O'Dannyboy

Appeasement has never been the best choice, while at times may be the easiest, it is ultimately a sign of weakness rather than a compromise. In the end, they who gave in to demands will in the future see more demands made. It's the nature of the beast. Greed is an appetite that can never be satiated and, like a drug addict, will return to the places it had previously had success in meeting its needs. Think of appeasement in regards to a game of chess. A compromise would result in both players sacrificing one of their pieces. Appeasement would be when one side simply removed one of their pieces to buy a time-out, lets use 15 minutes as an example, after which the game must continue. It's nothing more than giving the school bully your lunch money so that he won't beat you up. The only way to end this brand of intimidation is to stand up to it no matter what the circumstances. Once the bully understands you are no longer easy prey, he will then move on to someone easier to bully.

I see no mention in the article about the UN. I do see that the senate has not been successful in duping the U.S. citizens or the other branches of government with their amnesty bill. Still there are those in both the house and Senate that wish to push through a bill granting citizenship to 10-12 million illegal alliens at any cost. Meanwhile some members of the house and senate hope to move on border security despite the stalemate on the legal issues. I believe that is how it should have been aproached to begin with. Secure the border first, then figure out how to deal with the illegals that are already here. Even so, there are some politicians that insist that securing the border be done only if the illegals already here are allowed to stay. For me, this is nothing more than blackmail. They will stop at nothing to make sure that border security be part of (or a condition of) a comprehensive immigration package. As long as they get to grant citizenship to 10 million illegal alliens (and their families) then they will agree to vote for additional funding for limited border security improvements. Again, this is mere blackmail and I think there should be consequences for politicians that employ extortion as a means to forward their political agendas.

I cought todays episode/segment of John Hagee ministries where is intends to outline his views on world war 3. For the most part I share his views. While he is forced to refer to "radical " Islam as the problem he still hits the mark with some of his references. He points out that the war we are in (world war 3) is a theoligical war in which Islam seeks to kill or convert every human in the world and where "radical" fascist Islamists have a stong motivation to kill at least one "westerner" in order to earn their way to heaven. Basically he understands and is quite direct in saying that Islam is basically at war with the rest of the world. As such, they are immigrating to any nation that will accept them in as large a number as those nations will accept with the intention of growing strong enough to threaten the governments of those nations. France is a prime example of this. John goes on to name a dozen or more nations around the world which have seen acts of terror on behalf of the religion of "peace". I, for one, am greatfull that people like John Hagee still have the freedom to call it like they see it and, God willing, reach a few more people with each episode/lesson.

I hear ya. I guess thats why are hearing about the U.S. and Israeli govenments developing an attack plan. Ultimately any talks that take place will be a matter of formality. The Iranian government has already chosen and now it is the task of the rest of the world body to do the same. Either they go on the offensive to prevent a "world war" or wait for it to happen. The decission seems fairly simple and yet most of the world would rather continue talking about it rather than taking undesirable actions.

Basically they are asking for some cover while they work with Hezb'allah to position themselves for more attacks against Israel. I guess they know they can expect U.N. "observers" to mind their own business while acting as shields and more amunition for the U.N. to use against Israel should they be harmed, which is inevitable as long as terrorists are allowed to huddle around them.

As I understand it, this "pre-authorization" for the use of force is merely to rattle Irans collective cage. It's basically backing up it's threats with the "promise" of action should Iran decide to stay the course. I think it's a bold move though potentialy dangerous.

I think this is hilarious. The same tactics they used to justify the release of "the davinci code" are being used against the left. I also am left wondering where the aligations of defamation were when Micheal Moore released his "documentary". I suppose we should be preparing ourselves for the mudslinging with presidential elections a couple short years away. As I recall the dems started attacking Bushs' character almost a year in advance of the elections and I fully expect the same to happen in the next presidential election.

Makes more sense to me than being "born gay" and attempting to justify the inconsitant and irregular behavior of a percentage of humans through the similarly odd behavior of a percentage of certain species of animals in the wild. Some animals eat their young but you don't hear any groups of people trying to justify canibalism in this way. Of course there are some that would wish to distinguish between homosexuality and canibalism, on the grounds of morality, but that is assuming morality were a uniform behavior or trait among humans, which it isn't.

The house has been the only branch to show any collective character. They were the branch that technically started all this by passing a bill that made it illegal to harbor or aid illegal immigrants. While their version of the bill was harsh on a couple things, overall it has been the more popular version and provided the framework for most of the following bills. Since this started the theme has been to get tougher on illegal immigration but as a result of the original house bill the backlash has lead to calls for amnesty and has essentially causes a standoff. Now, with elections just around the corner, there are not any politicians willing to rock the boat by attempting to pass legislation that may be considered "controversial". When it all boils down, politicians are always about the vote despite their votes not consistantly agreeing with the sentiments of their constituants.

At this point there is no reason tp believe that anything other than force will be effective in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It has already been determined that Iran already has the basic designs and need nothing more than the fissile material to achieve their objective. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will debate what to do untill Iran finally anounces its long sought after membership to the "nuclear club".

Interesting article. It's interesting that persecution of Christians is so obvious and yet there is a sense of denial even among communities once considered Christian. Perhaps Europe is just now beginning to take notice of how out of control it has gotten. For us here in the U.S. it has not gone on noticed or unchallenged for the past few years. Consider the attacks on Christmas, for example, and you understand how broad the front against Chrisitandom has gotten. The writer speaks of Chrisitian "fundamentalism" growing as some sort of movement when in actuality it is simply the result of Christians becomming aware of their situation and putting it to work. One thing we as Christians understand is the more Christ is rejected, the more meaning and substance his teachings and sacrifice have for us. It's the worlds hatred for Christ, and consequently us, that vindicates our faith.

I do not believe a debate would be possible. Bush would fumble around with the issues while Irans president would turn it into a theological discussion. Whats worse is there should be no doubt that the Iranian media would quickly spin it into some sort of victory in order to garner support for its irrational behavior.

The Bible even tells us that Damascus will become unlivable in the end times. I get the feeling that while Syria is week militarily and doesn't seem to have the stomach for a face to face fight (at least not alone), I have no doubts that they will cater to and aid any force wanting to make war with Israel.

This is hardly news. I suspect that the U.S. miltary has been discussing strategies and "plans" since Irans first act of defiance, but more importantly, since Iran was caught in an outright lie about their nuclear program. To be more specific,it likely that the U.S. began drawing up plans when Iran first openly defied, not only the IAEA, but the U.N. as well. Such acts of defiance coupled with threatening statements made by the leaders of Iran, leave no room for doubt that Iran desires to make war. Perhaps it can't be proven that Irans leaders are planning to go to war, but there should be no doubt that they desire it and would if they thought they could (A) win and (B) get away with it. The only thing that may be different now is that Isreal and the U.S. may finally be working together on a plan though it's likely that this has been happening in the background and the media is just now being made aware. The only reason the media was likely given this information was to make sure Iran was also aware. The U.S. govenment still seems to think that scare tactics will soften Irans resolve. So far the only effect this seems to have is to drive up oil prices.

I have to disagree. The person who said this is basically saying that evil is simply a point of view or perspective. While evil is "relative" it is not something mankind made up to rationalise the behavior of evil people. Yeah, which makes the above statement true. Evil is a point of view or perspective in the worlds eyes. How can you say evil is "relative" and then turn around and say the quote is wrong? Here is what I am reading and what I am having trouble with. Evil is: an apocalypse in the hands of religious fanatics. It sounds to me like the author believes that "religious fanatics" are using the threat of "an apocalypse" as an instrument, for whatever purpose, and that he views that wielding as an act of evil. The statement, to me is vague and accusatory. As for evil being relative, I believe it is, in that only those with evil in their hearts commit evil.

Peacekeepers or "observers"? If they aren't expected to use force they dont need to be there. Those troops that were already there were supposed to be there in a "peackeeping" capacity but all they did is cowtow to anyone more willing than they to pull the trigger. They may as well have all been French. However, the U.N. convenently relabels them "observers" to cover their own lack of will to enforce their own resolutions.

Why is this newsworthy? Should we be expecting something big to happen in Jerusalem now?

Of course he would say this. He may as well come out and say he believes Israel is the cause of all the middle easts problems. He does not represent the "commonwealth" as he should. He, like most politicians, has an agenda and he seems to be more and more brazen/vocal about his views. He needs to be empeached or something. Such a man has no place at the head of a world organisation showing such bias as he does.

I have to disagree. The person who said this is basically saying that evil is simply a point of view or perspective. While evil is "relative" it is not something mankind made up to rationalise the behavior of evil people.

The highway, in and of itself, would not be a bad thing, but the illegal immigration it could potentialy be used for has some people nervous. At this point I don't see any reason to believe such a highway could possibly make the illegal immigration problem any worse than it already is.

I have never trusted TBN. While they have, now and again, shown programs that I can relate with, these programs are the exception. Much of what I have ever seen on TBN have been televangelists wanting only to fill their coffers. I still have flashbacks of Jimmy Swagart and a few of his piers wearing bright shiny gold watches wearing custom tailored suits. I still see no shortage of such people on the television stations, even today. The way I see it, if any program does anything to actually benfit Gods kingdom and people, it will not likely be on for long. But, programs like Benny Hinns will wind up with prime time slots.

No doubt. Not a big shocker there.

Annan is a puppet of satan. He should not be leading or speaking on behalf of the U.N. I blame much of the poor functionality of the U.N. on him.

From the research I did the British severly restricted Jewish imigration into the territory of palestine while they let the arabs immigrate freely. Looking at the numbers, the Arabs were immigrating in large numbers simply to keep the Jews from getting any. The drawback for them is that the jews flourished and even thrived. I am not sure if it was a repayment or guilt that caused the british to scede a portion of the land to Israel but one thing is certain, the world powers ( U.N ) were in agreement that the Jewish people should be given a small portion of the land they asked for to create a jewish state. The Arab/muslim states were in total disagreement and made clear their possition known via the six day war. Since that war, the muslim nations have had it in for Israel and have conjured any and every excuse they can to justify violence against Israel. The Jews are no more responsible, for the displacement of the indiginous peoples, than the Arabs that immigrated to palestine at the same time. In fact, the arabs immigrated to Palestine at six times the rate of the Jews, thanks to the British. Even so, people are quick to accuse the Jews of stealing the land from the "palestinian" tribes despite the evidence that the Arabs immigrated at 6 times the rate of the Jews. The Jews were granted a small portion of the palestinian territory which they had cultivated and brought back to life. If is had not been for the Jews immigrating to Palestine it's highly unlikely that the Arab people would have cared about the land. You didn't see them stumbling over each other to get there before the Jews started their movement. It's simple hatred and greed that drives the violence against Israel, who wants nothing more than to be left alone to live in peace. Jerusalem is another sore spot and even so the Jews have agreed to share it with the Muslims, but that doesn't stop groups on either side from plotting to take the other half of Jerusalem for themselves.

The statement simply upset me is all. Considering the number of hurricans Fla has endured of the last few years you would think people would welcome his jumping the gun a bit. I only wish the governor here in Louisiana had been more on the ball during Katrina. I don't defend any politicians actions based on his or her political affiliations but I will defend their actions if I agree with them. I consider myself a conservative and so when people disagree with me I guess I accuse them of being liberal rather than considering my possition to be a little less to the right. I guess these days I fall more under the moderate catagory. I know that do adamanty disagree with some of the republican positions such as those on the minimum wage and I find myself disgusted by some of those who claim to be conservative who defend Illegal immigration. Am I to uderstand by some of your remarks that Jeb has not acted in a timely fassion in the recent past? If this is the case then I can understand a little sarcasm but all in all I think this time around he has acted in the best interest of the people even if it does seems to some like he is trying to make up for something.