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

"You aren't seriously suggesting the WMD's are just MIA, are you?"

They are in Syria, the other Baathist regime, where they were trucked & flown over the 6 months the US was wrangling with the UN to pass a resolution just before the actual invasion.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 5:52:33 PM


http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3165

"Saddam's general: 'WMD's were flown out of Iraq!'"

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 5:55:40 PM


Ahhh, thank you obc. I always wondered. I take it Bush and the boys just had an old map and mistook Iraq for Syria when they invaded. Damn Ottoman Empire really confused things, eh.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-13 5:58:07 PM


munroe:

Seems you're getting your timelines mixed up.

Once the US invasion was imminent, that's when the WMD were flown to Syria.

The fact remains there were WMD, as per Sadamm's admission in the surrender document and through a series of UN resolutions.

Another fact. Iraq's people are better off without having their oil profits go into Jean Chretien's pocket.

Or have you been unable to connect the dots as to why Canada stayed out of this unfortunate conflict. Chretien made the right decision, but for the wrong reason. He did not committ Canadian troops to Iraq because he stood to profit from the status quo.

This is common knowledge.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-13 6:29:20 PM


IF it occurred, then the timelines are obc's, not mine and they prove the point. At the time of the invasion, there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Not sure how Jean Chretien became the recipient of Iraq's oil wealth? I doubt we will know though who got rich on contraband shipments. The oil profits today are certainly not all flowing to the Iraqi people (if that's what you mean). I'm sure you'll agree that some the majors (corporations, I mean) are taking their share. Also, there is an excellent recent article in the Guardian on how much of the production is diverted with individuals and Shiite militias in southern Iraq as the beneficiaries.

Commoon knowledge? I guess I missed that musing.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-13 6:47:47 PM


IF it occurred, then the timelines are obc's, not mine and they prove the point. At the time of the invasion, there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Not sure how Jean Chretien became the recipient of Iraq's oil wealth? I doubt we will know though who got rich on contraband shipments. The oil profits today are certainly not all flowing to the Iraqi people (if that's what you mean). I'm sure you'll agree that some the majors (corporations, I mean) are taking their share. Also, there is an excellent recent article in the Guardian on how much of the production is diverted with individuals and Shiite militias in southern Iraq as the beneficiaries.

Common knowledge? I guess I missed that musing.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-13 6:48:22 PM


" Canadian Prime Minister's Possible Connection to Iraq's Former Oil Industry ?????"

http://www.tigerseye.ca/discussion/d030418.htm

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 6:50:44 PM


"All About Oil: A Canadian Connection"

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:gkj6q_nqO0gJ:www.windsofchange.net/archives/003316.php+chretien+oil+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 6:52:38 PM


oh obc, thank you. What a credible source on international affairs. I'll be sure to contact them for my next Rave. I particularly like the original source - submitted by a member of Tiger's Eye by an an unkown source. You're friend Stelmach should have contracted with them for policy development. A B.C. company - with TILMA they would be treated like local Alberta folks.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-13 6:58:53 PM


You want more or are you just in denial? Those were the first two on Google. Here's another one:

http://www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/001890.html

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 7:06:32 PM


On your second link, I love it - Mark Steyn, that really, really credible "journalist" has found that a relative of a relative of JC is involved in a foreign company that was active in Iraq.

My great uncle was associated with an import/export firm with an office in Vietnam in the 60's. I guess I was suspect when I marched against that war.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-13 7:07:10 PM


munroe:

Was your great uncle ever a Prime Minister of Canada?

Put yourself in the PM's position, where his daughter's well-being is something every father thinks about.

Total Elf Fina was contracted by Saddam to develop the oilfield.

This was in partial repayment for the military aircraft provided by ... drum roll, please ... the French aerospace industry.

Even more than Quebec's Bombardier, French president Jacques Chirac had more than a passing interest in the state enterprise, which provided hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Iraq owed billions to France at the time of the proposed invasion.

French foreign minister Dominique de Villepen had given his word to US foreign minister Colin Powell that he would suppport the US in its proposed action against Iraq.

Confident in the support, Powell was sitting in de Villepen's New York apartment when he turned on the TV, where he saw de Villepen betray his word. In an impromptu news conference in front of the UN de Villepen said something to the effect of: ‘We are unable, in good conscience, to join the alliance."

The reason, of course, was simple.

All you had to do was follow the money.

France, Germany and the Soviet Union had to eat billions of dollars when Saddam fell for one reason.

International convention says the people of a country are not responsible for the debts of a deposed dictator.

Did I keep it simple enough for you, munroe, or would you like further clarification?

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-13 7:18:48 PM


To us here, Mark Steyn has proven to be a reliable reporter & commentator. If Jesus came back and proved this point, you'd argue with him too - I'm sure.

But that's ok. I don't expect anyone committed to the Leftist cause to change his mins - because it's a religion to them.

Sorta like Globull Warming. The fact that all the planets are heating up - Mars included - does not phase those who "believe" The Prophet Al Gore, who btw, dropped out of seminary, then dropped out of law school, then dropped out of journalism school.

But this flunky spouts the "truth" to his cultists like Jim Jones did to his followers in Guyana.

Chaque'un son gout, I guess.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 7:20:04 PM


Speller,
I don't think Saddam chose to be hung by a Shia militia/government death squad. In fact, I don't think he wanted that at all.
Maybe he was thinking that an unprovoked attack on a sovereign Iraq would be in violation of international law and the US wouldn't do it. Which is silly, because the US was going to attack no matter what.
Would Stephen Harper step down and go into exile if Vladimir Putin told him to? Would Hugo Chavez go into exile if Bush told him to? Unlikely on both accounts and they shouldn't. Respect of sovereignty is the cornerstone of international law, probably the most ignored aspect as well.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-13 7:38:39 PM


"Respect of sovereignty is the cornerstone of international law"

Not when the dictator is a mass murderer. Your moral relativity is showing when you can compare PM Harper to Saddam.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-13 7:55:00 PM


Actually,yes when that dictator is a mass murderer.
The whole point of law is that all are treated equally under the law. Nothing relativistic about that. That's how law works. International law is not focused on people, like national law, but treats states themselves as individuals, doesn't matter if your leader is little mary sunshine or Dick Cheney. They're all the same in the eyes of the law.
How many civilians were killed when the Americans carpet bombed Cambodia? Yet Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were never charged with war crimes because of executive privilage says they can kill in the course of their duties as heads of state. That is something that, under the law, applies to all heads of state. And the rights of states are pretty well defined with very little wiggle room.
Americans didn't complain about Saddam when he was their monkey and when he gassed his own people and a shitload of Iranians.
They rationalized supporting Saddam's actions by stating they were supportive of Iraqi sovereignty.
There's a great clip of Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam in the 80's where they discussed fighting Iran. Want to talk about moral relativism, how about using and empowering a psycho to fight your enemies for you?

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-13 8:46:37 PM



Robin,
"Want to talk about moral relativism, how about using and empowering a psycho to fight your enemies for you? "

You mean like Canada and Britain teaming up with Stalin to fight Hitler?

You are amazing. You sit there and give a lecture (rather good, too I might say) on international relationships and how heads of states are different, etc.

Yet you ignored two facts.
1) Milosevic was a head of state

2) Because Rumsfeld meets with another head of state to discuss a problematic country, that translates into Saddam being a US monkey.

I wouldn't call Kim Jong Il Clinton's monkey because his secretary of state Albright danced with him.

Given that the vast bulk of Saddam's weapons came not from the US but from USSR, France, and China, I find it hard to make the case that he wasn't really their bitch.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-06-13 9:05:46 PM


I'm glad you mentioned Milosevic, he got nailed by a new movement with intl law that can strip a head of state of his immunity if he's arrested and turned over to the Hague by his own countrymen once his term is up. Which is what happened to Milosevic.
Downsides are that a state has to be a signatory to the agreement, it`s voluntary, so they don`t have to give up anyone. But worst of all, these intl courts which bring guys like Milosevic and Rwandan genocide perpetrators to justice is deathly opposed by the US, who refuses to sign on. But that`s a bitch I have for another time.

Saddam got support from lots of people, including the US. Having a high profile meeting with a Reagan aide during the time of war is a major statement of support. Just protect the region`s oil and the world will turn a blind eye.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-13 9:47:11 PM


Yeah, totally like Britain and Canada siding with Stalin.
Good comparasin.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-13 10:14:48 PM


"Maybe he(Saddam) was thinking that an unprovoked attack on a sovereign Iraq would be in violation of international law and the US wouldn't do it. Which is silly, because the US was going to attack no matter what."
Posted by: Robin | 13-Jun-07 7:38:39 PM

What unprovoked attack?
Saddam was in violation of an Armistice for the Gulf War that demanded the surrender of his Weapons of Mass Destruction(among other proscribed armaments) to UN inspectors for verified destruction. The agreement, under International Law, was that Saddam was supposed to proactively give these weapons to the UN Inspectors or lead them to these weapons, not barring entrance to ANY facilities including his Palaces, and the UN Inspectors were to destroy the weapons AND the technology Saddam had for making more.

Saddam also shot at the coalition patrols in the No-Fly Zones of Southern and Northern Iraq with anti-aircraft missiles on a regular basis.

These were conditions that Saddam had to fulfill for the Armistice to remain in place and he continually violated those conditions.

Instead Saddam played a cat and mouse game with the rules of the Armistice, admittedly with help from France, China and Russia, and THREW the UN Inspectors OUT!

Do you have any idea what an Armistice is, Robin???

An Armistice is what was signed in 1919 between Germany and the Western powers at the end of World War I. Hitler violated that Armistice just like Saddam did, the Western Powers could have declared war at every violation but instead chose the path of appeasement.
Appeasement lead directly to World War II.

If the Western Powers had resumed war with Germany at the first signs of non-compliance with the Armistice, known as the Treaty of Versailles, before Germany had obtained a huge arsenal, millions of lives would have been spared.

No Saddam was not clever, he really was a dummy.
If Saddam was actually in compliance with the terms of the Armistice for the Gulf War he could have survived.
There would have been no invasion of Iraq.

Saddam had six months to stop running like a weasel around the mulberry bush, six months to stop making that monkey chase him but he was to dumb too arrogant, too trusting in the Axis of Weasels(France, Russia, China), too plain dumb to comply with the terms of the Armistice.

By the way, Robin, when did Canada sign an Armistice that Stephen Harper is somehow responsible for violating that would make Vladimir Putin threaten invasion?(Assuming Russia could even project military power across the Bering Strait which western end is in Cape Prince of Wales Alaska)
Only in your fevered imagination. What a weak straw-man argument.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-13 10:36:08 PM


Robin,
"Saddam got support from lots of people, including the US. Having a high profile meeting with a Reagan aide during the time of war is a major statement of support. "

Actually, it's a statement of diplomacy. Perhaps some agreement on a number of issues between states that are commonplace.

You called Saddam the US' monkey. That's different altogether.

The weapons were only one aspect of why it wasn't the US with the greatest influence. Oil-for-food only high lights this fact.

Oh, and that the US led a war against Saddam twice while the other 3 threw every roadblock they could.

The US felt Saddam was a counter-balance only to a growing menace in the region and used a bad actor to slow down what they perceived as a worse actor...Iran.

Just like the allies used that psycho Stalin to stop Hitler. That doesn't mean because FDR met Stalin that it was a major statement of support for his internal politics.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-06-14 6:49:30 AM


Why can't right-wingers ever justify both sides of a war? I see lots of points that merit consideration being presented here for why Iraq should have been invaded (certainly a lot more articulate than that put out by the US government and US media). So why is it unfathomable that Palestinians may be have legitimate gripes in ther "war" with Israel or that other parties may have legitimate quarrels with US Foreign Policy?

For people who can make such salient arguments, why do you buy into these bogus theories about the "Islamist pursuit for world domination" or "they hate us for our freedom". Without agreeing with or legitimising their gripes, it is possible to say that they may have political disagreements with America (as Ron Paul did in the Republican debate). I agree that it's not ethical to give moral relativity to those who target civilians deliberately but to completely discount that these groups don't have any political issues with US (and that it's all down to Islamic dogma) is just downright stupid.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 7:16:54 AM


Hey, Gilligan:

"Fatah men executed in front of their wives and children"

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181570271436&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

If this is how they treat their fellow citizens, is it any wonder why Israel mistrusts these barbarians? It was a huge mistake for Israel to have evacuated Gaza. The one silver lining is that these terrorists are killing each other.

The "Peace talks" are now dead - along with dozens of Palestinian "militants". There is no point in talking to these killers.

Now, had Israel killed a few dozen of these guys after capture in the same execution style, the UN would be in 24 hour meetings to condemn her.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 8:04:18 AM


There is a solution to the palestinian problem. IMO it is the only real solution, because it takes into account prophecy.

Take away all palestinians to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. Israel would be at peace in its own territory. Palestinians could start a new life.

But islamofacists are not interested in love, peace, prosperity. They are interested in terrorism, murder, hatred.

Read Ezekiel in the bible.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-06-14 8:28:12 AM


Remi, stop quoting the Bible - no common sense person looking for world solutions is going to read that fairy tale. It's called FAITH. It's a nice book, with some nice stories (Old Testament).

I like your "re-location" theory. I sugest we do the same for our Quebec problem: give the Quebecois two years to learn proper French, and then ship them off to France. Problem solved, and we can have some Westerners (who claim that Quebec was promised to them by God) use some dubious "Right of Return" (like Jews going "back" to Israel) to colonize the land.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:00:44 AM


Why do we berate (and maybe rightfully so) "islamofascists" for quoting the Koran, but we tolerate Christofascists talking about "prophecy"? It simply proves that as long as the bible-thumpers have a foothold on US Foreign Policy (and maybe a bit in Canadian Foreign Policy, now that the Reform-Alliance is in power), and their crap about Israel and Judgement Day, there will not be peace for the Palestinians and their Euro-Ashkanasi Colonisers.

(How come Remi's "re-location" plan take into account sending back the Johnny-come-lately Jews from Russia, the arrogant Settlers from Canada and the US, and the original colonisers from Poland. Sephartic Jews should be the only ones to remain, as the rest are just European and North American immigrants).

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:09:28 AM


"Right of Return"

Hey, Gilligan ~

Address your remarks to the civil war Palestinians who demand the "Right of Return" for themselves. Israel has had Jews living in it since 3,000 years ago. In 1865, Jerusalem had a population that was 65% Jewish. Arab nomads started entering Israel thedn when they realized that the Jews had improved the country so that it was superior to the wastelands they occupied.

Malaria was eliminated from Israel by its Jewish residents in the 1800's. Africa today is still a swamp when it comes to malaria. You can thank Ste. Rachel Carson for that.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:11:38 AM


How dare those European JEEEWS emigrate from Europe to their country of Israel in the 1800's and early 1900's! They should have remained in Europe to have faced the gas chambers.

Right, Gilligan?

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:17:04 AM


For the record, I don't support Palestinian "Right of Return" - Israel proper is a Jewish state, and would not retain that identity if Palestinians moved back (BIG birthrate differences). I just don't support colonising the West Bank with arrogant, whiny residents of north Toronto, and curly ringlets from Brooklyn.

Once again, Old Bitch Cunt, I see BOTH sides of the story as opposed to your articulate-hate-psycho-logical view of the world (probably learned from your Bible, that great book of tolerance). I'm not sure what the Jews have done for people (haters) like you other than the Biblical connection. They have traditionally voted Liberal in Canada, and Democrat in the US. They also tend to be very tolerant and socially-conscious on all issues non-Israel. That don't sound like you all - so I'm guessing that your hatred for Muslims and Arabs supercedes your lack of commonality with Jews.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:21:04 AM


Again, obc, fucking around with my argument. My biggest gripe is with the Jews who have immigrated in the last TWENTY years (not even the Euro bastards like Sharon - by the way, is he dead yet? I thought he was brain dead, why don't they just pull the plug and stick him on the spit?)

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:23:57 AM


Hey, Gilligan ~

All Jews can return to Israel, their homeland - even if they have curly ringlets (Talk about racism!) or if they are from Toronto. The Arabs can return to their homelands too. Arafart was born in Egypt. He and his ilk should have gone to their country of origin long ago. Same for those who originated in Syria and Iraq.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:26:11 AM


"by the way, is he dead yet? I thought he was brain dead, why don't they just pull the plug and stick him on the spit?"

Oh,Gilligan. You are so full of compassion.

"They also tend to be very tolerant and socially-conscious on all issues non-Israel"

Yes - the kind of tolerance you espouse is just what the world needs more of. (sarc.)

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:28:56 AM


obc, are you really a retard or wot? "He and his ilk" should go to their country of origin but Jews can fly on El Al tomorrow to their "homeland"???

So you'll be returning to your "country of origin", I take it? What about the Native Indians and returning to their origins ANYWHERE in Canada (or by your logic, they should re-cross the ice bridge and go back to Asia). What is the "country of origin"? What the frickin' Bible says it to be? You really are a shit-for-brains - you're killling your own arguments in the SAME post!!

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:31:19 AM


Sharon is a war criminal. Why would I have compassion for him? It's like when Dick Cheney dies - hopeful sooner, rather than later. Fireworks wil be in order.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:33:53 AM


Gilligan ~

From the news today, we see what happens when the Palis are given their land back. Gaza was jst returned to them. Civil war has broken out in Gaza. They are executing men in front of their wives & children - no trials, of course. When they are not killing each other, they use Gaza to launch missiles at pre-1967 Israeli towns. Give them the West Bank and they'll do the same from there. Their intent is to wipe Israel off the map - with Iran's help, of course.

If they truly wanted peace, they had from 1948-1967 for that. Instead they attacked in 1967 and lost the lands from where they initiated their hostilities. That is the fruit of war.

Parts of Finland are still "occupied" by Russia after their battles in WWII. I don't hear anyone screaming for the return of that land to the Finns. And Tibet is occupied by China since 1957. Silence from the world on that score, too.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:38:12 AM


Yes - let's root for the death of leaders of the free world. That's the camp you choose to live in? Fine. I'm sure you'll shed a tear for the murderous Castro when he finally kicks the bucket though.

Leftoids are so compassionate, aren't they. (sarc.)

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:40:52 AM


Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 14-Jun-07 9:09:28 AM

If I understand your argument correctly, only pure laine Jews should be allowed to live in Israel and the ones forcibly deported by the Roman Empire in 46AD not be allowed to return?

Curious about your sense of history.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-14 9:42:31 AM


Finally, obc, a post of yours that I TOTALLY agree with. You may be right about the West Bank, and that's why it's contingent on the WHOLE world (not just the US) to ensure Israel's security and existance. But whether one likes it or not, there will be no ATEMPT at peace (if possible) until the West Bank is no longer "occupied" (as the world currently views it).

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:42:40 AM


The world view in 1939 didn't care about the Jews of Europe. The world view today doesn't interest me one bit. The world view would not mind if Israel disappeared from the map like Ahmadabingbong threatens to do - with little condemnation from the UN.

Israel will do whatever is necessary for its survival - bottom line. Just like any other nation would do under similar circumstances.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:47:25 AM


Gilligan will not set policy as to who may immigrate to Israel. Canada sets its own policies as to who is welcome here. Terrorists are excluded.

The world view of who may enter Canada is meaningless. Canada makes its own decisions in this regard. Israel does too.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:50:31 AM


Set You Free, those Jews that were deported, they must be 1961 years old (at least). Are they using canes or walkers? Are they at least a little bit wrinkled?

How come you don't advocate the return of other descendents of deportees throughout history?? I think a shitload of deportations have happened in the last 1961 years. Oh, yeah, we're talking about the "Chosen People" and the Bible and all that bullshit.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:51:54 AM


obc, nice try at justifying the immigration of people into land that is not recognized as yours (no map shows the West Bank as part of Israel, and there are no longer any consulates in Jerusalem, the so-called "capital" of Israel).

Israel isn't the only "occupier" that does this (see your other examples above) but probably has to deal with the most "determined" occupied peoples.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 9:56:30 AM


"Oh, yeah, we're talking about the "Chosen People" and the Bible and all that bullshit."

So sad to see such hate in a somewhat intelligent individual.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 9:57:43 AM


obc, it's not hate. As I said, religion is faith - ALL religions. It cannot be used in the context of world history and world justice. It is generally a guide on how to live your own life, not how to run other people's lives.

Ironically, when you drop the "hate", I see that you're quite an intelligent individual as well (I won't even say "somewhat"!!).

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 10:01:08 AM


Paul:

What world would not accept the UN vote that agreed with Britain's decision to grant the land to Israel?

Palestine has never existed as an independent state ... never.

The area was part of the Ottoman Empire which was lost during WWI.

Repeated offers to grant statehood to the Palestinians have been rejected and the current Hamas/Fatah civil war brings into question whether the tribal societies that are prevalent through the MIddle East can actually evolve into something resembling a civilized state.

Heck, I'm not even Jewish (OK, one-32nd on my father's side) and it's kinda sad that these products of their satanic cult of death have only themselves to blame for the latest shoot-em-up.

Turn away from evil and do good.
Seek peace and pursue it.
– Psalms 34:14

That's pretty much a central tenet in Judaeo/Christian though.

Somehow, it seems Muhammad suffered temporary blindness when it came to understanding that part.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-14 10:04:12 AM


Paul Gallagher wrote: Oh, yeah, we're talking about the "Chosen People"

One of the main teachings in Christianity is that all people are equal in the eyes of God. Does that would make the "Chosen People" more equal than others like the pigs in Animal Farm? Sorry about the pig reference obc.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-14 10:04:42 AM


Some get it, some don't.

Salvation is not accorded to whether you're a Jew or a Greek (accident of birth); rather it is whether you obey the Laws of God or not.

Therefore, those who deny that inner peace can be attained by understanding the Laws of God (those who call these revalations fairy tales, for example) are not much different than those who purport superiority over others based on ethnic background.

The Laws of God were revealed through early scientific observations of nature and its forces and an understanding of human psychology.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

I spend little time comparing myself to others because I know there will be those greater than me and those lesser than me.

I'm quite comfortable with where I fit in.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-14 10:22:44 AM


The Bible does NOT teach that all people are equal in the eyes of God.
Rather it teaches that salvation is offered to all people equally.

Those who do not accept the grace that Christ won on the cross will certainly not be treated equally to those who do.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-14 10:28:08 AM


The evangelicals seem to be very clear in their fundamental interpretation of who is NOT considered equal.

Set You Free, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I've been accused of being an "anti-Semite" here because I refuse to agree with the government of Israel on ALL matters. Here's my position again: I support a secure Israel, with a security wall (if they feel they need it) within the pre-1967 borders. The rest of world guarantees her security, and there is universal recognition of her existance. Any beligerance from her neighbours or elsewhere will be met by disproportionate force from Israel, and economic and trade sanctions from everyone else. But holding onto ANY part of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) gives her detractors and evn those who want to support her, an "out" because the land is still considered "occupied" and even worse (with all the new settlements, we're simply talking about a "military occupation"). But anyone still wishing for an Ersatz Israel (or some Biblical or Talmudic representation of Israel) has to accept that the agreesion from neext door and beyond will never have a chance to end.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 10:38:59 AM


I meant to say, with settlement building and annexation, we're NOT talking about a military occupation but actual theft of land.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 10:41:26 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.