Steve, while I wouldn't go as far as you I too have some issues with the UN. And if you'd like to revisit Canada's role in the UN, that's perfectly valid.

However, I think the premise you start your post with is flawed:

A Canadian under UN command has died in the fighting in the Middle East. Should Canadians reconsider the relationship between the UN and their country?

Those are two seperate things. If you want to debate Canada's role in the UN, fine, but why does the death of a Canadian soldier on a UN mission make that debate more necessary.

Either we believe in the mission or we don't. By your same apperant logic, we should re-examine our role in Afghanistan, or in NATO, with each death of a Canadian soldier there. I don't think that's the case, I doubt you do either.

Debate the UN, fine, but let's leave dead Canadian soldiers out of it, shall we?

Posted by: BCer in Toronto at July 27, 2006 09:50 PM

---

Fair enough, but sometimes these things need a trigger.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 27, 2006 09:55 PM

---

My father served for 25 years in the Canadian Forces. He ended up spending a lot of time away from home in places such as Egypt, Lebanon, Cyprus, and even Bosnia.

He views the time he spent on his peacekeeping tours as the proudest moments of his life. He always told me that there was no better use of a soldier than to try and ensure peace. His father was so proud of his work as a peacekeeper that his tombstone reads "Proud father of a UN peacekeeper".

It takes a special type of soldier to be able to stand between two fighting factions with basically your hands tied behind your back, but these people do it willingly and are proud to do it. I do not think the peacekeeping mission is something those who do not take part in can truly understand. I do not understand it completely even though it was a huge part of my fathers life.

I agree with you that the political parts of the UN have become corrupt and complacent and great strides should be made to ensure that reform is made for the organization, however the mission that the Canadians perform may mean little to some people, but for those who serve, it can be their lifes mission.

I just think that the effort should be pushed into UN reform , and not removing Canada from its proud heritage as promoting peace. There are occasions where that of course is not possible, but throwing away such a proud part of Canada just because of what is basically corrupt politicians seems a little too extreme.

Posted by: nrw at July 27, 2006 10:31 PM

---

Israel bombs and kills a Canadian and three others - which is clearly either a deliberate act by the Israeli military, given the constant bragging we hear of "precision munitions", or one of reckless incompetence - but somehow it's the UN's fault? Or the fault of its secretary general?

I think it IS time for "Canada to say enough is enough". Enough Canadians have been killed by Israel - nine at last count! Now that they've killed one of our soldiers, putting them in the company of such lovely folks as the Taliban, are we still going to sit here like a bunch of wimps, blaming Kofi Annan? Or are we going to demand some JUSTICE for the PEOPLE WHO ARE KILLING CANADIANS!

Posted by: Ade at July 27, 2006 10:42 PM

---

This latest tradgedy is CLEARLY the fault of the U.N.

Why was there peace keepers in a location where there is no peace? Once hostilties began, those observers should have been pulled. and even prior to that, once the terrorists were using the U.N. bunker as a launching point of rockets into Israel, they should have been re-located. Being 'used' as human shields is not part of the U.N. mandate.....unless they were being 'used' by the U.N. as sacraficial lambs to further a hidden agenda, a.k.a. make Israel look like the villian. either way, they observers should never have been in a position to either shield the terrorists, OR be put in harms way.
The blame is not Israel's, but the U.N. for dropping the ball AGAIN.

They have a dismal dismal record in the last few dozen years...lots of talk, and what little action they do, turns to shit right from the get-go.

Posted by: arctic_front at July 27, 2006 11:14 PM

---

I agree with artic_front.
I would say CF are best used for UN missions when they can set their own conditions to a degree as in Bosnia. It should be remembered that in that case, Candian Forces went in armed somewhat to their own satisfaction, and used them as needed.

Posted by: Monty_inBC at July 27, 2006 11:55 PM

---

The previous should read "former Yugoslavia", not Bosnia.

Posted by: Monty_inBC at July 27, 2006 11:58 PM

---

very true, monty....I suggest reading a book called "Ghosts of Medak Pocket" to learn the facts on the mission to Yugoslavia by the CF....

Posted by: arctic_front at July 28, 2006 12:06 AM

---

Obviously you're counting dead Lebanese-Canadian human shields Ade, but does your tally include the two Israeli-Canadians who died fighting Hezbollah?
The blood of Major Hess-von Kruedener is on Hezbollah-legitimatizing Kofi Annan's hands, and to accuse Israel of deliberate murder shows what a Jew hater he really is - as does it you.

News Flash: Canada IS saying enough is enough. Enough liberalism, enough socialism, enough islamism, enough terrorism.

Posted by: Barnstormer at July 28, 2006 12:28 AM

---

awesome Barnstormer.....well said!

Posted by: arctic_front at July 28, 2006 12:35 AM

---

Canadian troops should be pulled out of UN operations. The risk is unnecessary because UN operations are so obviously useless.

Posted by: philanthropist at July 28, 2006 01:35 AM

---

The UN is NOT the same UN that it was 20-30 years ago. Today I'm sure that to just have Anan at the head must be really horrible if your serving with them.

Ugh!!

Posted by: Pat at July 28, 2006 02:04 AM

---

How many Canadians are serving in UN peacekeeping missions today?

Of that number, how many are

1. In Lebanon-Israel-WestBank-Syria area?

2. In observer missions?

3. In other unarmed missions?

One possible reason that might have been in the balance for continued presence in the area north of Israel's northern border: holding the UN outposts which are very valuable in the battlefield.

Now, that makes the units inside those posts very vulnerable, for sure. Both Hezbollah and the IDF would want to use those vantage points for all kinds of purposes. So there would be no doubt that the UN positions were going to be bones of contention once the fighting broke out.

Another possible reason: Lend assistance to the civilian stragglers who need the help of UN units which have some chance of communicating the requests for humanitarian corridors -- with either side -- while the battles rage on.

I don't know if these are weighty enough reasons to justify the continued risks that these UN units are taking each day. I do think that their field reports have shed light on what is going on and that's been useful in assessing the immorality of the Hezbollah tactics. Again, I am not so sure this is a good enough reason.

Still, some of these UN feet on the ground are serving bravely and with a great deal of skill and tenancity. I just wish we could have armed them so they could keep the rotters away from the outposts. Maybe that would be more dangerous, I dunno.

Posted by: F. Rottles at July 28, 2006 02:49 AM

---

A Canadian soldier died because the UN(now actually the UNgo) observer teams had become too cosy with Hezbollah. It is well established that Hezbollah had set their posts adjacent to UN observers posts all over Lebanon, for a long time. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of a much too cordial relationship between Hezbollah and the UN observers. It doesn't take a general (well, maybe it does) to figure out that in the event of open hostilities, observers sharing acreage with the perceived enemy are going to become collaterals if they stick around. Duh.
A better question is why was the Canadian there? The major is described by his colleagues as a capable, well trained, dedicated, tough soldier. But a major at an observer post? The UN has been a failure practically everywhere it goes, and certainly, after 28 years, its presence in Lebanon can only be described as a liability, not an asset.
As to those who criticize Israel for piling up the body count, get over it - this has been a long time coming, and the world is not done with it yet. The islamists have been poking the west with a stick for the last 15 years, particularly at Israel, and notice is being served that bullshit walks. The patience of the west for islamic hegemony has ended.

Posted by: Skip at July 28, 2006 05:03 AM

---

I've spent some time at Babble and the quality of discussion is very low:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=001958

Is there somewhere else in the Canadian blogosphere where the leftwing is better represented with substantive arguments?

I ask because it looks like a little more than half of Canadians, in a recent survey, agree with Harper's policy, as it has been shaping up, on Israel. And probably on the UN as well.

At this blog I can see substantive arguments that represent one half of public opinion. Where do you folks generally go when you want to get a feel for the better arguments made by the other side?

The pragmatic need for a more hardcore Canadian role in these hotspots is going to grow, I think, and how Canadians respond to that need is going to grow in importance to the country's friends and allies.

My read is that Harper is taking things far more seriously than the Liberals had in the past. But can he bring the country to his view of things? What is he up against on the other side? This UNIFIL incident is probably a very good test case.

Posted by: Chairm at July 28, 2006 05:34 AM

---

Skip --

I find your insinuation that UN and along with it Canadian Forces members being "cozy" with Hezbollah incredibly insulting. Are you seriously suggesting that the men and women who serve Canada use their peacekeeping missions to further the cause of terrorism and thus deserve to be killed?

I have read and re-read your comment multiple times, hoping that I am not seeing it properly, but it still looks like that is exactly what you are implying. That the UN observer force, and along with it the Canadians who serve under it are acting in the interests of terrorists and not with their original mission.

I suppose you are entitled to whatever opinion you have, but that is a pretty inflammatory statement you have made, and backing it up with "There is anecdotal evidence" is a little bit lacking for such a major statement.

Posted by: nrw at July 28, 2006 05:57 AM

---

Steve, its interesting how conservatives want to cut and run from UN peacekeeping missions.

As Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener noted in her press conference last night, not only is a well-marked UN bunker the safest place to be when the shooting starts, there isn't really anyplace safer they could get to without braving Israeli fire (remember, the troops who came to save them wre fired on too).

Frankly, I think you and S. Harper and some of the other Blogging Tories are close to talking treason when you run down Canadian soldiers working for the UN. And all to defend Harper's pathetic non-response to the fact that Israel offed one of our guys.

Note too that talking like this is a good way to convince the Canadian populace that Conservatives are a bunch of crazed war mongers from the Hills out West who cannot be trusted with the keys to government. Note the latest Decima poll shows a plunge in support in both Ontario and Quebec.

But its not really about polls, is it? Todays generation of Conservatives are a bunch of punks who learned too many theories about the UN and etc. by watching Rambo movies and FOX tv. Please be careful when you trash your country and her soldiers. There are some of us that are proud of her peacekeeping tradition, and see our foreign policy as something a bit nobler than being led around by the nose by the U.S.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 05:57 AM

---

Not a bad point, bigcitylib. Am I doing the equivalent of cutting and running?

My argument is that Canada is not leaving the UN, but the UN has left the UN. Put that way, it sounds stupid, of course. But the point is that the UN has lost whatever capacity for good it once had. Some of it because of changes in geopolitics. End of the Cold War, the rise of Islamic terrorism (not tied to nation states), etc. But much of the blame has to be put at the feet of the UN itself.

Can you imagine the UN today going to war against an aggressor? In happened in 1953 in Korea, in part because of a miscalculation by the Soviets and the fact that China was represented by Taiwan, but also because the UN still saw itself as taking sides in a way that mattered. Compare the date to the list.

Today the UN is frozen. Vetos ensure few positive resolutions can be passed. The ones that are passed are usually ignored. Most tellingly they are ignored by the UN itself. The UN passes resolution 1559 demanding Lebanon take control of its territory, that Syria leave, and that Hezbollah disarm. The UN does nothing to make it happen. Finally Israel goes to war two years later to go after a Syrian-armed Hezbollah operating in Lebanon in full defiance of the UN. Israel is now disarming Hezbollah, destroying the links between Lebanon and Syria, and by all accounts, readying to vacate the area once an international force is ready to move in to control the area on behalf of Lebanon.

Any thanks from the UN? No. Instead, the UN complains bitterly.

Canadian blood and treasure is too precious to waste on an institution that seems to have lost its way. It was not always like this, but it seems to be the case now. Canadian ideals might not have changed much, but the UN is no longer the means to put those ideals into action. I suggested NATO as an organization through Canada can act. Maybe there are others. Maybe we need a new one. But not the UN.

Or to be more generous, I think it's time that we stop assuming our continued membership in the UN, but instead have a debate about whether UN membership is consistent with Canadian ideals (and Canadian political goals -- realism has a big role to play here too). In we decide the UN still has a role to play, we should debate what level of participation is appropriate given the quality of UN leadership and effectiveness of the UN as it is currently structured.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 28, 2006 08:07 AM

---

Steve, can the horsehit. The current Conservative hard-on against the UN is all due to the fact that countries like Canada, working through the UN, stood up to the Americans in the runup to the Gulf War. The UN told Bush:

1) Iraq was cooperating with inspectors.
2) There were no WMDs.

And of course Bush didn't listen, and walked into a quagmire, and the Yanks have been out to get even ever since. (One funny thing in regards to this whole oil-for-food thing is how congressional investigations simply wrote out any hint of U.S. involvement: Republican VP candidate Jack Kemp was up to his ass in it).

In any case, you dodge in a most despicable and disgraceful manner the only real question in this
episode. Why did the Israelies shell a well marked post for six hours and then take out the bunker with laser guided bombs, and then shell the people who came to dig out possible survivors?

As a Canadian, the natural and correct response to this is to demand answers from the people that pulled the trigger, the Israelies. But I guess Conservatives have let their ideology twist their hearts into such a knot that their first response is to excuse the killers.

By the way, you've made my daily post as a sample of possibly treasonous Blogging Tories. Have a nice day.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 08:21 AM

---

Typical BCL BS

Posted by: RNC at July 28, 2006 08:23 AM

---

Steve,

You're a big idiot to even suggest this ridiculous proposition.

You have lost every bit of respect from me in regards to your ability to produce anything in the way of competent analysis. Stop toeing other people's fucking lines and produce an original, creative, unique argument.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2006 08:29 AM

---

"Is there somewhere else in the Canadian blogosphere where the left wing is better represented with substantive arguments ?"

Chairm, the fact that you have to ask around to find a left-wing site that makes sense, should be telling you something.
bigcitylib's comments are pretty representative of a liberal argument: "Conservatives are a bunch of crazed war mongers from the hills out west..."
Not much in the way of facts in his post, but he's pretty good at name-calling.
The assertation that a well-marked UN bunker is the safest place to be is pure nonsense. UN outposts are routinely targeted by both sides in many places. There is plenty of excellent material available on the missions in Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the Middle East.
I've long believed that Canada should either get out of the UN completely or take operational control of any missions where Canadian troops are being put into harm's way.
I also fully support Israel's right to defend herself. Neither Stephen Harper nor myself need the Americans or anyone else to tell us how or what to think, thanks all the same.
Yes it's a shame that Canadians have been killed there. It's a shame that ANYONE is being killed over there, but the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy simply does not work. It never has. Israel is dealing with people who have openly declared their desire to finish what Hitler started. People who are willing to use their children as suicide bombers to achieve that end. Somebody please explain to me how one negotiates with people like that ?
Israel's response is "disproportionate". Yes. Catchy term. I believe "disproportionate response" is the modern PC term for "winning the war".
I don't think everyone who condems Israel's actions is an anti-semite. But I can't help but wonder how many of them are simply afraid of how it makes them look when compared alongside of people who actually have enough spine to defend themselves when it's necessary.

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 08:31 AM

---

BigCityLib:

You conveniently forgot:
3) Iraq disregarded COUNTLESS UN resolutions. Wasn't the number something like 12 or 13?

And what of those memos that stated Hussein was playing hide and go seek with his weapons programs and in cahoots with known terrorists? I guess that wouldn't fit into your neat little view of who's right and wrong, though.

A Liberal advising on foreign policy - now that's rich. Do you come from the Chretien school of poking sticks in the eyes of our allies or the Martin school of predicating shifting policy on whatever right or left wing kook wrote a letter to the government that day?

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 09:14 AM

---

Whoever the last guy was, those memos are junk and you know it. The right wing blogosphere hasn't even bothered to waste much breath over them.

Up North you appall and disgust me. Israel might have just murdered a Canadian soldier and you're willing to let them off the hook and bring up alot of drivel about how Canada relates to the UN. Remember, in this country you're required to be Canadian first, Conservative second.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 09:31 AM

---

"Wasn't the number something like 12 or 13?"

Actually, I believe it was closer to 17. But please don't cloud the issue with facts (it upsets liberals when you do that).

Actually, I found a liberal calling conservatives treasonous to be one for the books.
Still, my favourite line was how BCL goes on about how he's "proud of our peacekeeping tradition".
Right. Not proud enough to fund the military properly. Not proud enough to take the time to learn about what goes on on those missions.
In true liberal fashion, he's content to stay stunned and apathetic and let others (our soldiers) do the heavy lifting while he pats himself on the back for being Canadian. Balls.
Libs didn't even PRETEND to care about our soldiers until a Yank accidently dropped a bomb on a bunch of them -and then all of a sudden they were a precious national asset -which meant that liberals now had 4 coffins to use as soapboxes to bash the Americans from. No liberal is ever going to tell me that they give one flying you-know-what about our soldiers.
Ask any Canadian soldier what they think about peacekeeping. Better yet, try referring to one of the guys over in Afghanistan as a "Peacekeeper" -then duck.
Successive prime ministers have eroded our military over the years while getting good people killed needlessly -just so that they could chase after that elusive Nobel Peace Prize (and hey -who wouldn't want to be in the same exclusive club as Yasser Arafat ?). And people like BCL have been cheering them on.

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 09:34 AM

---

"Wasn't the number something like 12 or 13?"

Actually, I believe it was closer to 17. But please don't cloud the issue with facts (it upsets liberals when you do that).

Actually, I found a liberal calling conservatives treasonous, to be one for the books.
Still, my favourite line was how BCL goes on about how he's "proud of our peacekeeping tradition".
Right. Not proud enough to fund the military properly. Not proud enough to take the time to learn about what goes on on those missions.
In true liberal fashion, he's content to stay stunned and apathetic and let others (our soldiers) do the heavy lifting while he pats himself on the back for being Canadian. Balls.
Libs didn't even PRETEND to care about our soldiers until a Yank accidently dropped a bomb on a bunch of them -and then all of a sudden they were a precious national asset -which meant that liberals now had 4 coffins to use as soapboxes to bash the Americans from. No liberal is ever going to tell me that they give one flying you-know-what about our soldiers.
Ask any Canadian soldier what they think about peacekeeping. Better yet, try referring to one of the guys over in Afghanistan as a "Peacekeeper" -then duck.
Successive prime ministers have eroded our military over the years while getting good people killed needlessly -just so that they could chase after that elusive Nobel Peace Prize (and hey -who wouldn't want to be in the same exclusive club as Yasser Arafat ?). And people like BCL have been cheering them on.

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 09:36 AM

---

Oh damn. Steve: sorry for the double post. Can you eradicate one of them for me please (if that's not considered a disproportionate response).

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 09:39 AM

---

BigCityLib:

Further to my last post, you also state that "countries like Canada, working through the UN, stood up to the Americans in the runup to the Gulf War". You make it sound so altruistic.

I'm sure the fact that Jean Chretien's ties (including his daughter being married into the Desmarais family) to Power Corp. had NOTHING to do with Chretien's vehement opposition to the Gulf War. The fact that Power was negotiating a deal with Hussein at the time is just a coincidence, right?

Interesting that a Liberal who can't question his own leader's motives can hypocritically accuse Conservatives of same.

But then again it's the Liberal politically correct mindset of flaccid leadership that is the root cause of the UN's woes today. Despots laugh at "resolutions" while the overpayed self-congratulatory lot that comprise the UN think they have any real sway in world affairs...

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 09:39 AM

---

Up North:
I support your wish to remove one of your posts (actually I got quite a chuckle out of it). It is a measured response, alhough I'm sure BCL will make the case that Angry is censoring posts if he removes it. And then we'll be privy to more tired Bush analogies, Harper as war-monger, save the UN cause it's the only trough left that the Liberal piggies can still sink their snouts in, yadda yadda yadda.

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 09:49 AM

---

I've appalled and disgusted a liberal. You know guys, this is turning out to be a pretty good day after all.

BCL try this:
"But also I'll be asking for his full cooperation in getting to the bottom of this."
That'd be Prime Minister Harper ("Steve" to his friends) speaking in the Toronto Star on July 26 about waiting to hear back from Israel's PM. No one is letting anyone off the hook.
Those 4 soldiers should have been pulled out. BCL, you seem quite content to see Canadian soldiers put into dangerous situations without giving any thought at all as to whether they should be there in the first place. I'd hate to see what you'd be like if you DIDN'T like our soldiers !

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 09:50 AM

---

further to my last:
I brought up a lot of drivel about how Canada relates to the UN.
Wasn't that the original topic here ?
"Canada and the UN: Past time for a change"
Is it just me ?

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 10:02 AM

---

A massive bone of contention for many liberals is that many conservatives, while having no qualms about (rightly, if exuberantly) condemning wartime foes for killing Canadian soldiers, they too often appear almost stubbornly unwilling to raise even a slightly critical finger at Canada's wartime allies who--whether through negligence, malicious intent, or the fog of war--take out a Canadian's life. Surely, we can agree that all sides are complicit in, and must share the moral responsibility of, the deaths of these 4 peacekeepers--Hezbollah, for using them as shields; the UN, for not doing more to protect their peacekeepers; and yes, the IDF, for pulling the trigger.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 10:12 AM

---

Steve, the UN is a unique institution, with a unique global scope and mandate. No other institution has the resources, logistics, or political clout to do what it is capable of doing (here, I'm thinking of its on-the-ground humanitarian work in particular). Its original purpose, as embodied in its charter and other key documents, is inspirational. Surely, there is no great divergence between its values and Canada's.

Let me be clear: I agree that the UN is bloated with bureaucracy and burdened by elements of corruption and apathy. Like you, I'm absolutely in favour of UN reform. Even the UN (www.un. org/reform) is in favour of UN reform. Granted, many (including myself) would advocate more drastic structural reforms than the UN may be willing to make, but everyone agrees that the status quo cannot continue.

At least two things must happen:
(1) Major bureaucratic reform. Like any other massive institution, public or private, too much red tape means nothing gets done, oversight is lost, and corruption is allowed to fester. A favourite example of this is the Liberal Party; I would also add any of the recent US or overseas companies embroiled in corporate scandals.
(2) A renewed commitment by member nations to recognize the authority of a UN resolution. To a large degree, it's this lack of commitment that has rendered the current UN General Assembly largely impotent, especially with respect to global security issues (but also in other areas, like the speed and scale of its humanitarian responses). A UN resolution isn't a product of the UN per se, it's the de facto product of a global vote--the will of the planet, you might say. Some fault must therefore lie with those member nations who flagrantly disregard any resolution that causes them to rein in (even slightly) their own national interests.

However, the abolition of the UN is not an option, unless a similarly mandated global institution is ready to take its place. If world peace remains at all a goal (however idealistic and utopian) that we wish to collective striving towards, then the UN as an idea is too valuable to lose entirely. NATO is primarily a military alliance, focused on security and crisis intervention. There continues to be a place for NATO, and Canada should continue to sit at that table too. But NATO membership is not a substitute for UN membership.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 10:25 AM

---

UN transports Hezbolah terrorists. watch the video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AqGjz7iJTns&mode=related&search=

I support IDF! Canada out of the UN.

Posted by: wuberman at July 28, 2006 10:26 AM

---

So many comments running thru my mind, so little time. The UN couldnt organize a grudge f**K in a brothel with a fistfull of credit cards. I know for a fact as a serving member of the CF that when word of UN mission comes up people duck and run for cover because you already know they will handcuff you with ROE's that prevent you from doing you job. When they are ask to make a decision they wont because no one will be there as it will usually occurs on the same day as thier annual bowling tournament which allows them to take credit if your decision works out and to roast you if it dosnt. As for Maj HVK and I know this man, read his email that he sent to CTV. If your military you understand what he was trying to say. The Hez has co located at the UN OP and the UN should of forced them off. This couldnt be done by four un-armed observers but by the UN in New York. I can also tell you with out a moment of hesitation that if that had been a CF controlled peace keeping OP, those observers would of been evacuated on day one.

Posted by: Ken at July 28, 2006 10:43 AM

---

But, up North, the origonal topic was a dodge by Conservatives to change the discussion from the people that pulled the lever that dropped the bomb that killed the Canadian soldier, to whether he should have been in the path of that bomb in the first place.

My position is that it was wrong for the Israelis to bomb the UN observers; yours, and Steve's, it seems to be, is that, well, even if the IDF deliberatly snuffed 'em, its okay because they were working with the UN.

As to Chretien keeping us out of the Iraq War (whoever posted on that topic), this is the old "we stayed out for the wrong reasons" clap trap. The fact is, we have not been sucked into that ridiculous war and whoever kept us out for whatever reason deserves nothing but praise. In fact, I don't think Conservatives have ever actually apologized to Canada for their support of the U.S. in Gulf War II (certainly S. Harper never has). In my opinion, every Conservative in Alberta ought to be force marched to wherever in Quebec Chretien is staying and made to kiss his ass.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 10:45 AM

---

Ken,

Doubts have already been expressed about MacKenzie's interpretation of the e-mail. See my Blog for details.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 10:47 AM

---

BCL. I truly understand your post on your blog. What I wish for you to understand is I have served on both peacekeeping and NATO missions before and alot of the time due to political realities you talk in veiled code that is totally understandable to members of your own force. If the IDF was targeting close to the OP but not at as Maj HVK stated for tactical reasons then as a fellow CF member who has been on tour with Wolf he was saying excactly what Maj Gen McKenzie was stating. They had neighbors and the UN in NYC should of either withdrawn the observers or forced them to move away rather then using the OP for protection.

Posted by: Ken at July 28, 2006 10:56 AM

---

As a member of the CF that spent six months on the Golan Heights during Gulf War Two, I agree with Steve's point about re-examining our role in the UN.

My experience with the UN has demonstrated that the UN is mostly useless.

Don't get me wrong, UN soldiers try to do the right thing and make it work, but the UN civilians are the worst. Appearing (to a soldier) to be very lazy and more focused on the red tape, it takes an exceedingly long time to get anything done. One example, during my tour there were some old UN vehicles that were being cut up for parts. They had been working on that contract for 3 years and even then, I got less than 2 days notice that they were coming to cut the things up. UN civilians are being paid outrageous amounts of money to do nothing. The civilian guy in charge on our camp was quite happy. He was getting paid in excess of $80k US (tax free) to run the civilians there (about 7 people). He was living on the Syrian side (very cheap to live) and had been there about 8 years. You could not have gotten him out of there with dynamite. I never did figure out what he did during the day and on my occasional surprise visits to see him I caught him surfing the net, and the stuff he was looking at did not appear to be UN business.

I think the most likely response you will get from soldier about UN missions is that they are good ideas but poorly executed, particularly the longer they run. The Golan mission has been monitoring a cease-fire for 32 years. When is that cease fire going to become peace? The UN just allows each side to ignore the situation. And a bunch of lazy civilians to get great gobs of money to do nothing.

Reform it now or Canada should get out. In fact, I suggest, since Canada is known as such a big supporter of the UN, we should threaten to pull out of the UN unless it is reformed and set a deadline.

If the most UN loving country has had enough of UN incompetence and corruption, maybe someone will take notice of this problem.

Posted by: MB at July 28, 2006 11:07 AM

---

Ken, given that, for example, the rescue team that came afterwards was shelled, where do you think they could have moved to without getting shot at in process? (the Irish fellow who, I think, commanded the sector, made this point on the radio last night).

Also, the email, even if rightly interpreted, does not give any reasons as to why the shells were falling on Tuesday. It does not prove by any means that the IDF got the observation post in the process of shooting at hezbollah.

Finally, this war kicked up exactly 17 days ago and it has been difficult to guage since then just how long it was going to go on for, partly because the IDF has been flailing about so ineffectively that its doubtful if the Israelis know. Difficult to second guess the UNs opinion as to how long they should try to stay in place for (especially since they might have got killed trying to get out of the area). As the Globe is now reporting, the forward OPs will be abandoned for the time-being. Unfortunatly, this may be what the IDF wants and what the whole episode was really about. No more witnesses if they want to turn South Lebanon into a free-fire zone, which is what they've been hinting at.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 11:18 AM

---

A, your last 2 posts -particularly the first one- are fair comment right down the line. I can't bring myself to disagree with you. Well said.

bcl, the original topic is the ORIGINAL TOPIC. The idea of Canadians who have no use for the UN is nothing new. It's just that we're finally getting a chance to discuss it in a public forum. As the moderator pointed out, the death of our soldier happens to be the trigger for that discussion.
That man was put into a dangerous situation by the UN. He had no way of defending himself because the UN ordered that he be unarmed. He was left in that situation -when he should have been pulled out at the start -by the UN.
Hey, call me crazy, but I think that merits some discussion of the UN.
No one is taking a cavalier attitude about the death of one of our soldiers. Don't you dare sit there on your high horse and and accuse conservatives of not caring about our soldiers.
What you seem to be saying (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that Israel deliberately murdered those UN soldiers. What I believe is that Hezbollah was using them as human shields (a favoured tactic of theirs) and they got killed in the crossfire.
Your position would be like blaming the cops if an innocent child wandered into the middle of a gun battle between cops and gang members and got killed (by a bullet from a cop's gun). We'd all grieve, but you seem to want to disarm the cops while I'd like to see the gang members killed off, and Steve Janke is wondering where the kids parents were.
(Hope that makes sense -it does to me anyways, and as long as ONE of us is reasonable...)
And please...enough about your hero Jean Cretien. Canadian servicemen have died because of his neglect of the military (Lt. Chris Saunders comes immediately to mind) and as far as his "really showing 'em" by staying out of Iraq because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN -that kinda puts Kosovo (Canadian troops on the ground, CF-18's doing air strikes) in a different light now doesn't it ? (Kosovo, as you well know, also did not have UN approval)
I guess Cretien's morality depends on whether or not the sitting president is a golfing buddy of his.

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 11:27 AM

---

Kosovo was the result of a deal whereby a multinational force was put together with the UNs tacit approval,or non-non-approval, but without its having to make an explicit stand. Iggy's actually good on this topic in Virtual War.

So it was politically messy but the result is what counts.

And yes I do stand on my high horse and note that, when an alleged ally kills a Canadian soldier, Conservatives seem to be following the lead of Harper and blowing it off because the guy was working with the UN. The Fins are pissed with the IDF; so are the Chinese and the Austrians and so are even the Irish. Our boy goes up there limp-dicked and says he's sure all those laser bombs and shells and then the shells that kept falling after the rescue party arrived (and are still falling, apparently they can't even get at our guy's body)were just a big mistake and somehow it was the UNs fault.

Disgusting.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 11:44 AM

---

bigcitylib,

I realize you approve of hiding behind the UN skirts, hiding in schools, hospitals and mosques.

I realize that Israel is the Devil, and Hezbollah is the model of Sainthood.

You have made your point abundantly clear.

Posted by: the Dragon at July 28, 2006 12:04 PM

---

"So it was politically messy, but the result is what counts."
I see. But only Kosovo right ? Not Iraq.
Sometimes I was I was a liberal. Everything would be just so ...convenient.
And again (man -I feel like the Miracle Worker here !) nobody is blowing it off.
You're saying the Israelis deliberately murdered them.
I'm saying that it is the UN's fault that they were there in the first place. The Israelis made it abundantly clear -in advance- that anyone in close proximity to any Hezbolla fighters was in grave danger and should probably leave.
The UN knew that, and yet they left those poor bastards out there, in the middle of a war -knowing full well the danger they were in.
And you see nothing wrong with that ?

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 12:04 PM

---

If the United Nations is ineffective, most of the blame falls on the United States, which has systematically and intentionally tried to dilute its power and influence, and which constantly vetoes UN security council resolutions - since 1972, more frequently than any other nation.

Posted by: Ade at July 28, 2006 12:54 PM

---

BigCityLib:
Wow. I guess Chretien's personal greed inadvertently led to us being able to avoid the quagmire, and that's ok by you. It is heartening to see that Liberal apologists still believe in the paper-bags-full-of-money ends-justify-the-means style of governance. I guess Martinites are the only ones who dither on policy. Forgive me for not standing behind you in the line-up to kiss Chretien's derriere.

You still did not address how you the Oracle of Delphi would have dealt with Saddam's repeated violations of UN orders. We know the Liberal tool kit is filled with task forces, commissions and now Irish foreign postings....

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 01:05 PM

---

Ahh, there it is, Ade.

Let's conveniently forget that the majority of those vetoes were used to stop attacks on Israel. Let's also forget that those vetoes were also used to prevent such lovely things as UN-controlled trade, UN-controlled redistribution of wealth, and general communist policy.

Yeah, it's the U.S. to blame for the U.N. being so bloody ridiculous.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at July 28, 2006 01:44 PM

---

Hezbollah fired on UN forces at least twice during this conflict, and Israelis helped to save the life of a wounded UN military observer.

[I had links to UN dot ORG here but those were considered to be submission errors -- go to Little Green Footballs for the links http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21801_Hizballah_Attacked_UNIFIL_Twice_This_Week&only]

Did Kofi publically thank Israel for helping an injured UN worker? Did Kofi get publically upset with Hezbollah for "deliberately targeting" UN personnel?

Do I even need to ask?

The UN has lost so much credibility over the years, and not because the perfidious U.S. undermined it (oh, puh-lease). The oil-for-food scandal and other misuses of funds, UN soldiers raping young children in Africa and committing other attrocities elsewhere, ineffectiveness in Rwanda, failure to back up its own resolutions, stultifying and money-wasting bureaucracy,the ghastly hypocrisy of human rights violaters on human rights tribunals that chiefly exist to condemn the U.S. and Israel, etc. . . . all that only begins to explain why the UN has lost its credibility.

Posted by: webster at July 28, 2006 01:58 PM

---

yeah, the u.n. does a great job in these situations. well, at least they aren't into the sex trade in lebanon yet.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060717-084229-3601r.htm

http://volokh.com/posts/1153523571.shtml

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/20060724sheppard.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20060721/bs_ibd_ibd/2006721issues

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2UxZjI3MTRhNGM5YTc1MDkyM2NkZmVhZjdiYzUzODU=

Posted by: allen at July 28, 2006 03:58 PM

---

Thanks upnorth. I continue to live in hope of finding a leftie blog that adds substance to the various disagreements that are presented.

Posted by: Chairm at July 28, 2006 04:53 PM

---

NRW: You need to separate "the Canadian Forces" from the UN. CF are not the UN. CFrs have distinguished themselves all over the world trying to do the moral right that the UN is supposed to be about. I don't need to explain further the coziness comment: do your homework on the web and you'll find all the proof you need. 28 years in Lebanon and in a major assault the UN doesn't have enough good sense to order its boys (our boy, in this case) out of danger. Its telling that they issued that order after we lost a guy and the world screamed about it. The UN is always too little too late.
Canada needs to immediate re-evaluate all long term deployments of CF on UN "endless" peacekeeping missions. As many have pointed out, the UN has changed. It has been fully co-opted by a variety of private and personal interests and dosen't even come close to the altruism that prevailed in Cyprus and Suez. IMO, Cyprus was the last real UN stand with honour. (Again, distinguish the UN from the CF - they are not interchangeable terms). As much as I hate to nuance the liberal v-word, The major was a victim, a victim of an organization that places its self-interest over that of the people its supposed to serve.
Canadians sometimes get killed because they're gullible. Altruistic enough to believe that they can help (bless their hearts, because they frequently do) and gullible enough to believe that orgs like the UN and NATO really care about that.

Posted by: Skip at July 28, 2006 06:16 PM

---

BCL

I know… the US/Israel is to blame for Bigfoot, the ice age, Atlantis sinking and more recently, the tsunami disaster, Lets blame them for everything, its much easier than taking any responsibility for our own actions/inactions. People like you don't seem to be able to acknowledge the fact that you have become a bigot. Your kind is particularly abhorrent because you hate people for who they are, instead of what they do. What is truly disgusting here is your ignorance of history. I beseech you to show me a single battle in history where friendly fire has not been an issue.
The UN, and everyone else, was warned by Israel days before to get out of the area, as there intention was to eradicate the Hezzies. Anan ignored the warning, and the chips fell were they may.

Grow up dude, you really need to move out of your mother’s basement and learn about the realities of life.

Posted by: Missing Link at July 28, 2006 06:32 PM

---

Skip --

Thank you for the update, I understand and appreciate your position much more than before. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Posted by: nrw at July 28, 2006 08:54 PM

---

For those who believe that UN "reform" is the solution, what exactly do you mean by that term, and why do I have the sneaking suspicion that it involves more government spending? I've heard many a socialist claim that we (or the U.S.) should first attempt reforms with the UN before withdrawing membership or funding, and yet none of them are able to clearly define this nebulous term or provide any realistic suggestions.

What makes one think that these mysterious reforms would even be possible, given the current state of the UN? If they already don't represent Canadian/American interests, why would they accept Canadian/American-driven reforms?

There is only one UN reform I can think of that could ever reduce the current corruption: kick out the repressive regimes and put an end to the ridiculous notion of every tinhorn dictator in the known universe having a say in how world affairs ought to be conducted. Other countries could request UN assistance and that would be fine, but only democratically-elected leaders can truly claim to represent their people, and hence only democratically-elected leaders should be given voice or influence. This is, of course, not a perfect solution (Hamas was elected "democratically"), but neither is democracy a perfect political system; it's simply the best we've got right now. At least we wouldn't have Syria making decisions about "human rights".

I'm not suggesting that we silence all other voices, just that we don't have them making decisions about "international law", since for all intents and purposes they are accustomed to being above the law and will bring that attitude with them wherever they go.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 28, 2006 08:55 PM

---

People, the UN is a useless haven for despots and dictators and the sacred shrine of the Left. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are no doubt salivating over the soon to be open position as head honcho when the esteemed Kofi leaves, either one could go seamlessly into the post. All kidding aside either would be somewhat of an improvement. Chretien could use his talent as a jester to win consensis while Martin could use his bombastic phrase "let me tell You....." while doing the impression of a windmill Sorry, got carried away!

Posted by: Liz J at July 28, 2006 08:56 PM

---