• There is no such a philosophy as moral relativism. Killing of innocent people is immoral, regardless of by whom, where, when, why.
• Conservatism, liberalism and so on are all part of activism. Activists have their own agenda and work for their business to survive. They will do anything, including immoral thing to get to their point of purpose. Activists are not open minded people and don't.
• If wasn't for liberal ideas, we would still be leaving in med-evil times. Religion would dominate our everyday life like it still does in some countries which we know where they are and slavery would still be normal business, not to say that women would be second hand citizens.
• The story of Israel and Arab countries are one very long and unfortunate event of my life. After fifty some years of the conflict, it is vivid that the so called leaders that could not bring peace were and are incompetent or they genuinely don't want to resolve the issue. You mean to tell me that no one can find the solution?
• If Arabs think that there will be a Palestinian state, they are dreaming. I believe that there won't be a Palestinian state, because it's all talk to keep the region busy. Israel never intended to accept or approve a Palestinian state.
• Democracy and Terrorism are the two buzz words of the 21st century. Democratic dictatorship is to occupy others homes and military terrorism is to destroy those terrorists who defend their homes.
• Doing anything in the name of god regardless of religion and geographical location, makes god look so weak that he can't defend himself and need the help of those who he created. God does not need the help of no Muslim, Christian, or Jew. So don't bring him into the moral equation.
• American support of Israel is pure power and politics. When it comes to Israel, American politicians and government are irrelevant. Public support is different story. Check the case of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Mel Gibson's movie "Passion of the Christ" which made hundreds of millions of dollars besides objection from Jewish leader and organization.
• Societies that do not change and adopt new ways of peaceful relations within and outside with others are doomed to collapse. We don't need war heroes and patriots which create nationalism and in the 21st century nationalism will create many other problems of war and destruction.
• If we don't work for peace, we for sure will destroy the world. And there won't be peace for as long as there are manufacturers of thousand types of weapons. Anyone who wants to create a long lasting peace, should work towards the reduction and elimination of weapons production and sell. If one has a gun in his hand, there is a reason or a cause and for that reason and cause he will use it and if there is no gun he will fume for a moment without resorting to gun and that will pass. I HAVE SEEN WAR AND IT"S NOT PLEASANT EXPERIENCE. PEACE FOR ALL INHABITANTS OF OUR LOVELY EARTH

My read of the EU is that they all agree on cessation of hostilities. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. From the AFP: "Germany also issued a joint statement with Britain on Monday urging a ceasefire. Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said Israel's actions were "strengthening Hezbollah and weakening Lebanon." It appears to me that the only point of contention is whether to insert a peacekeeping force, how to do it and who should lead.

Contrast this with the position of the US government, which is ambivalence at best. How is it in our interest to stand on the sidelines as Israel engages in an utterly fruitless, pointless and brutal campaign that is not only failing tactically, it is emboldening Iran, Hizb'allah and uniting our enemies? After three weeks of bombardment, Hizb'allah set its daily record for launches and casualties yesterday. What's worse is that these actions mold and entrenche another generation of suicide bombers and militants throughout the Islamic world. We should, instead, be helping to create the next generation of leaders who rescue the Arab world from collapse and violence.

It's not enough to say that we disagree with the ugly rhetoric of these countries - such as Iran - and ignore them until they collapse, because the problem only festers. Our current administration has been employing that approach since its first days in office, and what has it gotten us? What do North Korea and Iran look like today compared to 2000? Of course it's difficult to engage with Hizb'allah, Iran and Syria. And obviously there is very little common ground to be found. But the alternative is on display for the world to watch right now in Iraq and Lebanon. Iraq is not, as you say, a democracy. The so-called votes in that country have been more like censuses, where all Shias vote for the local Shia cleric, all Kurds vote for Kurds and Sunnis (when they vote at all) vote for Sunnis. There are no issues, no platforms for voters to consider. That is not democracy, it's not even the seeds of democracy, that is tribalism. (And to suggest that is somehow the fault of Iranian sabotage is fanatical in itself. What was Zarqawi? Who are the Baathists?)

These moral relativist accusations that come from conservatives are their way of avoiding having to deal with realists. I have no moral ambivalence. I am well aware of the shortfalls of Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah and the rest of their ilk. But I am also aware that "doing the right thing" is not the job of foreign policy makers. It is their responsibility to do what is best for their country's strategic interests, and that is their sole guiding principle. Standing by Israel because she is our ally, regardless of her actions, is not a sign of moral superiority. It is, however, powerful evidence of strategic foolishness. I am not waving a flag saying peace in our times. There are necessary wars, like the one in Afghanistan. But war for the sake of righteousness has another name - crusade.

Ted thanks for your response. The 'realist' European governments all objected to calling for an "immediate ceasefire", instead the EU called for a "cessation of hostilities" which was the wording in the final compromise resolution. What is the difference and why did the 'realist' block object to the term "immediate ceasefire"? They inserted a typical EU type of ambivalence that suggests there is a strong divide in the EU on what policy to follow or suggest, the end result is the usual watered down compromise. The UK Prime Minister has been on the side of the USA, the German Chancellor has by and large followed the same line, and so have countries like the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic and others. Secretary of State Rice also says "we're trying to get an end to the violence." In my view the statement that "not one Middle Eastern or European country agrees with our diplomatic line of "sustainable peace"' is a blanket statement that doesn't reflect the reality of how from country to country opinions differ. So it's just wrong and should not be left unchallenged. I am a Dutch European and am aware of the subtleties.

The difficulty I have with seeking cooperation with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah is that they interpret compromise as weakness. President Ahmadinejad called for "a world without the United States and Zionism". He seems to be working on it. The diplomatic process with Iran over its seeking nuclear weapons is obstructed in a fashion to suggest certain nations would actually welcome an Iran armed with nuclear weapons as a counterweight to US/Euro influence in the mideast. Despite years of engagement between European nations and Syria and Iran, nothing is moving forward, instead Lebanon is in shambles and Jews are being murdered because they are Jews. Hassan Nasrallah offered his apologies when his rockets killed members of an Israeli Arab, He only means to kill Jews. In the war on terror, he is absolutely not with us.

Moral relativism is to wave a little document and say 'peace in our times' while the Nazis invade Sudetenland and prepare to march into Czechoslovakia. Moral relativism makes one lose elections. If Bush were to waiver in his support for Israel both Democrats and Republicans would rush to try to correct him because more than 60% of Americans support Israel and they do so because of shared values. Perhaps you do not believe that there is a moral intent to bring democracy to Iraq but I see it's there in the policy makers, the brass, the soldiers on the ground, and in the wishes of the majority of Americans. It's there in that an Iraqi coalition government has been democratically elected. There's enough to find fault with Iraqi democracy but the point I tried to make is that what democracy is blossoming there is being sabotaged by Iran.

In your last paragraph you seem to imply I am a moral absolutist and imply I am (in contrasting my views to those of grownups) juvenile. That's neither an accurate nor a very positive characterization. Not of me nor of the great number of people that are primarily guided by a moral imperative. Our laws have been created to regulate society, some say. Well, murder is illegal because it is morally objectionable. Very few people will argue that murder is illegal because it obstructs the proper functioning of society. In fact there are tons of cases in which someone's violent death was a benefit to society and yet the murderer was still punished solely because murder is wrong, evil, sinful and immoral. I'm sure you subscribe to that morality and if you do you also will see that there is an undeniable moral underpinning to foreign policy, because apart from doing what is proper to the functionality of the planet we also must do what is right.

JVD70 -

This is a very misleading statement in its entirety. All EU countries have called for an immediate cessation of hostilities by both sides. "The Council (of EU ministers) calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire," said Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency. Germany and Britain have asked that an international peacekeeping force be inserted on the Lebanon border, thereby arriving at a permanent ceasefire. You are parsing terminology here in terms of the difference between cessation of hostilities and ceasefire. The bottom line is that the US will not even ask for a cessation of hostilities until Israel has accomplished it's goals. That is not the position of any other country.

Now, in terms of common ground with Iran, Syria and Hizb'allah, this of course doesn't mean that we will agree on everything. Their views on the right of Israel to exist do not mesh with ours. But since you asked, here are two quick examples of common ground: we have a clear common interest with Iran in a strong government in Afghanistan, and we cooperate with them informally there. We also have cooperated with Syria in the Middle East intermittently for 20 years, as was highlighted in Brent Scowcroft's op-ed only days ago. Brent Scowcroft, is he conservative?

Moral absolutism is not a sustainable basis for anything other than third grade ethics. It is this absolutism that allows you to make the absurd statement that Iraq is a democracy, and the same absolutism that allowed such a foolish policy errand to be run in the first place. Grownups recognize that ensuring the security of a nation requires tough choices. We cooperated with a brutal Soviet ally to defeat Hitler in WWII. Was that relativism or realism?

Ted DiBiasse you wrote:

'After two weeks of war, not one Middle Eastern or European country agrees with our diplomatic line of "sustainable peace"'

That is wrong. The Germans, Brits, Poles, Czechs, Dutch and Danish are opposing calls for an immediate ceasefire. They call themselves the 'realos' for considering it only realistic to expect Israel not to do nothing while having their people killed and abducted and their towns bombarded by a terrorist entity. I am not sure what the French and their side expect will happen when they call for an immediate cease fire but it won't be sustainable when Hezbollah can launch any attack when they feel like it.

You also write: "We may very well find common ground with Iran, Syria and Hizb'allah. It will not likely be in terms of shared values, but it might clearly be in terms of shared interests in their region."

According to Hassan Nasrallah "Israel is an illegal usurper entity, which is based on falsehood, massacres, and illusions, and there is no chance for its survival." Do you expect to see shared interests? Can you name any?

The world is changing, the cold war kept things orderly but now a new polarization is taking place. Countries like Iran and Venezuela are trying to form a new coalition of nations based not on sustainable and humanist ideologies but on oil wealth. If they have succeeded in getting Russia to join their club then we are facing an alarming new alliance of states that seek to maintain high oil prices, undermine democracies (Ukraine, Iraq, Nicaragua) and that will try to manipulate oil prices through political and military (proxy army) means. That is a formidable alliance with vast resources, maybe US diplomacy only appears weak in comparison to the counterforce applied.

Moral relativism is not a sustainable basis for foreign policy. It wasn't in 1941 and isn't now. What is sorely lacking in postglobal is a conservative voice. Almost half of Europe is governed by conservative coalition governments and all of the USA has a conservative administration. Where is our voice here? David, where are they?

Amercica has no diplomatic leverage. It is problematic that the United States has any future at all. This is not the prognostication of some doom and gloom nut, but is the product of careful consideration of trends and an anaylsis of an economic model predicting trends for the next decade.

Amercican's are, at best, delussional about this. Nearly everyone understands by now that our mis-steps and Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Middle East have cost us dearly. People are starting to understand that we have, albei unwittingly, harmed allied people and nations with our mis-steps and national, especially political, incompetence.

What is not so apparent, perhaps, is the price we are paying for corporate America's business practices. Amercican companies were on a buying binge back in the 1980's and 1990's. Now, in their never ending quest for larger and *immediate* profits, they are closing down factories and companies all across Europe, moving those jobs to Asia. This is costing hundreds of thousands of European's jobs. Because Amercian corporations and investors are so closely tied to our political "class", the United States is simply detested in Europe.

Asia, on the other hand, is demanding even greater access to Amercian technology and markets while Amercian workers are finally waking up and demanding some sort of minimal job and/or safety net protections. This has placed us in a collision with India and China, who are starting to act like it is their due to build their future on dismantling this country.

Of course, everyone, except for a few delussional investors and their political allies, understands that all of this is coinciding exactly at the time we are entering a world wide recession that is likely to be much worse than the dot-com bust. The model predicts that we can expect something like a 30% deduction is market value. All of this, in turn, is going to lead to even more pressure for outsourcing, which is going to lead to more demands for "protectionist" legislation by American voters which is going to alienate our new found Asian and other third world "friends" even further. The result will be American isolation, and a sort of national paranoia about the rest of the world not understanding our "good intentions".

China already recognizes the validity of this and is using a similar predictive model. They have been selling missile and nuclear and other weapons technology to Iran via their client state North Korea. This is not so much to make money, but to keep the U.S. pre-occupied, pinned down in a Middle Eastern morass until we simple similar to what happened to the old Soviet Union - collapse. India, although late to the game, is also cognitent, of the social and economic trends in the U.S. and is both promising alliance with us, gaining access to our nuclear and other weapons technologies, but is also providing weapons technologies to such diverse places as Iran and North Korea, Burma-Mymar, Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezula.

So, you can expect the center of world power and influence to transfer from the U.S. and Euope to China and Asia. Our future is one of bankruptcy, recriminations, and small scale wars.

Oh, and since people just love predictions, the recession has already begun, and is due to effect Europe early next year, following the November U.S. elections. The Bush White House has been "cooking the books", hiding some truly awful economic news, in an insane attempt to hang on to control of Congress.