>Yes, and WWII was about getting our way in Germany.

I already said I agreed with WW II. The Japanese had attacked you in Pearl Harbour. The Germans had invaded Poland and France. There are no such comparisons with Vietnam and Iraq.

>If your point is you wish the U.S. would be Canada, perhaps we could if we had the Canadian military protecting us for 50 years.

I know this is a very popular view in the US that you have protected us. I can't remember all your previous comments but I think you have inside information from the military that Russia was about to attack us in the 70's. So you told Gorbachev that you had were going to build a missle shield and he backed down. But he could have attacked Britain, France, Germany or Japan but he didn't. They had no plans to build a missle shield and they were much closer. Exactly why did Gorbachev want to attack Canada? Now if you are talking about some other county attacking us, could you tell me which country it was. I am of the opinion that if Canada was on the other side of the world we still wouldn't have been attacked.

>I was at a client in Toronto recently and said, "I think it would be great to have the Canadian social system and the American military for defense." and my Canadian friend said, "Yeah, that's what we have." <s>

I am not saying that some Candians don't think like you do. One third of the Canadians supported the War in Iraq before it started. The difference is that now that we have seen the misfire, most have changed their views.

>Iraq is not about getting our way. It is about making a choice from a list of bad alternatives. Great nations do not have the luxury of standing back to let others deal with threats to their national security.

A question. I know its hard to get out of Iraq now that you are in. But if you were president and you knew what you know now about a) no WMD and b) no link to Al Qaeda would you still have attacked Iraq?

>The 'international community' is showing exactly what it is capable of accomplishing in Darfur. I don't see Canada taking a leadership position in stopping a humanitarian crisis far worse than anything happening in Iraq. It is one thing to criticize and another to assume leadership. Rwanda was another great example of the international community not interferring in the internal affairs of a state.

Yes I agree with you about these issues. Our Prime Minister did make a speech to the UN about helping out in Darfur. We put troups in Rwanda. I agree that the UN is pretty useless. I am not just talking about their meetings in New York. I am talking about their aid programs. The UN have been in Nepal for years and it has not moved one inch forward. You guys go in with Hughey Helicopters, the UN goes in with aid and 10 years later nothing has changed. I wish I could come up with a bright idea on Africa, but I am afraid you will have to ask someone else.

>It would be very foolhardy for America to rely on the U.N. to protect anything except the opulent salaries of the relatives of the kakistocracies that make of most its membership. The Oil for Food program fed a lot of fat cats, but not a lot of Iraqis.

You know the deal that Jimmy Carter came up with for Egypt has turned out pretty well. The Camp David accord required that the US give both Israel and Egypt $4 Billion each year for their co-opertion. Israel gets cash money. But Egypt gets projects which are administered by the US Corp of Engineers. i.e. they get roads, sewers, runways etc. but no money that can disappear into a Swiss Bank Account. Now the UN should have been able to handle something like that for Iraq. What do you think?