Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Much ado about trifles | Main | That ever-present 'wage gap' »

Monday, June 11, 2007

Lieberman got the point

Not that I personally want a military strike against the Iranian people, though I don't mind a direct strike against the ruling ayatollahs, but me thinks Sen. Lieberman is fully able to understand the stakes. Joe Lieberman wants the US to go after the regime for its involvement in Iraq.

I applaud his courage and honesty! And I do think he's too good to be an independent. He's got to join the GOP camp.

Posted by Winston on June 11, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e008c3b5ab8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lieberman got the point:

Comments

"Suicide bombings are desparation tactics."

Baloney. The 9/11 murderers were all middle class folks. None were starving. If they were desperate, it's because their rel;igion brainwashed them into that state.

Ann Colter was right. Mass conversion or, for those refusing, mass annihilation. Civilization cannot live with these creatures any longer.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 8:08:28 AM


Keith,
Good posts. Interesting, lucid and to the point.
Cheers

Posted by: the real 'Anon' | 2007-06-13 8:22:51 AM


Interesting posts Keith.
Markala
The US usually are the good guys, usually. But when they go off their nut, they do it in a big way.
The Bush Doctrine summed up is "do what we say, do not challenge us, or we'll kill you." That's the essence of fascism right there.
When I left the military, I told myself I didn't want to be a pawn of American Empire, which, sometimes is a role that Canadians are forced into. I support the mission is Afganistan because we have lots of work to do and the opportunity to do some good, but American leadership for the next 17 months is a cancerous growth that I don't want my country to have anything to do with.
I feel pity for Americans that they have to put up with this administration and have an opposition that is so balless that they don't impeach the whole bunch.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-13 8:52:48 AM


. . . whereas Canada under the moral Chretien and Martin was just super duper. The fact that billions were stolen or misspent - hey, it's only the money of the slaves. No big deal there. As long as the elite can fly all over the world and live the life of multi-millionaires without contributing a whit to society, that makes Canuckistan the envy of all the ruling classes of the world - especially the thieves at the UN.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 9:14:53 AM


Robin: Well, thanks for a discussion. I find it hard to debate anyone with BDS usually, but your last post showed promise.

What is your solution for Iraq presently?

Who would you like to see leading the U.S. after the next election?

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-13 9:16:08 AM


Remi Houle says "regarding Israel, read the Bible". What a salient answer (rolls eyes). And you wonder why I compare the Taliban and fundmentalist Christians.

Regarding Anne Coulter, I'd like to take a red-hot iron poker and stick it up her vagina and out her anus. Islamists could get a lot more support in the West by taking out Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity rather than innocent people on their way to work.

The US would like to be the Good Guys. Sincerely. Unfortunately, there is a such a conflict between their national interests (an undying need to control oil that is unfortunately not theirs and a mind-boggling unfetered loyalty to Israel no-matter-what) that disallows them from being liked by anyone but Israel, and whatever other "minor league" countries that they could entice financially to join them in Iraq (not including the UK and Australia, whose eaders were looking for political brownie points, against the wishes of their people).

It's unfair to say that the US does this intentionally. I think they're just delusional to what the rest of the world thinks, though they (and their neo-con supporters here) like to dismiss everyone else (especially Europeans). At some point, this isolationist approach to world conflict will bite them back. It's one thing to be fighting an "evil Islamist enemy" in hand-to-hand conflict. But I think it's worse to be hated by the rest of the world - they don't seem to realize that. Or care.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-13 9:17:20 AM


Hey, Gilligan:

"What a salient answer (rolls eyes). And you wonder why I compare the Taliban and fundmentalist Christians.

Regarding Anne Coulter, I'd like to take a red-hot iron poker and stick it up her vagina and out her anus."

Now let's compare the Taliban to our pal Gilligan. Brothers in cruelty, I'd say. Haven't seen any Christians lately who practice this kind of torture. But the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the "insurgents" in Iraq, Thailand, Sudan, etc. - all share this quality of sadism - Gilligan included.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 9:30:22 AM


1) If the U.S. monopoly capitalist groups persist in pushing their policies of aggression and war, the day is bound to come when the people of the whole world will hang them. The same fate awaits the accomplices of the United States.
Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958).


2) Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
"Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938),
Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.


3) The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds well universally, for China and for all other countries.
Ibid. p. 219.


4) People of the world, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs! People of the world, be courageous, and dare to fight, defy difficulties and advance wave upon wave. Then the whole world will belong to the people. Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed.
"Statement Supporting the People of the Congo (L.)
Against U.S. Aggression" (November 28, 1964),
People of the World, Unite and Defeat the
U.S. Aggressors and All Their Lackeys, 2nd ed., p. 14.

Mao Zedong quotes by Keith | 13-Jun-07 1:40:28 AM

Yes, Communism is a great threat.
Islamic Jihad is the current tip of the spear that the Communists are using to threaten us.
That spear must be broken now because it is being used now.

Comments on the Quotes:
1) The PRC invaded Tibet in 1950. That was a war of aggression against Buddhists and Mao has a lot of chutzpah to accuse the U.S. in this quote in 1958. Tibet is still under the yoke of the Chinese Communists today.(Free Tibet with every Combination #4 Order)

2) Political Power does mostly, not exclusively, grow out of the barrel of a gun. Maybe Mao was nominated for the "No Shit Sherlock Award" in 1938 for this gem. He wasn't a hypocrite when he said this as he surely practised it his entire life.

3) Mao is wrong in this statement. Especially the 'all other countries' part.
Only countries with large peasant or 'proletariat' populations are subject to such 'high form' revolutions. Countries with large middle classes or 'petite bourgeoisie' populations that allow ownership of land and property are exempt from revolution if the middle class have a hope of upward mobility and a government that credibly poses as democratic.(see Para 2, sentence 3 of the U.S. Declaration of Independence)
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
As Pierre Trudeau demonstrated, revolutions can be far reaching even when the are 'soft revolutions'.

4) "Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed." Mao
Not really the same as 'All Monsters' being destroyed as Mao's continued existence and peaceful death proves.
'All kinds' is a very tiny subset of 'All Monsters' even if the criteria for 'Monsters' is evaluated by a Communist.

Suicide attacks are historically a part of Islamic Jihad as any amateur student of Islam knows. Muslims(even the 'moderate' ones) don't call the suicide attackers Martyrs for nothing.
The suicide attack is an integral part of Islam and it's spread. Islam was spread by the sword not a butter knife. The only new thing about Muslim suicide attackers is high explosives and these can be made from common household chemicals.

Will the PRC cause mass unemployment by causing a depression?
No. They have enough problems without throwing 100s of millions of young military age men out of work.
As it stands, the PRC doesn't have enough females to marry these men to. What do you suppose, Keith, would happen if they didn't have work as well?


Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-13 9:35:33 AM


Markalta(sorry, i spelt your name wrong),
I don't hate Bush, he's a guy whose just incredibly unqualified for the job he has. I'm sure in an alternate universe he's working at Dairy Queen and is quite good at his work. But not as a US president, save that job for the smart people. I expect alot from public servants.

I think the war in Iraq hasn't even started yet, this is just the opening act and it's going get alot uglier. At this point, most of the good options are gone. If the US leaves, then it's going to get worse, if they stay it's going to get worse. What crappy scenario is preferable?
The Americans can't stay there forever, they've already outstayed their welcome in the region and they need to leave. At the end of the day it's the Iraqi's who need to take the lead. And that's the pickle because of Iraq's sectarian society, unity in purpose is impossible. Guess that's why they call it a quagmire.
I'm angry at the Bush administration because they should have seen this coming. If you don't know the difference between Sunni and Shia before you start a war in their backyard, or what Turkey will say about an independent Kurdish state, or what Iran will do with American forces massed along its borders, then do your homework first.
I think the US should pull out most of their forces within a year. Iraq is a trap, the longer they are there the harder it will be for them to leave.
It's going to be a kick in the balls for Uncle Sam. But it needs to be done.
Really sad, I have alot friends in the US military serving in Iraq for their 3rd and 4th rotos. Keeping up this pace and length of combat tours and these people will break, if they haven't done so already.

As far as the next pres.... doesn't really matter me too much, not my country after all, all I ask from the Americans is that they install serious people into serious positions. No more rodeo clowns.

But if I was a yank, I'd like to see Bill Richardson for the dems(he'll never win, but he's got the resume) and for the repubs, maybe McCain.
Not Hillary!

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-13 9:50:32 AM


OBC (let's just call him Old Bitch Cunt) said this: "Ann Coulter was right. Mass conversion, or for those refusing, mass annihilation. Civilization cannot live with these creatures any longer." He then follows that up with me and the "Taliban are brothers in cruelty".

If that isn't evidence of what a fucked-up piece of shit he is, I don't know what is.

I guess those "Christians" in Northern Ireland that blew up people in marketplaces weren't twisted or evil. Likewise the Christians in Lebanon that did the Sabra camp massacre with Sharon's help. Or the Christians dropping bombs on Iraq, or lobbing them at Sudan in 1998. Or Regean's bombs in 1986 that killed Ghaddafi's baby daughter (she must have beena terrorist, no doubt).

Again, OBC (Old Bitch Cunt), I reiterate: I see evil on ALL sides. You see evil on one side, and support the perpetuation of evil on the other (actually evilness by the Americans gives you a massive hard-on).

I can't wait to hear it: Leftoids and their profanity, while we'll overlook fascists like OBC and his hate and his homophobia (from other discussions).

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-13 11:30:23 AM


Robin, good post about the presidency of the US. I'm like you - it's THEIR country, they are the ones to choose. I think given the past two terms of this Administration, you'll see a correction on the positive side no matter who wins. I like McCain, and respect him for what he went through as a POW in Viet Nam. But I worry that he has lost his principles and is trying to pander to the hard-right within the Republican party that he feels he needs to be (in order to win the Republican ticket). Giuliani is now doing the same (wherey he was once proudly pro-choice). For the Democrats, Richardson would be good but I think John Edwards would be the most viable choice right now, with Barack Obama as VP.

I get raised eyebrows when I state that I don't think Bush is that bad (to me Cheney is the real menace and evil, along with Rove). He is in WAAAY over his head, but I admire him (whether I agree with his position or not) for going against the neo-cons in his party on the immigration issue and independence for Kosovo (i.e taking the side of Muslim Albanians against a Christian ally from World War II, the Serbs).

(I guess Mulroney got out just in time. As PM, what would he have done about Bosnia (and the mass graves) and Kosovo given that his wife is a very proud Serb).

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-13 11:38:50 AM


Gilligan, Gilligan ~

There is nothing wrong with exterminating vermin whose intention is to do the same to you. Ann Colter is advocating just that. Muslims either want to kill us or they remain silent as others of their ilk massacre the innocent.

But I'm sure on Gilligan's island, abortion is quite acceptable because it inconveniences some adults who can't keep their knees together for a few minutes. Yes, let's kill off the innocent babies and import Muslim scum to sustain us in our old age like is happening in Eurabia.

That is the future Gilligan espouses. I choose not to participate in that catastrophe.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 11:39:04 AM


. . . and like typical Leftoids, they call the opposition sexists, homophobes and (gasp!) Christian believers - and call their arguments "hate speech" so as to silence their critics.

Fortunately, they cannot silence me without facing my weapon (unregistered).

The scariest words in the English language:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 11:43:29 AM


obc, please reach slowly for your meds. You are beyond paranoid or delusional. Were you buggered by an uncle or male babysitter as a child?

But we agree - I consider Ann Coulter and people like you to be vermin, so your extermination (and hers) would be agreeable to me.

As I've said before, the Catholic Church is very consistent in their views about life: no abortion and no war. You, however, feel the need to save OTHER PEOPLE'S fertilized eggs while you maintain population control by bombing to shit those "Muslim scum". You are seriously demented.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-13 11:46:02 AM


Thank you Dr. Gilligan for your professional diagnosis. Yes, anyone not willing to die at the hands of Islamofascists and Commie one-worlders is demented - in your mind. Fortunately, we have other choices than bowing our heads in preparation for decapitation - a choice the unborn sadly do not have.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 12:52:19 PM


Winston Churchill On Islam

A quote from an 1899 book by Winston Churchill, "The River War", in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Kitchener's campaign in the Sudan

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

That was Sir Winston Churchill in 1899.
While the western world underwent The Industrial, Modern, and Information Ages Islam hasn't changed much in 108 years.
OBC is in good company.

World domination is foremost of only a very small handful of Islam's prophecy. Jihad is the Sixth Pillar of Islam, the 'prophet' Mohammed was a killer and a brigand among other unsavory things and is regarded by Muslims as the pure Islamic man and one to be emulated.
As long as Islam exists, Muslims will emulate their prophet and non-Muslims will be in peril.

Paul Gallagher, you draw no distinction between force used for defense and violence used for aggression.
Moral equivalence is as bad a Leftist vice as profane language.

Catholic Wars of Aggression against non-Catholic Christians were perpetrated for hundreds of years in Europe killing millions of people. These wars are well documented and Germany has many small hills which are actually the mass graves of people who were killed in these wars.
Catholic aggression has only stopped since the many non-Catholic nations(particularly Anglo)became too militarily powerful to attack.
In 1641 Irish Catholics rose up at the urging of their priests and slaughtered 250,000+ Protestants, men, women, children and babies in a single year. These killers had neither mass or long distance communications nor many firearms or cannon but did most of the killing manually. To this day no Pope has ever visited Ireland, condemned the aggression and killings by Catholics, nor told them to stop.

No, Catholicism has not been consistent in it's views on war and neither has it been consistent in many other ways.

For instance, 40 non-existent saints were removed from veneration by Pope Paul VI in 1969, such as Christopher, Valentine, Anastasia and Barbara.
See: The Incredible Book of Vatican Facts and Papal Curiosities: A Treasury of Trivia by Nino Lo Bello.

Catholic people prayed to these non-existant saints over a thousand year period and yet they didn't even exist as human beings but only as statues of wood, plaster, and metal.


Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-13 12:55:15 PM


Speller ~

Surely you didn't think that Gilligan spoke for the Catholic Church! :)

Like most Leftoids, they are somewhat informed and mostly uninformed in matters of history and logic. They are ruled by their emotions which one can readily sense from the anger and condescension that drips through their posts here.

There is no known cure for this affliction to date. Perhaps time and a threatened beheading would clear their senses, but even that might not be sufficient for a deranged mind to admit that his whole philosophy of life is inane & pointless.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 1:05:58 PM


Speller, I guess throwing around such phrases as "force used for defence" is in the eyes of the (misguided) beholder. Pray tell, what was invading Iraq in defence of? Weapons of mass destruction that can't reach America from Iraq? Giving WMD's to Al Queda? And how would they get them into the US? And if they did, wouldn't that have spoken more about the US Homeland Security? (and how portable would these WMD's be in order to sneak them into the US).

You see, Speller, rhetoric has no currency. Belive what you want, but when you start using the arguments that you are, you only look foolish. Better to look like a lunatic, crazed madman like obc. At least we know he's demented. You, I believe, are trying to be reasonable. And you probably are a reasonable individual. Your logic, however, is full of holes.

I only mentioned Catholicism in the context of 2007. They are still staunchly pro-life (be it abortion or stemn cell research) but also very anti-war. Unlike fundamentalist Christians, they can't be fooled into believeing that it's OK to set the table for the deaths of Iraqi women and children (who are unlikely to be "terrorists" - yet). But I guess "pre-emptive war" is meant to kill ANYONE that COULD grow up to be a "terrorist".

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-13 1:10:55 PM


Gilligan, Gilligan:

Your dripping condescension cannot be hidden - as much as you attempt to secrete it. But you are likely the product of Canada's Leftoid educational system, so we should not be surprised.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 1:15:53 PM


Speller wrote: In 1641 Irish Catholics rose up at the urging of their priests and slaughtered 250,000+ Protestants, men, women, children and babies in a single year.

Considering that there were less than 200,000 Protestants in the whole of Ireland in 1641 it would be remarkable to kill 250,000 of them. The actual number was closer to 12,000.

Speller wrote: To this day no Pope has ever visited Ireland,

The Pope visited Ireland in 1979.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-13 1:25:41 PM


St Albion, "facts" are secondary on this blog (and in the columns of the Western Standard, in general). That's why I like visiting. It gives you a perspective on the type of individuals you couldn't dream up if you tried.

The thread, regardless of facts, is so: Fundamentalist Christianity - Republican Party - Israel. Anything seen as "foreign" to those three entities ends up in the lexicon of diatribe: "leftoid", "Islamist", "MSM", "Catholics", etc.

We should have a drinking game for every time they mention those words, and doubles for when they can create new non-facts from a series of other non-facts.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-13 1:41:16 PM


Catholic church is against war but let the nazis exterminate 6 millions jews during WWII. They were against war being waged by the allies on Hitler.

IMO we should take the initiative and start a clean up for Islamofacists. Why? Because they are dangerous even more so than the nazis in 1935. In western countries, I propose outlawing Islam. And an agressive policy should be pursued in order to contain Islamfacists. Like we had a containment policy for communism, we should discourage by all means the propagation of Islam.

Evil is not only in muslims. Evil is in every man. But muslims are actively pursuing world domination. Read the Bible because it contains the Word of God. It does not say to kill muslims but to teach them the Gospel so that they can taste true love, the love of God. Islam enslaves people.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-06-13 2:00:55 PM


OBC:

“desperation” (n) 1. The condition of being desperate. 2. Recklessness arising from despair.

“despair” v.i. To be overcome by a sense of futility or defeat –n 1. Utter lack of hope. 2. Something that destroys all hope.

“tactics” (n) The technique or science of securing the objectives designated by strategy, esp. the art of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in coefficient maneuvers against the enemy.

Given the right circumstances, desperation tactics are engaged in by all sides. Numerous examples are available if you care to read military history.

And while starvation can bring on desperation, it’s not a requirement.

Damn few of the military I’ve met, worked with, and lived with believe in mass annihilation… such nasty brutality seems to be the dominant purview of deranged politicians, insane philosophers, and armchair civilians.

Once you’ve exterminated 23% of the human race, who will be next on your list of undesirables? At what point will your claimed appetite for blood be sated?

OBC, pray tell what are your ethics? What prevents you from killing all who annoy? What separates you from Stalin or Mao… other than the apparent ambition to make their sanguinary atrocities dim by multiple-magnitudes-of-order in comparison to yours?

Or is your proclaimed machismo all bluff and bluster?

Are you willing to bash out the brains of babies? Disembowel the pregnant? Slit the throats of toddlers? And do it again and again by the hundreds of millions? Or do you expect others to do that bloody work for you – so you don’t have to scrape the blood from under your fingernails?

Are you as big a problem as that you declaim?

Posted by: Keith | 2007-06-13 2:02:40 PM


Why are Robin, Keith and Gallagher consistently ridiculed or branded as "leftoids" on this site? Identifying common sense and thoughtful discourse as left wing characteristics unjustly flatters the left and, inferebtially, denigrates the right. When psychos like OBC get away with that sort of nonsense, it certainly doesn't help the conservative cause.

Posted by: Zog | 2007-06-13 2:20:38 PM


"We should have a drinking game"

Your answer for everything, Gilligan?

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 2:25:17 PM


OH, NO! Gilligan and his Leftoid pals are ganging upon me and calling me names!

I must have hit a Leftoid nerve. GOOD!

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 2:32:34 PM


http://www.mljewish.org/cgi-bin/retrieve.cgi?VOLUME=13&NUMBER=32&FORMAT=html#entry0

Imagine posting to a "liberal" jewish newsgroup. Does that make you a leftoid obc?

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-13 2:46:18 PM


Street Albion,
Yes, I was wrong about the Pope visiting Ireland.

No, I was not wrong about anything else I said about the Catholics and I noticed you didn't attempt to refute the Wars of Catholic Aggression or the example of false 'saints' which never existed which your people prayed to.
Just who do you think they were offering prayers to, eh?

There were 200,000 Presbyterians who Left Ulster in the 17th Century alone to go to America, that was less than the number who were murdered by Catholics.


"Pray tell, what was invading Iraq in defence of? Weapons of mass destruction that can't reach America from Iraq? Giving WMD's to Al Queda? And how would they get them into the US? And if they did, wouldn't that have spoken more about the US Homeland Security? (and how portable would these WMD's be in order to sneak them into the US)."
Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 13-Jun-07 1:10:55 PM

Ever hear of container ships, Paul Gallagher? They even ship through the St. Lawrence Seaway into the Great Lakes. Do you have any concept of how many huge steel containers are shipped ever day?

As for Homeland Security, a shield is no substitute for a sword. Eventually the enemy's strike will get past any shield.

Here's how much of a threat Vice President Al Gore thought Iraq was in 1992.
Al Gore says Saddam had WMDs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Face%2Emu%2Enu%2F

Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row
By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 1:15am BST 25/08/2002

Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal.
From>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

Who was Abu Nidal?

Setting himself up as a freelance contractor, Abu Nidal is believed to have ordered attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring over 900 people. The group's most notorious attacks were on the El Al ticket counters at Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, when Arab gunmen doped on amphetamines opened fire on passengers in simultaneous shootings, killing 18 and wounding 120.
From>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal#Gadaffi.27s_mercenary

In fact, Abu Nidal, being a 'freelance' Muslim terrorist was, during the 1980s, specifically Colonel Qaddafi's mercenary.
Abu Nidal is suspected of being involved, on Qaddafi's orders, in the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing which killed a Turkish woman and two U.S. servicemen and injured 230 people, including more than 50 American servicemen.
That is why President Reagan bombed Tripoli and Benghazi killing Qaddafi's adopted daughter.


Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-13 2:52:01 PM


Gilligan wrote:

"The thread, regardless of facts, is so: Fundamentalist Christianity - Republican Party - Israel."

You have drawn the battles lines well - and you have shown with which factions you are NOT. That paints the picture quite clearly - we are on the side of Good, while you have no problem defending Evil at the expense of the Good, even if they are sometimes flawed.

I'd rather be on the side that preserves innocent life, while you want to defend Evil's right not to be interfered with by America, Israel & Religion while they slaughter the guiltless .

You show your ignorance once again, Sap. That item was linked from another site to the one you linked to. But the whole matter is doubtlessly beyond your ken.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 2:58:18 PM


Merkel wins Germany, Sarkozy in France - and this from the next PM of the UK (after next year's elections):

"I am a Zionist," Conservative Party leader David Cameron told an audience of party supporters of Israel in London on Tuesday.

"If what you mean by Zionist, is someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country then, yes, I am a Zionist and I'm proud of the fact that Conservative politicians down the ages have played a huge role in helping to bring this about," Cameron declared.

Eat your hearts out, Leftoids!

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 3:13:00 PM


Leftoid? Me? In what universe?

Please indulge me by answering a short quiz:

>How do you stand on Personal issues?
a) Government should not censor speech, press, or internet.
b) Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
c) There should be no laws regarding sex between consenting adults.
d) Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
e) There should be no National ID card.

Add 20 points if you agree, 10 for maybe and 0 for disagree on each of the above Personal Issues.


>How do you stand on Economic issues?
a) End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
b) End government barriers to international free trade.
c) Let people control their retirement: privatize Social Security.
d) Replace government welfare with private charity.
e) Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.

Add 20 points if you agree, 10 for maybe and 0 for disagree on each of the above Economic Issues.

Definitions follow:
Left (Liberal) : Personal 100, Economic 0
Right(Conservative): Personal 0, Economic 100
Statist (big Gov't): Personal 0, Econonic 0
Centrist : Personal 50, Economic 50
Libertarian : Personal 100, Economic 100

See: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-ad-colors.pdf

By the above definitions, I am not a member of the Left, or the Right. Neither am I a Centrist or Statist.

Anyone who honestly believes I'm a Leftoid (which I'm interpreting as a disparaging term for members of the Left) has serious issues with reality.

Posted by: Keith | 2007-06-13 3:15:19 PM


obc wrote: You show your ignorance once again, Sap. That item was linked from another site to the one you linked to. But the whole matter is doubtlessly beyond your ken.

So you'd like to exterminate the "vermin". Who's your role model, Yagoda, Kaganovich or maybe Frenkel?

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-13 3:18:19 PM


There you go! The "hate the Jews" part of you had to come out, didn't it. The mask is off for all to see! Couldn't keep it in check for long, could you.

That hatred has been around for over 4,000 years.
The Pharaohs of Egypt are dead. Babylon no longer exists. The Greek Empire is no more. Rom has disappeared. The Spanish Empire is gone. And throughout these millennia up to today, the Jews still exist - and thrive in their own country once again.

This is what eats the anti-Semites up so much. They, collectively, have tried to get rid of God's chosen people - and they have failed. Losers fail - it's an old story.

They don't read the Bible, so they don't know:

"Those who bless you I shall bless, and those who curse you I shall curse."

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 3:32:08 PM


Speller wrote: or the example of false 'saints' which never existed which your people prayed to.

What people are those Speller? Maybe the people of the non-existent C of E St Albion Parish? You are one dumb Alberta hick.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-13 3:40:43 PM


The thread began with Joe Lieberman. Check out the Leftoid web sites in the US like DU. They refer to him as JEW Lieberman.

The anti-Semites fill the Left with their hatred. They even spill over to this site to spew their malice. Lucky for us, Canada has disarmed them - although they missed me in the round-up. When the time comes, they will indeed be surprised.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 3:44:38 PM


There you go! The "hate the Jews" part of you had to come out, didn't it. The mask is off for all to see! Couldn't keep it in check for long, could you.

My my. You're the one thats been exposed.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-13 3:45:34 PM


Robin: Nice post. Thanks for answering my questions. I do believe that you have a case of BDS, though. When you start saying that Bush was unqualified, you really need to be able to compare him to others who are. Chretien? Martin? Kerry? Dole? I believe that Bush's University grades were better than either Dole or Kerry, and they were who he was running against. Otherwise what criteria can we use?

I agree that Iraq has turned out badly, however I still believe that getting rid of Saddam was the thing to do. He was sponsoring Palestinian terrorists, and was trying to get nukes. He seemed the kind of guy who would be willing to sell them to whoever wanted them. After all, it wasn't just Bush who thought he had WMD...the whole world did. I also agree that they should have had a better plan in place for the followup to the victory, which they didn't. Apparently the Pentagon blew that. The C.I.A. probably should have been in charge, as they were in Afghanistan.

Hindsight is 20/20 though, and I still support the U.S. because what other choice do we have? Cheers,

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-13 4:00:11 PM


obc wrote: There is nothing wrong with exterminating vermin whose intention is to do the same to you.

narration from the Eternal Jew: Jews are the vermin of the human race and similarly spread disease and corruption.

Remarkably similar logic.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-13 4:09:34 PM


Markalta ~

We could support Putin and the ChiComs - oh, and Castro and Chavez, too.

OOOPS! I think I gave away the Leftoid game plan. Sorry.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 4:11:27 PM


"narration from the Eternal Jew: Jews are the vermin of the human race and similarly spread disease and corruption."

Except Jews don't fly planes into office towers nor do they blow their children up while they wear suicide vests. Trying to equate Jews with Islamofascists is a big problem with the Left. Moral equivalence doesn't pass muster with thinking, rational people.

But who ever accused anti-Semites of being thinking, rational people.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 4:14:39 PM


The Israelis just arrested a pregnant mother of 8 and her niece (also pregnant or a mother, can't remember that detail).

Those nasty JOOOOOOOS! Oh wait, the two women were going to be suicide bombers.

I'm so glad that they weren't christian pregnant women trying to blow people up this time!!!!

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-13 4:16:18 PM


"I'm so glad that they weren't christian pregnant women trying to blow people up this time!!!!"

I know what you mean. The news has just been filled with stories of these darn Christians killing Muslims in the refugee camps in Lebanon, murdering Buddhists in Thailand and The Phillipines, also capturing hundreds of Russian students in a school in Russia and slaughtering over 150 of them, and . . .

Oh, sorry. Those were Muslims, weren't they?

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 4:21:39 PM


MarkAlta:

So I guess that proves that those Israelis are anti-abortion, does it not?

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-06-13 4:24:36 PM


Markalta,
When I think of a qualified person for a job I look at things like subject knowledge, integrity and sound judgment. I don't see any of these in Bush. He was elected by the merits of having crappy opponents who were easy to paint as foppish intellectuals. But that's the political climate south of the border and to a lesser degree here where a president is chosen by that 'who would you rather have a beer with' mentality.
I'm an elitist snob, I don't think you should elect anyone based on who would make a great drinking buddy. I want a bookish nerd who knows his shit to be in charge.
As far as marks in university go, I would have gotten great grades as well if I took cheerleading and dance instead of biochemistry. Just shows that you can buy yourself a nice degree and then do nothing with it.
Bush is unqualified for his job because of the gross incompetence that he's shown in the dereliction of his duties. He can't even get his own kangaroo courts in Gitmo to run properly.

Saddam Hussein was an irrelevant, small time thug and was going to die that way until the US made him a hero by coming after him in the clumsy manner that they did. I never believed he had WMD's because the Americans never made the case for it. I voted Liberal the following election, only time that will ever happen, just to thank Chretian for keeping us out of that mess.
I doubt that he would have given nukes to terror groups only for the reason that their first target would be Saddam Hussein and the other secular governments in the region. Hussein may have been a bloodthirsty thug, but he was no dummy.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-13 5:10:11 PM


The case for Saddam's WMDs as made by Al Gore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Face%2Emu%2Enu%2F

Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-13 5:20:07 PM


Robin,
If Saddam was no dummy why did he end his life at the end of a rope instead of choosing exile?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/20/wirq20.xml


http://english.people.com.cn/200301/30/eng20030130_110965.shtml

Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-13 5:36:56 PM


Arrogance - plus he thought bribing ChIraq, Putin and the UN would save his skin.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 5:39:43 PM


Robin, good post.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-13 5:41:21 PM


What about the fact that Saddam signed an agreement to reveal the location of his WMD as part of the terms for allowing him to stay in power after the first Gulf War?

And, the 14 subsequent UN resolutions, each of which specifically mentioned WMD?

Unless you prefer ignorance over information, please check the exact wording and the rationale be each member of the Security Council who signed on to the resolutions.

Or, continue to never let the facts stand in the way of a good fairy-tale that there were no WMD.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-13 5:46:20 PM


syf, no one ever said there never was any WMDs. I'd be interested to know where they were found after the invasion. You aren't seriously suggesting the WMD's are just MIA, are you?

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-13 5:50:21 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.