" stance during conflicts in the region. Until the Liberals were elected in 1993, Canada had usually taken "a moderately pro-Israel stance," according to David Bercuson, a military historian at the University of Calgary. We have not, mind you, always sided with the Jewish state: During the 1956 Suez Crisis, for instance, Canada opposed the occupation of the Anglo-Egyptian canal favoured by Israel. But throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, as Israel battled for its existence against neighbours and a plethora of terror groups, Ottawa offered mild to enthusiastic support. As Prof. Bercuson put it: "It's basically the last [Liberal] government that shifted Canada's position ... to a sort of 'We don't want to take sides' stance."

Under the Liberals, Canada failed to oppose annual UN resolutions that condemned Israel as racist and war-mongering, while being silent on the atrocities perpetrated by Arab dictators and terrorists. We permitted the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) to fund hate-mongering textbooks and school lessons in the West Bank and Gaza. We knowingly looked the other way when Palestinian leaders took our development money and either secreted it to their personal Swiss bank accounts or used it to buy rockets and guns to kill Israeli civilians rather than building roads and schools or feeding their own people.

While the Liberals might want to fool themselves into believing that this amounted to neutrality, it was in effect wilful blindness. And far from earning us the "honest broker" position the Liberals claim, it cost us our credibility and thus our ability to influence events in the region.

The Liberals are still at it, too. While complaining for nearly a month about the pro-Israel stance taken by Stephen Harper's government, they voted Tuesday with the other opposition parties not to hear witnesses from the region after Mr. MacKay finished his 90 minutes of testimony before the Commons foreign affairs committee. Many of the witnesses were expected to be critical of Hezbollah and complimentary of Conservative efforts to extract Canadian citizens from the war zone. But rather than risk having their "neutral" stance revealed as a naive or biased one, the Liberals worked with the NDP and Bloc to silence witnesses who had seen what is truly going on in this war.

[Who's Doing What?]

I would rather live in a world without terrorists, and some international disapprovement, than live in one with terrorists and despots just so we can keep some cheery international perception of this country alive.

When the H*ll did we become Neutral anyway?????

WWI????? WWII????? Korea?????

I sure some of my great-uncles would be proud to know they died for "Neutrality"

We are free nation. We support other nations that want to be free and democratic. I really don't care what France or Germany or anybody thinks of Canada. When we stop standing up for what we know is right, we've already lost. Does anybody think that after Bin Laden is done with America he won't target the next example of western civilization? Then the next after that? Sooner or later Canada is going to be the target. If we get the terrorists sooner, then they can't get us later.

[cybercoma]

Neutral in this case meant condemning the attack by Hezbollah and critiicizing Israel's "meaured response."

It is 20 days in and I don't think anyone can say the situation is better. The multiateral force will be seen as keeping Israel secure and be seen by Lebanese as just another occupying force. In other words, sitting ducks.

If Reagan were alive he'd be telling the world that Lebanon is not a good place to put your troops and hope to come out unscathed.

What does condemning Hezbollah do? It's a bunch of fanatics bent on wiping out the jews. They're not a nation or anything, they're simply militants that believe in murder and brutal torture. So countries around the world condemn them, do you think they give a crap if the end result is more dead jews?

[cybercoma]

I don't know about the rest of you, but the time is now to show terrorists that we won't sit back and use "harsh" words on them anymore. Condemning a terrorist group is like asking a murderer to turn himself in and voluntarily stay in jail. Unfortunately there is a time for violence and that time is now. These terrorists need to be fought and we need to defeat them. If they know that nations are going to sit back and do nothing but "condemn" their actions, they will continue to murder innocent civilians because they think eventually it will get their point across. If they know that nations will fight back with extreme force and worldwide support, they're going to think twice about what it is they're doing. I don't feel sorry one bit for any of the terrorists killed in this conflict because it shows that Israel, the US and anyone else who is supporting them right now will not sit idly by allowing terrorists to do as they please.

[jdobbin]

I don't know about the rest of you, but the time is now to show terrorists that we won't sit back and use "harsh" words on them anymore. Condemning a terrorist group is like asking a murderer to turn himself in and voluntarily stay in jail. Unfortunately there is a time for violence and that time is now. These terrorists need to be fought and we need to defeat them. If they know that nations are going to sit back and do nothing but "condemn" their actions, they will continue to murder innocent civilians because they think eventually it will get their point across. If they know that nations will fight back with extreme force and worldwide support, they're going to think twice about what it is they're doing. I don't feel sorry one bit for any of the terrorists killed in this conflict because it shows that Israel, the US and anyone else who is supporting them right now will not sit idly by allowing terrorists to do as they please.

Sorry, what exactly do you want Canada to do?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

At the risk of being beaten for it, I would prefer that Canada be nuetral. This fight has nothing to do with Canada. Choosing one side or another will not benefit Canada. We have citizens from both sides of the conflict living in this nation.

Individual citizens can take a political position in favour of one side or another but the government should not. We don't have the ability to stop the fighting. We don't have the ability to prevent the fighting. We don't have the ability to create or enforce a peaceful solution. There is nothing that we can do for the citizens of the conflicting nations. All that Canada can do is benefit one side or the other in political terms at the expense of the opinions of our own citizens in this nation. That must be avoided.

This is not about burying our heads in the sand, but about not poking our nose where it doesn't belong. The gross reality of the situation is that it can only be described as a regional civil war. The lands in question have be in question for thousands of years and been occupied by one side and then the other from the begining of time til now. The borders of four or five nation states are at stake and always have been. The ony position that Canada should take is one that condemns both terrorism and aggression. In other words both sides are wrong to fight in the first place, which will cause more harm than good.

This one is a lose and then lose again situation people.

[jdobbin]

This one is a lose and then lose again situation people.

It looks like the U.S. is as equally split on this as Canada. Latest poll results...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/04/bush.poll/index.html

[betsy]

What does condemning Hezbollah do? It's a bunch of fanatics bent on wiping out the jews. They're not a nation or anything, they're simply militants that believe in murder and brutal torture. So countries around the world condemn them, do you think they give a crap if the end result is more dead jews?

That's true.

It is Lebanon that should be condemned! For harboring and abetting Hezbollah! And letting them use their own citizens as human shields!

Anyway, I won't be surprised to know that those civilians who still continue to stay in their homes after having been warned by Israel are actually supporters of Hezbollah.

[Hicksey]

Dear Hicksey,

Fence-sitters -- IMO -- are the most intellectually dishonest of all. I'd much rather take a side and end up being wrong than to become a fence-sitter.

Well, lets take Angola as an example. From the CIA world Factbook...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ao.html

Background:

Angola is slowly rebuilding its country after the end of a 27-year civil war in 2002. Fighting between the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), led by Jose Eduardo DOS SANTOS, and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), led by Jonas SAVIMBI, followed independence from Portugal in 1975. Peace seemed imminent in 1992 when Angola held national elections, but UNITA renewed fighting after being beaten by the MPLA at the polls. Up to 1.5 million lives may have been lost - and 4 million people displaced - in the quarter century of fighting. SAVIMBI's death in 2002 ended UNITA's insurgency and strengthened the MPLA's hold on power. DOS SANTOS has pledged to hold legislative elections in 2006.

Now, Angola has desirable resources, among them; oil, uranium, diamonds and gold. The US funded UNITA, led by a brutal would-be dictator, Savimbi. The Marxists, Cuban and Soviet funded, led MPLA. They each fought for control so they could 'fatten themselves' with those resources, both driven to extremely inhumane acts by greed. Problem: the US-backed dictator was worse. Which side would you pick? Should Canada have fought the US over the plight of the civilians in Angola?

Because of how we have positioned ourselves as a socialist democracy with a token military, we simply cannot participate in every dispute around the world. Having said that, I will apply what I said in my post. Because I am not remotely familiar with the situation you cited I will not take a side, rather explain how I would decide. First, taking a position doesn't mean military action. Assuming your take on the situation is correct and we should have been on the opposite side to the US supported dictator I would expect our leader at the time to take that side and be actively using our status as ally and trading partner to the US to put pressure on them to be moving toward a resolution that is the best for all. This follows the princple I spoke about before. Just because we have taken a side doesn't mean we agree entirely with them. In most cases in life we do not. It takes no courage to stand outside the fire and watch someone die and stand indignantly afterward and decry others for not saving that person when if you had just done something you could have saved them yourself. It is embarassing to me as a Canadian to watch our leaders indignantly decry what others are doing but refusing have the courage to take a side and do something about it.

[Who's Doing What?]

What does condemning Hezbollah do? It's a bunch of fanatics bent on wiping out the jews. They're not a nation or anything, they're simply militants that believe in murder and brutal torture. So countries around the world condemn them, do you think they give a crap if the end result is more dead jews?

That's true.

It is Lebanon that should be condemned! For harboring and abetting Hezbollah! And letting them use their own citizens as human shields!

Anyway, I won't be surprised to know that those civilians who still continue to stay in their homes after having been warned by Israel are actually supporters of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has acted in much the same way the drug cartels in South america do. They provided schooling, healthcare, clothing, water, food and anything the people of southern Lebanon needed. The Lebanese govt. even admits it cannot provide the essential basic needs as good as Hezbollah. There are definitly Lebanese civilians who support Hezbollah.

Did anyone see the news segment where they went into Lebanon, and investigated how Hezbollah provides for the people? There was a maybe 12 yr old girl who was so thankful for what Hezbollah had done for her and her family, she had already decided she was going to devote her adult life to what ever she could do to help them.

Very disturbing.

[Argus]

At the risk of being beaten for it, I would prefer that Canada be nuetral. This fight has nothing to do with Canada. Choosing one side or another will not benefit Canada. We have citizens from both sides of the conflict living in this nation.

I disagree that this has nothing to do with Canada. I think we all have an interest in reigning in Muslim wackos, and that democracies should stand together against Muslim extremists. Israel is the only modern, western-oriented democracy in the region. To say we should remain neutral if it is attacked by murderous thugs and killers is absurd. Do we base our foreign policy solely on whether we have an interest at stake? Well, yes, we have recently, but I don't regard that as the sign of a mature and moral state.

As far as "our own citizens" are concerned, and their political preferences there - since I don't consider all those hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants to actually be real Canadians, I'm afraid I don't particularly care what they think about our position vis a vis their actual homelands and the hate politics they've brought over with them.

[Argus]

Hezbollah has acted in much the same way the drug cartels in South america do. They provided schooling, healthcare, clothing, water, food and anything the people of southern Lebanon needed. The Lebanese govt. even admits it cannot provide the essential basic needs as good as Hezbollah. There are definitly Lebanese civilians who support Hezbollah.

Did anyone see the news segment where they went into Lebanon, and investigated how Hezbollah provides for the people? There was a maybe 12 yr old girl who was so thankful for what Hezbollah had done for her and her family, she had already decided she was going to devote her adult life to what ever she could do to help them.

Very disturbing.

And how is Hezbollah able to do this? Through millions and tens of millions of dollars provided to them from terrorist states like Iran.