"While I personally am vehemently opposed to the statements that have been made by the president of Iran," Mr. Wyden said, "I have been asked by the members on this side of the aisle to object, and I do so object."

That is just so sad on so many levels!

I'm still trying to figure out why Bush let Iran get nukes.

Screw the UN. Yes, you heard me right.

It is in the national security interests of the United States that an Axis of Evil nation not have nuclear capability.

Ara!

Is it possible I'm seeing those words from YOU? I take great delight in agreeing wholeheartedly with you.

Rose,

C'mon, tell us what you really think of your wonderful Senator Levin :-)

montie:

Is it possible I'm seeing those words from YOU? I take great delight in agreeing wholeheartedly with you.

Well, montie, with all due respect, I don't know who you are -- or who you think I am.

I have never held the UN in high regard. It started back in the day when they let Arafat into the UN auditorium, with a pistol on his hip, to make a speech.

Oh, and I almost forgot: Allowing a former Nazi Army officer to become the Secretary General and then allowing all that crap about Article 242.

Idiots.

But what did I expect? The Republicans believe words are stronger than actions.

Right. Reason #1 it is safe to disregard Ara's opinions, they're parsecs removed from reality.

Ara,

Sorry if I came across as a little presumptuous. I read both Dean's blog and Rosemary's blog on nearly a daily basis, but only find time to comment on rare occasion. I take my opinion as to "who you are" based not only on your rather more prolific commenting here, but also from your own blog, "E Pluribus Unum". We have exchanged a couple of comments in the past, and I am comfortable with the concept that you follow a more liberal line of thought and political opinion than I do.

I must say that even you felt the need to reinforce your initial proclamation of "Screw the UN" with "Yes you heard me right." I assumed that the latter disclaimer was for the benefit of those of us who read and comment here, and consider you more or less the "voice of the left" with regard to the things that Rosemary posts about.

Your comments and further expanation of why you hold that opinion lends credence to my feeling that while you may be more liberal than I, you are reasonable and recognize when something just isn't right. Like the frickin' UN, which while a noble concept, just doesn't work as that concept is currently being executed.

On this subject, the Democratic Party was hopeless, due to their utter lack of internal consensus on the War on Terror. I suspect that some Democratic voters would prefer that Iran get nuclear arms, as a way to be fair to the Palestinians. The Democrats in the Senate are bowing to that multi-culti wing of the party. Real "glass-parking-lot" hawks among the Democratic voters are getting no representation from Democratic elected officials.

Ara has stirrings of "glass-parking-lot" hawkishness. I wish some nationally visible Democrat would try to outflank Bush on the hawkishness side. Even Zell Miller didn't do that.

Yours,
Wince

Pray for Glenn Reynolds and Jim Hawkins.

Wince, Montie:

I hold lots of seemingly-contradictory opinions. In a sense, I play both sides of the street, while trying to stay out of the middle. That's where all the dead armadillos are. Heh.

Some things about me that probably annoy my liberal friends:

I believe that the 2nd Amendment says what it says. Period. (P.S. There's a reason it is placed near the top.)

I suppose I hold this belief because I know how bad other people have had it (some of whom were related to me) in other lands in other times. Trouble usually started with a confiscation of firearms. It went downhill from there.

You've already heard how I feel about the UN.

Regarding Israel, I am somewhat to the right of Menachim Begin, or I used to be, before Ariel Sharon convinced me to move over with him.

I believe in capital punishment. But the bar should be set extremely high (much higher than it is now). And it should be extremely rare.

Things that annoy my conservative friends:

I believe that Republicans want to take from the poor and give to the rich with the middle class paying the bill. The Democrats are somewhat better, taking from the rich (because they can afford it) and giving to the poor and the middle class. I'm glossing over some important details, but not much.

Paraphrasing Toby Ziegler, I believe that that government (no matter what its failures in the past, and in times to come) government can be a place where people come together. And where no one gets left behind. No one. I believe that government is an instrument of good.

And while we're quoting characters from The West Wing, I believe what Sam Seaborn believes: "Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic revolutionary changes. Schools should be palaces. Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens, just like national defense."

I believe in universal (no one gets left behind) health care and universal old-age insurance.

I also believe that the government should NOT be run like a business. For example, what lunatic would create a business where the Chief Executive did not have complete authority and responsibility over spending decisions? No way.

Instead, I subscribe to the model of modern government where government has a crucial role in keeping an eye on business and making sure that the interests of non-business owners are protected. (P.S. Owning stock does not make you a business owner.)

Generally speaking I think it is a bad, bad, very bad idea for the interests of government and business to coincide. Why? Because in the world of business, one share equals one vote. In the world of governance, one person equals one vote. What this means is that the natural power of money cannot be allowed to outweigh the natural power of the people.

Who keeps an eye on government? A free and independent press. As you might imagine, this is why I don't like it when fewer and fewer corporations own more and more of the traditional media. (Thank God for the Internet.)

(Wince: At some point I might be inspired to comment on your view of my preferences on war. Hint: We should never let things get to the point where war is the only option left. But if and when we do, we should speak with the voice of God's own thunder. Heh -- a Jed Bartlet reference!)

I've probably got more, but I have to get going. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress.

Ara, a timeline question for you...

How is it BUSH is to blame for Iranian nukes? Did they just get shipped in after 20 January 2001? Or have they been working on them for years before that? Seriously, I want to know where your "BUSH'S FAULT" comes from...

As for the UN, yeah right. This from the man who wanted the US to do what the UN wanted with Iraq. You don't get your cake and eat it too buddy. Either the UN goes or the UN stays. You don't get to pick and choose (as you've told us Bush voters more than once). I play fair, and that means you get screwed by your 'rules' just like you try to screw us.

Got nukes? What good are they if they sit in a drawer.

I would have been happy to turn Afghanistan the world's largest glass covered roller-blade park -- with zero US casualties, surety in the elimination of Osama, and a polite note to Saddam, Syria's Al-Assad and the Iranian Ayatollahs saying, "Feeling friskey, Sparky?" After they shit themselves, they would have been asking, "How high?" before we even told them they better start jumping.

You folks really DO believe all the crap Rove mind-washed you about us liberals thinking terrorists need therapy.

Nuclear weapons are a drastic solution to say the least, but truly effective. But if anything was on a par with what the Japanese did to deserve getting hit with one, it was 9/11. At least Pearl Harbor made strategic military sense. 9/11's indiscriminate murder of civilians, many foreign nationals to boot, was barbarism. Nukes would have had the added benefit that nobody could question the explicit legal authorization Bush had to use them when given the Authorization to Use Military Force.

Yeah, they'd question his sanity, but not his absolute legal authority in the matter (and I'd have been truly shocked but cheering nonetheless.)

However, as a former Secretary General of the Cleveland National Model United Nations Conference and the Assistant Executive Director of the non-profit corp. that ran it, the International Relations Educational Counsel of America, I really have a hard time unreservedly bashing the UN.

But that pistol thing pissed me off too. The tradition than you don't even wear a military uniform at the UN, even if you're a military dictator, has a tradition dating back to the old League of Nations. But before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, remember that the UN is unique and the only organization with the ability to act on behalf of the entire planet. It also does some miraculously good work -- usually wholly unrelated to the Security Counsel or the General Assembly.

Their peacekeepers, while owning a spotty record of success, do enjoy a legitimacy that they are not surreptitiously working as occupiers on behalf of a foreign power except by the most radical elements. As an umbrella organization for a host of non-governmental international organizations, the UN's existence is essential.

The World Health Organization is a full fledged Agency of the UN, and it is THE front line against infectious pandemics and the spread of AIDS. The High Commission on Refugees is often the only place where displaced people can turn. It has helped over 50 million people restart their lives over the last fifty years and right now is assisting almost 20 million in 116 countries.

And don't forget UNICEF. My god they're teaching the world to read. To expand on an old saying, if you can teach a kid to read about fishing, he not only can feed himself for life, he can also learn about effective farming techniques without being spoon fed.

So yeah, the UN gets it wrong, sometimes in spectacular ways. But it certainly does more good, a hell of a lot more good than bad. You guys know that the World Bank is an arm of the UN and is now run by one of Bush's favorite neocons, Paul Wolfowitz. If the UN is eliminated, he's unemployed. And we really do need that organization. (But Wolfi should be teaching somewhere where he can do less mischief, like Alaska State University or something.)

Remember what sparked its creation. We had just come out of two world wars in the span of 25 years. If you measure its success the way Bush measures the success of his policies in preventing domestic terrorist attacks over the last four years, the UN's 60 year track record of preventing a World War is impressive.

I always wished the International Court of Justice had more teeth, but that's the lawyer in me, not the wonk. I also wish those damn lazy elves would wrap all my kids' Christmas gifts for me, but you can't have everything.

Happy Holidays everybody!
(Yeah, I said it. Sue me. My legal bill will be lower than yours.)

Much of the pissiness at the UN is due to the erroneous impression that it's anything more than a forum for diplomacy. When I hear things like "the UN failed to act in Rwanda", I cringe, because it was a failure of the membership of the UN, particularly France and the US, to do something. The UN, as an organization, was trying to do something, but cannot act without the approval of the security council.

I also cringe when I here people demand that it reform, but when told that it is undergoing a reform process, they say that it's beyond reform.

Everyone needs a whipping boy, I guess, so it's convenient for that. But then you gotta wonder why the first thing critics of the UN yelp, when faced with the Sudan crisis or Iranian nukes, is "Where's the UN?"

Much of the pissiness at the UN is due to the erroneous impression that it's anything more than a forum for diplomacy.

Absolutely right. The UN is a truly useful collection of diplomats, from the normal collection of amoral self-interested governments, all in one place, doing the truly useful things diplomats do. It is not either a budding world government, a law making body, or a body capable of creating or granting legal or moral sanction.

I also cringe when I here people demand that it reform, but when told that it is undergoing a reform process, they say that it's beyond reform.

Right again. The U.N. needs to be reformed. If, after we work hard at reforming it, we find it is beyond reform it needs to be replaced.

when faced with the Sudan crisis or Iranian nukes, is "Where's the UN?"

A much more useful question is Nixon's, "Where are the carriers?"

As regards Iran, our legislators, faced with the comments of the Iranian President, should be talking WAR. We need both Republican and Democratic leaders saying something like this:

The Iranian president has stated his desire for a nuclear war with Israel, as well as questioning the reality of the Holocaust. I say, "Never again!" Even though the Israelis have the capability to retailiate to an Iranian nuclear strike, it is my position that the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, India and Pakistan should agree to participate in massive nuclear retaliation against Iran should Iran strike Israel. And if any other nation or nations should join the Iranian attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, that nation or nation should also be subject to such retaliation. Furthermore, if such an agreement cannot be reached, the United States will go it alone, even if Israel itself is unable to respond.

In other words, "Never again, and we mean it."

Yours,
Wince

...it is my position that the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, India and Pakistan should agree to participate in massive nuclear retaliation against Iran should Iran strike Israel.

And a big fat pony.

That is the ENTIRE purpose of the UN. Tell me again why we should even TRY to reform it? Just ditch it..

Exhibit A, your honor.

As should be obvious to even the thickest of the hawks, nuclear proliferation is a problem that needs to be dealt with by a large number of nations. The US can't resolve it by itself.

And even if the problem is dealt with in Iran, you also need to worry about Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yeman, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nepal, etc. Nuclear weapon technology isn't that difficult, and with the current lack of international security, many nations will start looking to nukes for their defense. It's one hell of a deterrant.

Expect many new nuclear programs in the near future, especially as diplomatic institurions like the UN become seen as useless.

Happens all the time, Mark. People need to argue with their hallucinations, and we get mistaken for them sometimes.

are you saying it would be okay for Syria to hold the weapons?

No. Where on earth did you get that impression?

I asked you about that the other day and you didn't answer.

I got busy making Christmas biscotti for friends. Sorry.

This week, it was reported in various US papers that Syria has offered to hold the weapons for Iran, given that info, how unlikely is it that they same deal wasn't offered to Saddam?

Extremely unlikely, I think. For the reasons I detailed a few days ago.

Who do you mean by you? Are you saying the US?

No, the general use of "you". I should have probably said "And even if the problem is dealt with in Iran, one also need to worry about Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yeman, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nepal, etc." Meaning that nuclear proliferation is a problem for us all.

Also, what is the stance of Canada on terrorism?

You're kidding, right?

Okay, OK Pam, geez. Of course it's absolutely unacceptable for Syria to obtain any mass casualty weapon. And if you believe DebkaFile's sources in Israeli intelligence, they've been saying for years that not only did Syria get some of Saddam's weapons, but buried them in the Bekka Valley in Lebanon and/or in northern Syria.

(Sorry to disappoint you Wince, but yes, I actually linked to Strategy Page. That won't get my Amnesty International sticker stripped from my briefcase, will it?)

I kind of suspect that the swift exposure of their assassination plot on the former Lebanese Prime Minister was due in part because their little strip of paradise is one of the most closely monitored areas of the world on the strength of that (to date, only a) rumor.

Hey ++: Didn't you catch the vote in the Canadian Parliament. The Speaker of the House of Commons was absolutely nonplussed in in announcing the Resolution Against Terror.

SPEAKER: By majority vote with two abstentions, and one "Nay" by the Gentleman from Nova Scotia, the "Ayes" have it and the Resolution carries. The Clerk will read the Resolution.
CLERK: Terror. We're against it.
HON. LARRY WINDELSPECK (L-N.S.): Terror?!? I thought you said Terrier and I hate the little mutts. Especially those nasty little Jack Russells. Mr. Speaker, can I change my vote?

Democracy ain't pretty.

What I wanted was a Canadian citizen's point of view. Not a talking point off the television. The stance on illegals in your country, boarder security etc.

So are you saying he is not capable of giving his opinion as a Canadian? Butt out

What I wanted was a Canadian citizen's point of view. Not a talking point off the television. The stance on illegals in your country, boarder security etc.

What illegals? I suppose we must have a few but not enough to make the media. And as far as I know, our border security is fairly tight.

Seriously, I have no idea what your asking here.