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

Paul Gallagher,

The Biblical Israel's borders, the land God gave to Abraham, go all the way to Damascus.

Back to the topic.
Here is why Iran should be attacked:
U.S. finds Karbala PJCC mockup inside Iran

Satellite imagery links Iran to the Karbala attack which resulted in five U.S. soldiers killed

The January 20 attack on the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center by the Iranian backed Qazali Network, which resulted in the kidnapping and murder of five U.S. soldiers, has been long known to be an Iranian planned and sponsored strike.
From>
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/us_finds_karbala_pjc.php

This is a smoking gun and an Act of War on Iran's part.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-14 10:50:38 AM


Speller, are you saying that international negotiations should be based on the Bible?? Please, say it ain't so. Or even using the proviso from Israel: "The Bible says that the borders go all the way to Damascus. Let's call it even, and just give us the good parts of the West Bank."

Like I said, what stops every other land claim (with more convincing evidence than the Bible) from being forwarded??

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-14 10:53:56 AM


Paul:

Since the Zionist movement is basically secular, what evidence is there of any religious movement agitated for a renewed Jewish state?

It was a state where the DESCENDANTS (my ommision in previous post) of the Roman dispersal in 46AD could feel more comfortable after the European persecutions in which millions died for no reason other than their ethnicity.

Know why the Romans named the province Palestine?

It was in the hope those who formented rebellion against the Roman Empire would never return to a land named after their mortal enemies, the Phillistines.

Worked for a while, so there must have been some logic. Not sure if it had to do with some sense of uncleanliness attributed to the other group of humans, but I'm sure somebody could clarify that point.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-14 11:00:39 AM


"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 | 14-Jun-07 10:38:59 AM

My mention of what the actual Biblical Israel would encompass(Damascus) was in response to the above.

It was FYI because you really don't know what the Bible representation is about.

It's obvious that none of us on this thread nor the government of Israel are working with what God gave to Abraham in the Bible when one of the limits is Damascus Syria.

I never mentioned anything about contemporary Israeli land claims or negotiations.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-14 11:06:18 AM


As many people have mentioned, if we would stand on a human perspective, land problems cannot be solved.

That is one more reason we can have full confidence in prophecies. All the prophecies made before have been fully accomplished. It is the reason why the bible is true. Prophecies to come will be accomplished and Israel will get back its land. God is Lord, not man.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-06-14 11:52:37 AM


Regardless of the topic you can always rely on the anti-Semits, almost always the same ones, to use it as a platform for Jew bashing.

Iran at present is a serious threat to the free world which has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel. Of course as usual the leftist approach is "Let's talk this over" instead of action. There is truth in the saying that stitch in time saves nine.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-06-14 2:35:58 PM


If you do my dirty work for me, then you're my monkey

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-14 2:51:05 PM


Regardless of the topic you can always rely on the anti-Semits, almost always the same ones, to use it as a platform for Jew bashing.

Is this forum moderated either by the WS magazine or by the person that initiates the article?

Posted by: David Stewart | 2007-06-14 2:53:49 PM


Does that make you an organ grinder?

Posted by: Speller | 2007-06-14 2:53:55 PM


Brent: LOL....sorry I'm a day late, but good one about the Israeli anti-abortionists.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-14 2:55:52 PM


Mark:

Looks the the WSJ saw it the same way:
"One wonders how the Globe editorialists would spin this one. Israeli occupation has made it so difficult for Palestinian women to obtain family planning services that some have resorted to desperate measures to exercise their right to choose."
http://opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010209

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-06-14 2:58:28 PM


Mike Keenan ?? Makalta??

Posted by: Marc | 2007-06-14 2:58:37 PM


marc: What? LOL..

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-14 3:52:48 PM


Bah, don't cry too much about your new "traveling coach": We're about to sign Yashin...
Imagine that: samsonov-Yashin-Kovi...
Must have been great...in the 80's.
Nothing's worst than starting the season knowing you're not gonna hit the first round series...
Hopefully, our farm club had won the calder trophy.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-06-14 5:23:20 PM


Robin

"If you do my dirty work for me, then you're my monkey"

Is that the best rebuttal you have to offer? I seriously overestimated you. I do apologize.

Seriously though. Don't you think that if Saddam really was the US bitch (or monkey) and Reagan had no qualms about Saddam's regime that the US would have put up weapons instead of a few tid bits of intelligence and some trucks and agricultural credits?

After all, we're we're talking about the famously greedy and heartless Military-Industrial-Complex under Rethuglican command, aren't we?

I could offer up websites showing that Russia, France, and China were Saddam's biggest suppliers but I appeal to your logic instead. Do you remember news reports of his Scuds (Russian) landing on Israel and Saudi Arabia, buried Migs (Russian), USS Stark hit by Exocet missile (French) fired from Mirage jet (French), AK-47s, etc.?

Can you recall any specific mention of American weapons. I don't mean the vague "US sold him his weapons" crap offered by morons with an anti-US grudge. I want specifics.

If you can offer substantial examples I will start to believe you that Saddam was a US monkey.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-06-14 6:03:44 PM


. . . but . . .but all the Leftoid websites swear that the US was behind Saddam. Isn't that proof enough, h2o?

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-14 7:08:20 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.