And they knew very well that if they did wipe Hezbollah out, they would have lost the support of a lot of their fellow conspiritors.

Marilyn said: "The Palestinians on the other hand have not come from Russia, the US, Europe and all over with right of "return" to a country they had never been to."

No, the Palestinians already have a neighbouring state to call home.

To quote Canadian writer Mark Steyn:

"In fact, there is a Palestinian state: it's called Jordan, whose population has always been majority Palestinian. It's not as big a state as it used to be, but that's because King Hussein, in the worst miscalculation of his long bravura highwire act, made the mistake of joining Nasser's 1967 war to destroy Israel. Hence, the 'occupied territories': they're occupied because the Arabs attacked Israel and lost."

By the way, Steyn is not Jewish.

Paull, we resent you calling global democracy rubbish. At least it is an attempt to try to give every nation the fair go it deserves, as we talked about as we waited to be discharged after the end of WW2.

As a historian, it scares me to think that you might believe in a unipolar global authority similar to the way America is now.

Any world historian worth his salt will tell you that it was the German philosopher Immanuel Kant who heralded the necessity of multipolar global management after Napoleon who was a product of the Enlightenment, double-crossed Liberternian principles when he declared himself Emperor.

As I have mentioned previously, Paull, you could well do with a course in political philosophy.

Regards BB, WA

BB

I have studied politics and history at a university level where I swallowed all the far-left bullsh#t they now push. But I am no longer surprised by your patronizing comments about my education. They are merely indicative of your inability to produce evidence to back up your arguments. Invoking Kant doesn’t prove your case. It merely announces your position.

Your contention that the future of Israel should be decided by a so-called democratic vote in the Middle East is hypocritical. I wonder whether you think Tibet’s future should be decided by an Asian vote? No doubt the Chinese would love that idea. Should we be able to vote out the Fijian gov’t because we are all part of the South West Pacific?

I’m all for multi-polar global management. I just don’t agree that non-democratic countries should have a leadership role. I believe that democratic countries are, by their very nature, superior to non democratic countries. The idea that humanitarian intervention can be vetoed by a single country, as Russia attempted during the Bosnian crisis, makes a mockery of the UN.

The left’s all inclusive feel good view of the world ignores the reality that many nations aren’t interested in being good global citizens. They can’t be won over by goodwill and negotiation.

What’s most instructive though, is your consent for military action when you consider the cause is just. Ie getting rid of Napoleon or eliminating Israel. It seems to me that you’re just not happy about who decides whether a cause is just.

By the way, wasn’t Kant a libertarian who opposed democracy because majority rule was a threat to individual liberty.

You still don't get it, Paull. You are so much like the Americans who seem to keep on making the same mistakes as they have done in Iraq.

Similar to the way you have got me wrong when I talk about war. What I meant about Russia and China being friendly with Iran is the hope that it may stop that war-mad Cheney having his way in Iran.

The Iranians would not be easy to defeat, even by themselves. Remember they were able to defeat Iraq, though Iraq had American backing as well as sympathy from the Soviets.

I have no real liking for the Islamists, Paull, it is just that I believe in a fair go, that's all. Certainly much of the world now is in the same mind, big America playing the bully boy too much. After Vietnam, it is a wonder Americans never woke up - but there she goes again into Iraq, talking about changing hearts and minds and instead just manufacturing scads more terrorism.

Yet Americans have kind sensible sides besides, proven after they did get out of Vietnam how hatred and terrorism can subside, as it did with the Brits after they got out of Malaysia and Singapore.

Reckon they might have left Iraq too late, however, especially as the Americans are talking about replacing an elected leader. That's just slipping downhill backwards as the way American minds seem to be now working

bushbred,

History should have taught you that the equilibrium you suggest, between the West and the rest of the world is simply impossible, and cannot exist. There will always be global polarization: rich vs poor, strong vs weak, Judaism vs Islam vs Christianity, Republicans vs Democrats and the list of polarizations in our lives just goes on and on.

What really worries me is the polarization in your views. On the one hand you have no likings to the Islamists, but on the other hand you think they deserve a fair go? To me it seems that what really drives you is your blind hate to America, more then you really care or pretend to know about the conflict in the Middle East.

You should just say thank you for being on the strong side and stop suggesting nonsense that will get us all into trouble.