Mrs. Wakely's Theater!

Well, it's either Lewisville, PA or Knoxville, TN. You tell me. And I notice you haven't posted my last comment. You're becoming increasingly unhinged, saying I don't want to help stop genocide in Darfur. Interesting leap of logic, you world class logic-leaper you!

Mrs. Wakely, I cannot tell you how unbelievably wrong you are there.  I'm not even close to either of those two places.  But if you'd like to believe so, please, feel free.  I used your own words against you Mrs. Wakely, so your argument there is null and void.  But, at least in your eyes, I'm "world class".  Hooray for me!

And by the way, you might want to think twice before you contact the "Feds" about much of anything:

"Uh... hi. This is Travis Bickle... I, uh, want to report a threatening post on my blog."
"What is the name of your blog sir?"
"It's uh... called 'Right Wing Lunatic.' "
"Right Wing Lunatic?"
"Yeah - it's just, you know, kind of a joke. My friend, Dewey, thought it was pretty funny, cause, after 9/11, I said 'you know, Dewey, we should give Afghanistan 24 hours to turn over Bin Laden, and, if they don't? We should drop a bunch of nookular weapons on 'em'!" - and Dewey? He just about spit out his teeth! So, Dewey says, he says, "Hey Travis - you're a right wing lunatic!" and we got to laughin' so hard I fell backwards off the fence of the cow pen, and my assault rifle went off and put a hole in Dewey's kitchen window! The - "
"Excuse me, sir?"
"Uh, yup?"
"While you were talking, I went on your web site, and, it seems you have some rather extreme opinions here. We think it might be a good idea if you came in for a little chat. Can you give us a home address so we can send some agents over? Sir? Sir... he hung up. Hey Nelson?"
"Yes, Sir?"
"Do me a favor - get a couple guys to track down this guy - calls himself the "Right Wing Lunatic," runs some little piss ant blog site. He's either in Lewisville, PA, or Knoxville, TN - the site has really no traffic at all, but, let's check him out anyway. He's got some pretty crazy things to say... looks like a gun nut... let's see... never served - that's typical... makes claims to bomb making expertise, says he has 'a talent for explosives!' (laughter. inaudible.) Jesus Christ, where do these guys come from? ?robably still lives with his Mom."

Well Mrs. Wakely, I don't know what to tell you there.  Everyone has seen what kind of nutjob you really are, and with your retracting your comments instead of standing behind them like an adult would, you certainly give the impression like you were making a threat and that you knew what you were saying was criminal.  But I've forgiven you.  I forgave you several posts ago.  As for your not posting your last comment, please let me know what it was and I will gladly check to see if there's a technical problem with the comments section.  But as far as I know, your comments come through crystal clear.  I have changed nothing.

I don't know Travis. I seem to have touched a wound...

You're not even close Mrs. Wakely.  You seem to be suffering from delusions of grandeur, I suggest a psychologist in your area might be of some help.  If you want to tell us where YOU live, (which I doubt), then we'll be happy to talk to a doctor in your area that may be of great help.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 3:52 PM

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Mrs. Wakely AGAIN

Hey Kids!  Are you ready for another exciting episode of Mrs. Wakely's liberal nutjob neighborhood?

 

Aw Travis, just havin' some fun. Lewisville, Pa is such a small town, nothin' much to do except be a right wing lunatic, with your guns and your bomb making plans. Threats? No, of course not. YOU seem like a threatening fellow, what with all the tough talk - "nuke Afghanistan with 24 hours notice!"

Well first off, You can keep thinking I'm the same "Travis" that you mention in Lewisville, PA., but don't say I didn't warn you that it's not me. :)  Well I'm sorry if I mistook "Watch your back" and "We have ways" as a threat.  I'm sure just about everyone on here besides you would take that as a direct threat.  I'm sure the authorities would take it as a direct threat too.  If you attack my nation's civilians, I don't care about destroying everything about you and your country.  I've made myself very clear in that regard many times in the past.

Me? I'm just hoping for a change, hoping Obama pulls it off, so we can all go back to reality, back to the "fact-based community" we all used to live in before your boy took over. No more crazy talk about invading and bombing and shooting, from neo-conservatives like you, who sit behind a keyboard, never having served, and talk, talk, talk, all day long, about the bogeymen coming to get their guns, and their fetuses and their free speech and their money and their... oh, all that stuff you're so afraid your government is after. I'm pretty sure the country is ready for a big change. McCain looks increasingly unhinged, ready to throw down at any minute. Romney (I know you think he's creepy) is just a scary Republican dude, saying anything he can to get elected. Ron Paul was fun, but, he's really not a serious candidate now, is he? Huckabee? He'll pull in a few more delegates from the thumpers, then he'll disappear, write another book, and regain 200 pounds.

I'm not worried about "boogeymen" coming to get my guns.  I'm worried about politicians thinking that they can try to take away my Constitutional rights, and you should too.  But because of your warped liberal mind, you don't see the problem with that.  I shouldn't be surprised though.  Tell me though, how many times have you served in the military?  While I fully admit I have never served, I have pulled my weapon to defend others.  I have pulled off to the side of the road to help accident victims, administered CPR on a gentleman in Target, and defended the weak when being attacked by bullies.  I sincerely doubt you've done anything even remotely close.  I'm willing to bet the closest you've come to helping accident victims is slowing your car down enough for you to take a peek and go about your day.  But I digress.

Really, what you're looking at Travis, is the twilight of your shining hour. Travis Time! It's been fun, but, it's over Travis, Bush walks off to the scorn of the world and the trash heap of history, the ultimate, dumb, chickenhawk - representing all the other dumb chickenhawk's out there. Like you Travis. You're looking at 8 years of Obama, then maybe 8 more years of his V.P.
Or, of course, you could be looking at the same amount of time from Hillary. Truly frightening, huh Travis? She'll make life just miserable for tough guys like you. She'll be your worst nightmare, won't she? I'd hope for Obama.

If you believe that Hillary will win the election, you're truly more delusional then I thought.  Obama certainly has enough charm and pretty speeches to fool idiots, but if you want to see Republicans come out in record numbers, feel free to nominate Hillary.

You see, the vast majority of Americans don't like "right wing lunatics" - no matter how it's intended. Either way, it's not funny. Right wing lunatics got us into a whole lot of trouble Travis, and Americans are sick of them. Really, the whole world is sick of them. You had your ultimate President, and what did he do? He blew it. Oh my God, did he blow it. We're about to go crashing into a recession, we're in massive debt because of this war, and his give-aways to the rich and corporations, we're putting out 25% of the world's green house gases, with 5% of the world's population, we're stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, a million people or so have been killed, and why? To get the guy who was behind the attacks of 9/11? No. To carry out the neo-conservative wet dream: democracy at the point of a gun in the Middle East. Good idea. And working so well Travis. But, I know Bush isn't your hero, nor Cheney. I think that's probably because, even YOU can't subject yourself to the wrath of being behind those two fools.

So, let's take a look at your arguments shall we?  I assume since you're an "actor", that you're an expert on what's "funny" and what isn't, so I'll take what you say with deep thought.  Smell that?  That's sarcasm.

But let's see shall we?  You're blaming the President for the recession eh?  Please do tell how that's possible?  Oh and how much I wish you will bring up the Iraq war.  We've been running it for 5 years and now it appears that we might be heading towards recession, so that argument is moot.  Plus, the Treasury chairman has been quoted as saying that it doesn't look like a recession, just slower growth.  You know, the financial guy??  And you mean to tell me that people who over extended themselves aren't to blame?  That's obviously Bush's fault too.  It's pretty typical of liberals to blame Bush for everything under the sun, regardless of if it's his fault or not, so I'm not surprised by your statement.  I don't know about you, but I got my taxes cut during the Bush administration's year in charge.  I'm far from rich.  Yes, I do live quite well, but that's because of proper financial planning, I paid attention in college, and I'm self sufficient, something liberals simply aren't capable of doing.  They always want the government to take care of them like babies.  Welfare, Universal Health Care, etc.  So if you're going to protest our green house gases, I assume that you'll be protesting China as well right?  I mean they've surpassed us as the #1 polluter in the world, so I assume that your attention will be drawn to them.  Or are you going to give the lame excuse of how we're doing more per capita, rather than just pure output?  Or are you going to understand that the Chinese government won't give a shit about your piss ant opinion, and thus, you will protest towards a government that might give you the illusion that they care?

So tell me, after we've now killed the #3 guy in Al-Qaeda today, how are we "stuck"?  How is it that violence levels are at an all time low in Iraq, but we're still "stuck"?  What you liberals fail to admit is that the surge is working, Al-Qaeda is getting slaughtered left and right, and it pains you all to see Republicans being right.  Oh and I would LOVE to see your "million people or so have been killed" statistic.  I'm willing to bet you used the same bullshit study that I debunked here a few days ago.  Or you're probably going to go with the 655,000 Iraqi dead that Rosie O'Donnell spewed out on a flawed study.

Face it, if there were a million dead, we'd be up to our eyeballs in corpses.  It's simply not the case, as much as you'd like to believe.

Anyway, the age of Travis is quickly coming to a close. It's time for some payback. But, you've still got time Travis, you can catch a bus to D.C., and lobby for that Iran invasion you're hoping for, before it's too late. You can give your "nuke Afghanistan" idea another try. I mean, maybe we'll kill everyone in Afghanistan, and still not get Bin Laden, but then there's Pakistan, where we let him escape to. They've been really weak allies Travis, don't you think? No help at all really. Let's nuke 'em. So, pack enough for a few days, put on your kevlar vest, hop in your 4X4 with your glock oiled and fully loaded in case you run into any trouble, and head on up to talk to the big boys. Tell 'em: "I'm Travis - THE 'Right Wing Lunatic'!" I'm sure they've heard of you.

Really?  It's MY Time?  How awesome is that??  And since you obviously cannot run the search function on this site, (really, is it that hard?  It's in the upper left hand corner of the site), I'll explain Iran to you.  I know you're a little slow in the head, so I'll use small words and talk slowly.

If Iran is providing weapons and training to insurgents (bad guys), then they deserve to have those responsible bombed.  Let them know, if you supply bad guys with bad things, we will retaliate.  If you retaliate for that bombing campaign, we'll start with a bombing run across the board on your infrastructure and we won't help you rebuild.  There is no invasion necessary.  I don't own a kevlar vest, or a 4x4, or a glock.  I have no need for the vest, I used to drive a Honda Insight, but it was totaled in an accident (hit by a legal immigrant, then he ran.  He went to prison and then was deported), so now I drive a civic.  As for the glock?  I prefer the Government 1911 .45.  Reliable, good stopping power, fierce flash. Although I do not own one.  Here's a picture of the weapon I do own:

And yes, I will use that weapon to defend my home, my family, and my fellow Americans.  Although I think my barrel's a little shorter and I have a flash suppressor on mine.

But if the "big boys" in Washington have heard of me, I'm flattered, I thought I was just a nobody with Conservative views on the Internet.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 12:25 PM

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

The People Mrs. Wakely Wants To Forget

These are the people that Mrs. Wakely wants to save.  But she wants to do it with an "alliance of nations".  That means that these people will just have to suffer a little longer until an alliance can be put together.  Sorry folks, Mrs. Wakely wants everything to be with an "alliance" rather than doing what's right immediately.

South African police raided a Johannesburg church early Thursday and took away large numbers of Zimbabwean refugees who had taken shelter there, according to witnesses and video footage.

"They ran in terror," said Bishop Paul Verryn of the Central Methodist Church.

"(The police) then entered the building. They have kicked down doors, they've broken a window, they assaulted people. They manhandled me. I mean, they just treated us as if we're animals."

They "ran in terror".  But because Zimbabwe isn't a threat to our national security, she's willing to turn a blind eye to these people.  South Africa is in turn, rounding people up as illegal immigrants and are most likely going to ship them back to Zimbabwe.  Sorry guys, Mrs. Wakely would rather you die then us act unilaterally.  Maybe next time.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Things Looking Up For McCain

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Thursday he is endorsing Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.

In endorsing McCain, Schwarzenegger lauded the Arizona senator's crusade against wasteful spending, his national security credentials and his environmental and economic stewardship.

Flanked by McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who endorsed McCain on Wednesday, Schwarzenegger said he was giving McCain his blessing "because I am interested in a great future and I think Sen. McCain has proven over and over again that he is reaching across the aisle in order to get things done."

"He's a great American hero and an extraordinary leader," the governor said.

I certainly have a few problems with McCain, although I do have a healthy respect for the man, and do enjoy his healthy attitude towards everyday things, like the "little jerk" video and the new hit piece coming out about him.

Arizona Sen. John McCain refused to apologize yesterday for his use of a racial slur to condemn the North Vietnamese prison guards who tortured and held him captive during the war.

"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."

McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, was questioned about the language because of a story last month in the Nation magazine reporting his continued use of the slur.

I can really appreciate a politician who says something controversial and not apologize for it.  Everytime you hear someone "apologize", all you are getting is a "I want this to go away, so I'll pretend to be sorry" speech.  I don't want that.  I want honesty. 

McCain made no apologies yesterday.

"I was referring to my prison guards," McCain said, "and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."

McCain made it clear that his anger extends only toward his captors. As a senator, he was one of the leaders of the postwar effort to normalize U.S. relations with Vietnam.

But I do have one problem:

But the racial slur used by the senator has a long, painful history that is felt by many Asian Americans.

The word "gook" was first used in 1899 by American soldiers fighting Filipino insurgents. During the Korean War, the term was aimed at Koreans and Chinese. It was directed at the Vietnamese when Americans were fighting in Vietnam. It is now used as a slur toward any Asian or Pacific Islander.

That part isn't true. I have spoke to my Asian friend Daehoon about six months ago about racial topics and we were teasing one another and a third person brought up the word "gook".  And Daehoon corrected him and let him know that "gook" is for Vietnamese only people.  The SFGate folks are making it sound like a universally used slur against Asians.  It's not.

But that's not the point.  McCain was asked about his captors, and he referred to them with that word.  I think he actions afterwards show that he's not racist towards Asians.  But I do wonder at the timing of this "story" that happened almost 8 years ago.  They try to play it off, but there's just something off here.  Something smells fishy.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

U.S. missile strike in Pakistan hit al Qaeda nest

But, Mrs. Wakely, I thought we weren't going after Al-Qaeda?  Yet another strike against her.  Poor dear, I'm beginning to think she's losing her mind.  But I've grown fold of the ole' girl, so I think I'll keep her around as long as she wishes.

A suspected U.S. missile strike that killed up to 13 foreign militants in Pakistan's North Waziristan region this week had targeted second or third tier al Qaeda leaders, according to residents in the tribal area.

It brings me chills to know that we're still kicking Al-Qaeda's ass after all these years.  Keep promoting people Al-Qaeda, we'll keep killing them.

A senior al Qaeda terrorist active in operational planning and training has been killed in Pakistan, a knowledgeable Western official and an unnamed military source said Thursday.

Abu Laith al-Libi, one of the highest leaders of al Qaeda, is dead, a Western official says.

The official identified the terrorist as Abu Laith al-Libi, 41, who is thought to have been involved in the February 2007 bombing at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan while Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting.

The official said al-Libi is "not far below the importance of the top two al Qaeda leaders" -- Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Mrs. Wakely's Brilliant Online Research Abilities

Mrs. Wakely has decided to publish what she thought was my personal information in the comments section.  Well unfortunately for her, she has two problems.  First, she is completely wrong about who I am.  In fact, even with some basic research, she could have easily found me, but alas, she chose to go the lazy route.  The other problem she has is that she likes to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.  Unfortunately for her, the Internet doesn't forget.

You see Mrs. Wakely, every time a person writes a comment in the comment section, I get an email instantly that someone has commented AND what those comments were.  So even if you delete the comment, I still have the email to back it up.

So, since Mrs. Wakely doesn't have the courage to stand up for herself, I will stand up for her. (Just doing my civic duty to help out a fellow American...at least I assume she's an American)

 

Aw, just havin' fun Travis #@$%#$. @##@$@#$, PA is such a small town.

Regular readers will laugh at that above statement.  Every regular reader knows Mrs. Wakely has just made a fool of herself.

 

So, let's recap.  She's wrong on who I am, and she has managed to put forth the reputation that she won't stand behind her statements.  I have removed the last name and the town to prevent that particular Travis from getting harassment from online weirdo's.

 

Keep searching Mrs. Wakely, eventually you'll find me next to Carmen Sandiego and Waldo.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Mrs. Wakely Has Become Wise

Mrs. Wakely:

 

I don't know if you've deleted your comments from the section because you felt genuine remorse for them, or you were simply trying to hide them from everyone but me, but I'll think the former and still keep you in high regard.

 

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http//forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Mrs. Wakely - Mrs. Delusional 2 - Electric Boogaloo

Well now Mrs. Wakely is getting down right rude:

 

What's worse is that now that she's lost her arguments, she's taken to start saying threats, not realizing that threatening someone over the Internet is a Federal crime.

Also, take note, that she decided the better of herself and removed some of them from the comments section.  But alas, poor Mrs. Wakely, she didn't understand that I have a screenshot above and I have copied and pasted the offending remarks for all to see.  You see Mrs. Wakely, the first thing a person does when they lose an argument, is they start to call names (like sieve head).  Then they go off topic, (like you did MANY times), then they threaten.

But I'll forgive you Mrs. Wakely.  I'll just chalk it up to being a bit passionate about your cause, and call it a day.  Sound fair?  I mean, I can easily get your IP address from the posts that you put on here and hand them over to authorities and prosecute you for making threats.  But I'm not that way.  I'm more of a "live and let live" kind of guy.  You are still welcome here though Mrs. Wakely.  I, and my thousands of readers, have thoroughly enjoyed our conversations.  Most people on here don't use the comment system, and mainly communicate with me via email. (travis@rightwinglunatic.com)  However, you decided to use the comment system, and I gladly check that from time to time as well because it's another avenue for me to connect to my readers.

I am far from a top Conservative blog on the Internet.  I imagine I'm pretty low.  But according to my Google Analytics, my email inbox, and searches, my readers are a pretty loyal, rabid bunch. 

That being said, my blog name came from a friend of mine.  Him and I were discussing the military response of 9/11 and I explained my "24 hour" stance, and he laughed and said I sounded like a lunatic, hence the name.  The difference though is that he said it in a joking manner, and I kept the name.   You seem to think that I encourage genocide, tax cuts for only the wealthy, and raping the environment.  You have no concept of what a real Republican is, and I have chastised my own political party when they step out of those core beliefs.  Even the most basic research on me would have shown you that.  But you decided to open your mouth and talk with feelings rather then facts.

I did a 30 second Google search and found out all sorts of information about your activities on Huffington Post and the other areas that I mentioned.  It's all public knowledge Mrs. Wakely.  I, in now way, displayed any information about you that was in a threatening way.  However, you did not return the favor in kind.  I'm disappointed in you in that respect.  I pour my heart and soul out into this site.  I tell everyone what I think honestly about any subject on the planet, so I think everyone know's who I am.  I've told readers my innermost thoughts and have had people not believe me, thinking it was a shtick.  In time, they've come to realize that my honesty to my readers is extremely important, and something you won't find on "blogs" such as Huffington Post, or Daily Kos.

Anyways, you are still welcome here Mrs. Wakely.  Although I do suggest you tone down the threats.  I don't particularly mind.  God knows I've gotten worse things said to me, but sooner or later, you might say something to another reader who may not be as kind as I am.

Now, without further ado, let's see what the hub bub is about:

 

By the way - does anybody read this but you? I notice you're the only one replying to the posts, or who seems to read them. Is it called Right Wing Lunatic, singular, because you're some pathetic, military wanna-be, with no life and no readers, who sits in his room all day thinking he's making a difference? Well, Lunatic, keep your guns close, and your bomb making plans closer, and don't step over the line. We're watching.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 10:46 AM

By the way - does anybody read this but you? I notice you're the only one replying to the posts, or who seems to read them. Is it called Right Wing Lunatic, singular, because you're some pathetic, military wanna-be, with no life and no readers, who sits in his room all day thinking he's making a difference? Well, Lunatic, keep your guns close, and your bomb making plans closer, and don't step over the line. We're watching.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 10:47 AM

By the way - does anybody read this but you? I notice you're the only one replying to the posts, or who seems to read them. Is it called Right Wing Lunatic, singular, because you're some pathetic, military wanna-be, with no life and no readers, who sits in his room all day thinking he's making a difference? Well, Lunatic, keep your guns close, and your bomb making plans closer, and don't step over the line. We're watching.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 10:47 AM

We see you.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 10:48 AM

We know who you are.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 10:48 AM

watch your language.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 10:49 AM

watch your back.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 10:49 AM

we have ways.

# posted by MrsWakely : January 31, 2008 10:

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Ask al Qaeda: Questions for terrorist network posted online

I just simply cannot believe that the "terrorist masterminds" such as these guys are resorting to having questions posted online.  It seems so "My Space-ish".  But alas, here's some gems:

"When will we see the men of al Qaeda waging holy war in Palestine? Because frankly our situation has become very bad,"

"As for al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia," he asked, "are there efforts to revive jihadi action there after the blows that hurt us?"

"Things got worse after the organization joined the Islamic State, when Iraqis took over all the issues," he wrote.

The Iraqis care "only about liberating Iraq not about establishing God's law," an apparent reference to the al Qaeda goal of a single Islamic state. "Indeed, they neglected many of the [non-Iraqi] brothers since they care only about the safety of Iraqis and Iraq."

Many others simply asked for advice on how and where to join jihad. One man said he is a 23-year-old living with his divorced mother.

"I want to travel to join jihad and I sought my mother's permission, but she would not give it to me," he said. "Can I go without her permission?"

 

I wish I were making these up.  My favorite is the "jihadi" asking if he should go without his mommy's permission.  They are all evidence that Al-Qaeda has gotten it's ass whipped in just about every area, and now the "troops" are starting to revolt a little bit:

In his videos, al-Zawahiri always depicts al Qaeda as moving steadily toward victory -- something none of the questioners directly challenged. But they seemed in need of reassurance, pressing for more specifics about al Qaeda's plans than al-Zawahiri normally gives.

"I think they [al Qaeda's leaders] were aware [that] ... everyone was no longer buying into the propaganda about how great they are," said Jeremy Binnie at Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center. "This was put forward as a propaganda exercise and to make it look like they are responding to these concerns."

 

To me, the only thing that would make me happy is Osama and al-Zawahiri's head on a pike in front of the White House.  That will deal a crippling blow both in terms of leadership as well as a symbolic blow to the organization.

Until that day arrives, we all wait with baited breath.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Mrs. Wakely - Mrs. Delusional

Mrs. Wakely.  Oh please never change.  Your "insight" into events going on today give me more material then President Bush and Keith Olbermann ever could.  Case in point:

 

"a healthy attitude towards firearms and a talent for explosives"
If you ever need a singles ad, I'd go with that.

 

Why Mrs. Wakely, I do believe you're trying to seduce me.

I favor stopping genocide in Darfur, with an alliance of nations. We can't do it ourselves, because... all our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So you favor stopping genocide in Darfur, but only with an alliance of nations?  So if say, Canada, says "no", you're willing to allow the people of Darfur to continue to be slaughtered?  How very "enlightened" of you.

"So, what's the difference between bombing Japan and bombing Afghanistan?"

Well, let's see: at the end of WWII, Japan refused to surrender. They were displaying fanatical behavior, fighting to the death, or commiting suicide, rather than give up. The estimate was, it would take nearly 1 million American lives if we had to invade the Japanese mainland. After several warnings that we had a devastating weapon and were prepared to use it, our demands for surrender were still refused by Japan. Truman then authorized the use of two atomic bombs, one on Nagasaki, one on Hiroshima. Japan then surrendered unconditionally.

With the exception of 1 million US deaths, it sounds almost identical to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to me.  Plus, you don't seem to mind it that between 300,000 and 500,000 people were killed in the blasts, but you DO mind it when 80,000 Iraqi civilians are dead.   I guess the more dead the better?  I fail to see your logic, but then again, I have a tendency to think.

To somehow compare that to your scenario is clearly deranged:
"After 9/11, we should have given the Taliban 24 hours to turn over Bin Laden, then we drop nuclear weapons on Afghanistan." The insanity of that speaks for itself. If you can't grasp the difference, I'm certainly not going to change your mind.

Really?  We give them a chance to hand over Bin Laden, they refuse, they die.  Simple, easy, and it let's the rest of the world know we're not fucking around. 

"You say 'the facts are in' Saddam, yet you completely ignore he was planning attacks against us."
Really? With what? WMD? He didn't have any. Cooperating with Al Queda? He hated Al Queda. What exactly was he going to "attack" us with? His mustache?

19 people found a weakness in our society, exploited it with box cutters, pepper spray and timing, and killed 3,000 people.  If you think Saddam doesn't have at least THAT in his arsenal of weaponry, you are dumber then I thought.  It doesn't take missiles and warplanes to kill a lot of people.  Because we live in a free and open society, we're going to be more vulnerable to terrorism then other countries.  I've seen areas in my city that if exploited properly, could kill more people then on 9/11.  You're making assumptions that the enemy isn't clever.  It's that line of thinking that allowed Clinton to ignore Bin Laden.  Never underestimate your enemies.  It'll be the easiest way for them to kill you.

"If you're talking about 'having Bin Laden surrounded' in Tora Bora, you need to check your dates and times. Because that happened in December of 2001, LONG before the war in Iraq started. If you have a specific instance where we had him surrounded during the Iraq war, I'd be glad to hear it. But I want it from a 'credible news source' ."
Yes, my POINT is WE HAD HIM SURROUNDED BEFORE WE INVADED IRAQ. CATCH BIN LADEN? NO WAR IN IRAQ. LET HIM GO? YOU CAN STILL MOVE AHEAD WITH PLANS TO INVADE IRAQ, WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Why do you think Bush let him go? THE guy who attacked us on 9/11, to divert most of our resources to invade a country and topple a dictator who HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?
If our military had been ALLOWED by Bush to catch Bin Laden in Tora Bora, do you think Bush would have received authorization from the congress to invade Iraq? Of course not.

You're assuming a lot there don't you think?

However, that's not what you said.  You said the following:

We, in fact, had Bin Laden surrounded without nuclear weapons, but we diverted our forces to Iraq and let him go.

So, in other words, according to you, we had a ton of guys surrounding Bin Laden, then almost inexplicably, we took them off and they were shipped to Iraq.  However, your thinking is flawed, in that Tora Bora was in December 2001, and we invaded Iraq in March of 2003.  A VERY long time between events.

But please, continue to be a historical revisionist, it's very fun to show you where you are wrong time and time again.  Oh and please say hello to everyone at Huffington Post!  Yes, Mrs. Wakely, Google is your friend.  So, you're an actor??  How odd, I figured you would be a little more eloquent for an actor.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Danish library plans to house cartoons of prophet Muhammad

Denmark's national library is to risk re-opening an international political storm by housing the cartoon images of the prophet Muhammad that provoked violent convulsions throughout the Islamic world two years ago.

Jytte Kjaergaard, a spokeswoman for the library, said they were unlikely to be displayed publicly and insisted the decision was not intended to be controversial.

I've grown fond of the Danes lately with their "fuck you" attitude towards radical Muslims lately. Although I wish they'd publicly show the pictures.

Kasem Said Ahmad, spokesman for the Danish Muslim Society, which headed the original campaign against the cartoons, called the library's decision a "provocation" but said his organization would ignore it as part of its new strategy.

Yes, the new strategy of not killing 100 people over you sissy hurt feelings about your religion. Yet, you don't seem to have a problem saying horrible things about the Jews and their religion do you?

"We will not be holding any demonstrations as we got nothing from the Danish courts when we tried to sue the newspapers. We will ignore all provocations in future."

Yeah we'll see how long THAT lasts. Let's not forget that during these riots, these "offended Muslims" didn't even have the courage to show their faces in public. Instead, they hid behind masks, that if you look at it, resemble the burqa's that Muslim women wear.

Then they have the audacity to play the "victim" when you call them on their line of bullshit.

CAIR anyone?

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Iraq conflict has killed a million Iraqis: survey

Wow, the sheer level of inaccuracies here boggles the mind:

More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.

The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.

The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.

So, in other words, they took a small cross section of the population, did a survey, then multiplied it out to get the 1 million dead figure?

Plus, they don't see HOW these people died, only that they died as a result of the conflict.  That means that if insurgents killed people, they'd count it, if they ran out into the street and were hit by a humvee, they'd count it.

This study is filled with holes that can lead to wild numbers, and Reuters should be ashamed of itself for publishing something so inflammatory.

If you want to put that into perspective, that means that in the roughly 5 years of this war, 547 people have had to have died EACH AND EVERY DAY for those 5 years.  It's simply impossible for that amount of people to have been killed.

Even according to Iraqi volunteers who bury their dead, they had a height of 2,000 dead per month.  That means that if they are correct, then there's roughly 120,000 dead, not 1,000,000.

It's easy for dumb people to latch onto figures like this and run with it, case in point:

 

 

Then they back peddle faster then an Olympic swimmer going for the gold when caught showing their true colors.

So, you need to nip these wild "studies" in the ass before idiots out there start to take them as gospel.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

 

 

Nader takes steps towards another White House bid

Wow, look at the Democrats just pucker up and panic!

Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election, launched an exploratory committee Wednesday for another White House bid, and told CNN he is likely to get in the race if he can put the resources in place.

And here's the reaction's of everyone:

 

Wayne, Greenville TX
January 30, 2008 2:19 pm ET

Ralph -

Do yourself and everyone else a favor - stay out of the race this time.

Thank you.

Rob, Minneapolis, MN
January 30, 2008 2:21 pm ET

Time for the idealism versus pragmatism debate.

This could get ugly.

Texan
January 30, 2008 2:21 pm ET

I hope he does not run- but I do agree with what he thinks of Obama. I cannot believe CNN did not edit and cut that part.

Patriot
January 30, 2008 2:22 pm ET

Because of the arrogant attitude of the Clintons and their supporters, people might end up voting for Nader in the fall if she somehow wins the nomination.

Marilyn
January 30, 2008 2:22 pm ET

Nader, go away!

Dave
January 30, 2008 2:22 pm ET

way to go ralph. it is your right to run if you desire. great points on these corporate-puppet candidates we have. but why does the majority back them? get a clue.

Dan, NJ
January 30, 2008 2:22 pm ET

If its Clinton v. Romney, I will take a look at Nader. If Obama, Bllomberg, or McCain (in that order) are in the race, they will draw my support.

Greta
January 30, 2008 2:23 pm ET

boo hoo. He is not running for President, but running to sink the Democrats. It wont work this time. Totally different dynamics! Why can't he just retire rather than seek so much attention like this!

Lawmaker: Underage Soldiers Should Be Able To Drink

A South Carolina lawmaker says underage military servicemen and women should be allowed to drink alcohol.

Rep. Fletcher Smith has sponsored legislation that would allow service members younger than 21 to purchase alcohol if they show a military identification card to a bartender or store clerk.

 

I could not agree more.  If we trust these young men and women with a rifle and the lives of those around them, then I sure as hell can trust them with a beer or a couple of shots of Jack Daniel's.  In fact, many military folks I know have had alcohol before their 21st birthdays.  I, of course, won't mention their names because many of them are still on active duty.  A soldier is a tough, responsible person and whether it's a party, or just to take the edge off of a day, I cannot see why we don't allow our boys to have a frosty, cold one.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Governor's son sells 'Don't Drop the Soap'

The son of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is peddling a board game titled "Don't Drop the Soap," a prison-themed game he created as part of a class project at the Rhode Island School of Design.

John Sebelius, 23, has the backing of his mother and father, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary Sebelius. The governor's spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said both parents "are very proud of their son John's creativity and talent."

John Sebelius is selling the game on his Internet site for $34.99, plus packaging, shipping and handling. The contact information on the Web site lists the address of the governor's mansion. Corcoran said the address will change when John Sebelius moves.

 

For those of you who don't know who Governor Sebelius is, she's been thrust into the spotlight as one of the Democrats who responded to George Bush's State of The Union address.

So she has a problem with George Bush's policies, but she has no problem with her 23 year old son using tax payer funded property to hock his wares on the Internet.  And how proud they must be for his "creativity" when he's still living at the Governor's mansion.  I guess at age 23, there's nothing inside of him as a man that wants to be out on his own two feet.

I wonder if mommy has a curfew for her precious snowflake?  God how I hate fucking enablers.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

Edwards quitting presidential race as well as Rudy

The Presidential race got a bit more narrow on both sides of the political aisle today as John Edwards quit the race (Yea!) and Rudy quit as well (meh).

Rudy has also put his endorsement behind John McCain, whom I believe has a better shot at beating a Democratic runner rather than Mitt Romney.  There's just something I don't like about Mitt.  Maybe it's that he look like a robot, or that he just reeks of "Washington politician", but everytime I hear McCain "getting into trouble" with the media and them trying to drum up a controversy, I fail to see what the problem is and it shows a better side of McCain to me.  Plus, he's already won Florida, so you may start to see him more as a front runner.  For example:

 

 

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

http://forums.rightwinglunatic.com

 

Mrs. Wakely - Part 6

Oh man, Mrs. Wakely sure is persistent!  To tell you the truth, it's pretty funny to me as well as gives me plenty of new material.  Apparently, she doesn't think that a pilot patrolling the No Fly Zone in Iraq being shot at is a worthy source of information.  Oh well, at least you guys get to see what kind of emails and posts I get to deal with on a regular basis.  If it wasn't for my belief that all emails should be replied to as in depth as possible, you'd never know the fun I get to have!

 

You say:
1. "We didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11." You say "we invaded Iraq because of their shooting at our planes over the no fly zone." As hard as it is to take that argument seriously, and as pathetic as it is to watch supporters of the war divert their arguments away from things that have subsequently become demonstrably false (WMD. links to Al Queda and 9/11, an imminent threat to our national security), I would ask you to find a quote from Bush himself, telling the American people that "we are invading Iraq because they are constantly shooting at our planes over the no-fly zone."
Find that quote, source it, and give it to me. Don't forget - it has to say, not verbatim, but, since that is in your own words, why we invaded Iraq, pretty much exactly that. From Bush. Not CentCom. Not a pilot. From the ONE person who told us all, in public and repeatedly (and in MY sources, which you obviously didn't care to read) why we were invading Iraq. That's gonna be a tough one for you, because Bush spoke about this you know, publicly, and there is a record. But go ahead.
Bush: "We are invading Iraq because they are constantly shooting at our planes over the no fly zone."
2. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, you're leaving out a rather important detail: the Soviet Union was delivering missiles to Cuba capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the United States. THAT'S what the Cuban Missile Crisis, was about. You seem to have this fixation with enemy planes and the frequency of shots.
3. And, please, stop turning your arguments into what I would do. Try your best to keep your comments confined to actual events and what has been DONE. As fascinating as what you or I might do were we President, it's not really relevant, is it?
4. For example: you seem to be saying it would have been a good idea to invade China during the Korean War because Chinese troops were firing at us. Do you want to go on record as saying that? Yes or no?
5. Do you want to go on record as saying it would have been a good idea to invade Russia, as one of your heroes, Patton wanted to do, at the end of WWII? Yes, or no?
You seem like a young, trigger happy, naive fool. You want your semi automatic glock, or whatever, you don't want Obama to take it away from you (he won't). That's fine. Finally:
5. Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan? Yes, or no. If so, thank you for your service. Let me know with whom you served, and where. If not, well...

January 30, 2008 9:29 AM

Travis said...

Ok, Mrs. Wakely, I'm not going to be your personal Google servant. If you want to find out information, you're going to have to look it up yourself.
I was using the shooting at our aircraft as an example of many acts of war against our country. I also used the fact that Saddam had a vast amount of resources at his disposal and a deep hatred of the US as well as other factors, including his possession and intent to have WMD's.
However, I'll give you one last piece of evidence that is irrefutable, from a "credible news source", and will hopefully show you the error of your ways.
Before the invasion, but after 9/11, Russian intelligence had warned us that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on US soil.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html
Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.
The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.
The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.
Sounds like they were a real threat to me doesn't it?
And yes, I know the Cuban Missile Crisis was about.....Missiles. Difficult to understand, but I think I got it. However, it's acts of war that lead up to war, not just empty words.
I ask you what you would do because you come across as a "know it all", and since you're obviously complaining about what's wrong, I want to hear what you would think would be right. It's only fair to ask.
Otherwise you're nothing more then another complaining voice on the Internet, and believe me, there are plenty of those to go around. I'd rather have a constructive debate with you then bickering back and forth over point and counterpoint.
You seem to think that invasion is the only way to go when it comes to military responses. For example, if we find that Iranian weapons and training are coming from...Iran, then I see no problem in bombing the buildings and killing those responsible for the direct and indirect murder of US troops, even if that means we go into Iranian territory.
So, if you want my "on the record" responses to your questions, ok, I'll bite, but then you have to answer my questions, deal?
Russia had done nothing to us up until that point, (as far as I can tell) so no, I don't think it would have been a good idea to invade.
You say that Obama won't take away my guns, yet he's on record as trying to do the opposite. So forgive me if I don't quite believe you.
I have not served in the military, although it's not for a lack of trying.
I attempted to join the military in 1991, but I was too young at the time, and by the time I was old enough, I had already started in a career and was helping my aunt out financially. I then spoke with an Air Force recruiter in August 2002 about joining again. I was unemployed for a short time and thought to myself, "well, if I'm going to join the military, I might as well try now". However, financial obligations meant that the Air Force, or any military career, would not have even begun to fulfill them.
At the beginning of the new Iraq war, I spoke with another military recruiter, and was told I was too old.
For those of you who don't know, my original career path was military weapon's designer.
I excelled at chemestry, math, physics, and other technical areas. At 16, I already had taken advance calculus classes and passed with A's. At the beginning of the Gulf war in 1991, I spoke with my Chemistry teacher about the problems the military was facing, such as Saddam's bunkers and street to street fighting.
So I designed up a couple weapon's that I thought would help. My first design was a bomb similar to what we see in our "bunker busters" with the exception that my design worked on the "implosion" idea rather than the "explosion" idea. In other words, when you have an explosion in a bunker, walls come down, dust is kicked up, but people survive.
In my "implosion" design, anyone near the site of detonation would be killed instantly, and anyone within 100 meters, even around corners, would be suffocated because my design would suck all the air out of the room. It was a pretty advanced design, if I may toot my own horn. My Chemistry teacher admitted that my design would work, but it never got beyond the drawing phase.
The second design that I had, was also similar to what you see the military using now. A small grenade-type device would be fired through a window and after X amount of milliseconds after it when through the window, it would detonate, injuring, or killing everyone inside, depending on your desired outcome (hostage rescue, or taking out an entrenched position)
At the time, the technology for such a device was too large and heavy for your average US soldier to carry around, so the idea never got off the ground beyond the design stages.
As a side note, just about everyone in my family has military experience, and thus, I have a unique perspective on life in the military and proper use of force.
I can trace my family's military experience all the way back to the early 1800's, although records beyond that are pretty sketchy.
So I think that my opinions on the subject are backed up with a pretty good foundation of understanding what goes on when you send someone off to war.
Besides, according to you, "It's like you're arguing that if you break into a store and come upon some guy raping a child, logic dictates to those opposed to the breaking into the store, that the guy should be allowed to continue raping the child."
So you should be glad that we caught a "child rapist".
Now, as for my questions that I want answered "yes or no" from you.
Saddam, by your own admission, has fired upon our aircraft dozens of times, had rape rooms, torture chambers, planned terrorist attacks on US soil, possessed and intended to manufacture WMD's, attempted to assassinate a sitting US President, paid rewards to families of suicide bombers, had a painting of the 9/11 attacks, Was one of two countries that did not immediately denounce the 9/11 attacks (Yassir Arafat was the other), had massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, has a history of willing to use WMD's, tortured captured US soldiers during the first Gulf War, kicked out weapons inspectors for 4 years, and a host of other things.
With this MOUNTAIN of evidence that Saddam was a threat, can you still say in good conscience that he wasn't? Yes or no?
If you don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and that it was executed in the popular believed way, Do you think that with Bill Clinton's lack of doing anything about it when we knew exactly where he was at the time, he should be brought up on 3,000 counts of negligent homicide?
You have said that we should have not invaded Saddam because he was not a threat. Are you willing to allow people to die needlessly because they are not a threat to our nation? For example, genocides in Kenya, Darfur, and other African nations? Are you willing to turn a blind eye to them? Yes or no?
You have said that the nuclear bombing of Japan was done "rightly so", so then, do you agree with me that the Taliban should have been given a 24 window in handing over Bin Laden before we dropped several nuclear weapons? Yes or no? Keep in mind around the same amount of people were killed in the initial attack (3,000), and we were/are up against an enemy that would rather die then surrender.
I look forward to your answers.
Travis

January 30, 2008 10:18 AM

Mrs. Wakely - Part 5

Good Lord, this is getting to be entertaining.  Personally, I enjoy it. :)  But alas, Mrs. Wakely is up for another round, so without further ado, let's see what she has to say (it's really entertaining, I swear):

 

"And No, we didn't invade Iraq in response to 9/11. You're being a historical revisionist AGAIN."
-----------------------------------------
O.K. sieve-head. here it is, in black and white.
1. I notice the vast, vast majority of your "justifications" are from Centcom. God Bless CentCom, but I'm asking for something a little different, I'm asking for mainstream news organizations - you know the people whose job it is to tell us if CentCom's saying our planes are being fired on in the no-fly zone is reason to invade Iraq? Those sources. And, by the way, did they ever shoot a plane down?One plane? No? Really? And yet there was reason to invade the WHOLE COUNTRY? Wow.
2. We drop a lot of "leaflets" in your blizzard of Centcom dispatches. Not sure how that makes your case.
3. Almost all of your dates are immediately pre-invasion March '03, when, obviously, the Iraqi's were attempting to appear strong and ready to fight. But any clear, unbiased assesment of their true actual capabilities at the time, told us they were much less than even the Girl Scout troop we took down in '91, when they were at full strength. In '03, they had been through many years of sanctions, they had no credible military anymore, they had no WMD, they were, a paper tiger - you know "contained" I believe is the word. When we went in this time, they just collapsed. Read "Cobra III" by Marine General Bernard Traynor - who was there. Our planning was fucked, and their army basically went home, what army there was, and, essentially, we ended up fighting pockets of ill equipped and rag-tag militia, as we swept into Baghdad in record time. Tough pockets along the way? Sure. Heroic actions by our troops, despite your boys' intelligence telling them all kinds of bad information about what to expect? Absolutely. Our fine military is not an issue for me. It's YOUR civilian leaders, sieve-head.
And please don't tell me you're a gun nut? How predictable. Obama is going to take away your semi-automatic weapon? Good. God knows you need it for... hunting? Protection? Yeah, semi-automatic bursts to ward off those bad guys coming to get you.
You weren't at Waco were you?
My advice? Stay on the meds Travis. Get some help. Keep hope alive!
-------------------------------------------------
The New York Times
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: January 24, 2004
David Kay, who led the American effort to find banned weapons in Iraq, said Friday after stepping down from his post that he has concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the war last year.
In an interview with Reuters, Dr. Kay said he now thought that Iraq had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, but that the subsequent combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions ''got rid of them.''
Asked directly if he was saying that Iraq did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country, Dr. Kay replied, according to a transcript of the taped interview made public by Reuters, ''That is correct.''
Dr. Kay's statements undermined one of the primary justifications set out by President Bush for the war with Iraq. Mr. Bush and other top administration officials repeatedly cited Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons as a threat to the United States, and the lack of evidence so far that Saddam Hussein actually had large caches of weapons has fueled criticism that Mr. Bush exaggerated the peril from Iraq.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said the administration stood by its previous assessments that Mr. Hussein had both weapons programs and stores of banned weapons.
''Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found,'' Mr. McClellan said. ''We believe the truth will come out.''
With Dr. Kay's departure, the administration on Friday handed over the weapons search to Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations weapons inspector who has expressed skepticism that the United States and its allies would find any banned chemicals or biological agents.
Dr. Kay's comments and the appointment of Mr. Duelfer, made by George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, appeared to be a turning point in the administration's defense of its assertions that Mr. Hussein had amassed large stores of illicit weapons that he could use or turn over to terrorists for use against the United States or other nations.
Democrats said Dr. Kay's statements raised serious questions about the administration's case for war and the quality of American intelligence. ''It is increasingly clear that there has been a massive intelligence failure,'' Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. ''The potential threat posed by Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and Iraq's nuclear weapons program was central to the case for war. In light of Dr. Kay's statement, the president owes the American public and the world an explanation.''
The top administration officials who had been most vocal in accusing Iraq of building stockpiles of banned weapons, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney, have stood by their positions in recent weeks. Asked during an interview on Thursday with National Public Radio whether the administration had given up on finding banned weapons, Mr. Cheney replied, ''No, we haven't.''
He said it would ''take some additional, considerable period of time in order to look in all the cubby holes and the ammo dumps and all the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like that.''
'Rushing to war is one, doing it without enough allies is two, doing it without equipping our troops adequately is three, and doing it without an adequate plan to win the peace is a fourth,'' Mr. Beers said. ''If you want to add a fifth, it's going to war without examining the quality of your intelligence.''
------------------------
The Economic Costs
of Going to War with Iraq
By Miriam Pemberton (International Relations Center: Foreign Policy In focus)
September 13, 2002
I want to begin with two caveats. The first is that if attacking Iraq clearly fell into the category of a just war, we should of course spend whatever it would take to wage it. Providing for the common defense is our government's first mandate. But by my reckoning our government has not remotely made the case that this would in fact be a just war. I'll just mention quickly a couple of reasons, which the president's speech yesterday at the UN did not change.
Most fundamental is of course the fact that Iraq has not attacked us, and there is no credible evidence that it is collaborating with al Qaeda, which has. The administration's attempts to establish such a linkage have not been convincing. A couple of weeks ago Secretary Rumsfeld announced a few sightings of suspected al Qaeda members in Iraq. Well, this was northern Iraq, which is under the protection of U.S. warplanes from the Iraqi government. And if the presence of suspected al Qaeda members were reason enough to attack, we should be bombing Germany, and ourselves. Second, in addition to distracting from the pursuit of al Qaeda, an attack on Iraq shows real promise as a recruiting tool for more terrorists. An excessive, intrusive response by the world's superpower in the Middle East helps them make their case for resistance by any available means.
In the absence of a clear case for starting this war, then, we need to consider the ways in which starting it might conflict with our government's second mandate, which is to promote the general welfare. To the extent that an attack would have the effect of weakening an already shaky economy, it would undermine the welfare of all of us. So as we debate this profoundly serious question, the issue of the economic cost of going to war needs to be included in our deliberations.
My second caveat is that no one can say for sure what these costs will be. Wars never go according to war plans. And in this case the complex and far-reaching repercussions of--to pick one thing out of a hat--a destabilized Middle East, can be partially predicted but not foreseen. So mostly we are groping for the best calculus of risks. But I will try to distinguish between what we know for sure at this point and what is likely enough that it should worry us.
One thing we know is that fears that the U.S. might go ahead with an attack on Iraq have already begun to affect oil prices. Oil is already trading close to an 18-month high of $30 a barrel. Ten months ago, the price was half that. So the war fever premium has already been high. And every time a U.S. official comes out and says something that suggests an attack is actually imminent, or even is in fact likely to happen at all, oil prices spike. Vice President Cheney made the first of two such speeches on August 26th, for example, and by the end of the day, the price of each barrel sold on the U.S. market had jumped sixty-five cents.
Following the last U.S. invasion of Iraq, oil prices doubled, and stayed high for the better part of a year. A repeat would create ripple effects throughout our economy. Estimates by Wall Street analysts indicate that a ten dollar per barrel rise in oil prices--half the amount of the last Gulf War effect--would over a year's time reduce U.S. GDP growth by about half a percent, and add nearly one percent to inflation.
The economic drag from these oil price shocks is being felt most strongly across the transportation sectors that grease our economy's wheels, and is adding friction to these wheels, an effect that is of course being passed on to consumers. In the airline sector alone, the nine major U.S. carriers have lost $7.3 billion in the past year, and one of them has been propelled into bankruptcy. This is despite the bailout package passed after 9-11 totaling $5 billion in direct federal aid and $10 billion in loan guarantees. Most analysts expect that a U.S. attack on Iraq could send the price of oil beyond $50 a barrel. In that event, we will probably be bailing out all our airlines.
There are always some winners in war--the defense industry is obviously riding high. But there are also many losers, as international trade in general becomes constricted. Tourism is the world's largest industry; experts estimate that it employs about 10% of the world's workforce. The last Gulf War actually depressed tourism in places as far from the Middle East as Costa Rica and East Africa.
The U.S. is trying to prepare for a disruption of its own supplies by adding to its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Its target goal is to cover U.S. import needs for about 60 days. But this short-term cushion won't help the rest of the world, or do anything to restrain prices.
And given the current fragile condition of the global economy, higher oil prices could mean the difference between modest growth and a full-blown recession.
Growth deceleration in the American economy is already underway: the first-quarter annualized rate of 5% had by the second quarter dropped to 1.1%. It would be a mistake, of course to blame all our economic bad news on the September 11 attacks. But as one writer for the London Times put it, what can be said with certainty is that al Qaeda struck the U.S. and world economies at an exquisitely vulnerable time, when such factors as corporate accountability scandals, oil price rises from the explosion of violence in Israel-Palestine, and the tanking of the dot-coms had done their damage. 9-11 only exacerbated the loss of investor confidence and depressed investment, which have in turn raised the cost of capital and reduced the prospects for long-term productivity growth.
Many U.S. economists are now revising their growth projections for the near term slightly upward. Having taught a couple of kids to ride a bicycle, though, I liked the explanation I read recently of why an economy is like a bicycle. When it moves fast, it can ride out shocks and stay upright. But when a bicycle, or an economy, is hardly moving, it can be knocked over by even a modest bump in the road. A war with Iraq would be quite a bump.
I'll just offer a few more indicators that war fever is not good for our economic health. The value of the dollar peaked against the euro the day President Bush delivered his "axis of evil" State of the Union address, and has been trending downward ever since.
And of course, large tax cuts combined with military spending increases have turned budget surplus into deficit, just as they did during the Reagan years. The projected deficit for FY 2002--$157 billion--is already well over 1% of GDP. As the deficit grows, increases in the public cost of borrowing will put pressure on long-term interest rates, and crowd out private-sector borrowing. The consumer spending that has been buoyed by extremely low rates--financing purchases like home mortgages and new cars--is likely to dry up fast. All point to slower growth, and may trigger a recession. The Congressional Budget Office projects increases in military spending of $450 billion over the next ten years, based on the President's requests. But their figures don't factor in the cost of a war with Iraq.
The last time we had one, in 1991, direct war costs ran around $80 billion in today's dollars. No one believes that this time it would be that cheap. But of course 80% of the costs of the last Gulf War were borne by our allies. This time it appears that allies will be much harder to come by. The Germans and the Saudis, in particular, were among the largest cash contributors to the last Gulf War, and they have both indicated their opposition to an attack. The scattered expressions of international support for the president's speech at the UN yesterday approved of his working with the UN; no one was promising financial support for a war.
In calculating the potential costs to the U.S. of such a war it is important to remember that putting together the original Gulf War coalition incurred substantial costs all on its own, in the form of financial inducements to join. For example, the U.S. had to give Turkey about $5 billion in debt forgiveness and other financial benefits to secure their reluctant support for the war. This time the reluctance is much more internationally widespread, and overcoming it is likely to be much more expensive. Yesterday the Turkish prime minister described the possibility of an attack as "a sword hanging over our heads." Turkey, he said, "is at the forefront of countries that will be negatively affected by military action."
In addition to these direct and indirect costs of waging the war itself, we need to factor into our calculations the protracted military presence, lasting years, not months, that must certainly follow it. Scott Feil, a retired colonel and expert on post-conflict reconstruction, estimates that a force of 75,000 would be necessary during the first year, at a direct cost of $16.5 billion. Former national security advisor Sandy Berger recently testified that rebuilding the Iraqi economy would cost between $50 and $150 billion. Given the U.S.' recent track record, in Kosovo and Afghanistan, for example, it is unlikely that we would take on the whole bill for Iraqi economic reconstruction. But somebody will need to pay it. Colonel Feil assumes that the U.S. would take on responsibility for some humanitarian emergency relief, and some of the costs of transitional administration, civil service, and other components of reconstruction. He estimates these at $15-25 billion over the next decade.
Saudi Arabia is both the largest producer and exporter, and the most politically vulnerable. Internal instability alone could depress Saudi production. The Iranian revolution of 1979 cut production in half, to 3 million barrels, where it has stayed. We all worried that the last Gulf War would have a domino effect on the governments in the region, and this didn't happen. But several of them, Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the top of the list, are weaker now than they were then. Iraqi aggression against Kuwait created broad regional support for an armed response, and this support does not now exist. And, it should be added, the 1991 war had destabilizing effects that simply took a long time to incubate and come to light. The U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia became the focal point for the resentment that resulted in the attacks of 9-11.
When we have not been attacked, when the other justifications the administration has offered for going to war are as murky as they are, when there is much dissension within the government and in particular within the military about the wisdom of an attack, and when the idea of attacking has virtually no support from our allies, then it makes sense for Congress and the American people to take these economic costs into special consideration. The preponderance of evidence suggests that if we start this war we will be endangering our economic health
-------------------------------------
The New York Times
2004
An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.
A war that was waged principally to overthrow a dictator who possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised'' has evolved into a mission to rid Iraq of its "weapons-making capabilities'' and to offer democracy and freedom to its 25 million residents.
The president no longer expounds upon deposed Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's connections with al Qaeda, rarely mentions the rape and torture rooms or the illicit weapons factories that he once warned posed a direct threat to the United States.
In the fall of 2002, as Bush sought congressional support for the use of force, he described the vote as a sign of solidarity that would strengthen his ability to keep the peace. Today, his aides describe it unambiguously as a vote to go to war.
"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take,'' Bush said in a well-received speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept 12, 2002.
Bush echoed those words earlier this month as he accepted his party's nomination for president a few miles away, at Madison Square Garden in New York:
"Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.''
Yet the more specific explanation of a mission that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives and well over $100 billion has undergone a transformation.
Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush focused on weapons of mass destruction and stated the U.S. goal in straightforward terms.
"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change,'' Bush said at a news conference two weeks before he took the nation to war.
"And our mission won't change,'' Bush continued. "Our mission is precisely what I just stated.''
Six weeks later, speaking to workers at an Army tank plant in Ohio, the goal seemed to expand.
"Our mission -- besides removing the regime that threatened us, besides ending a place where the terrorists could find a friend, besides getting rid of weapons of mass destruction -- our mission has been to bring humanitarian aid and restore basic services and put this country, Iraq, on the road to self-government.''
Last month, speaking to supporters at a campaign event in Wisconsin, Bush put it more plainly: "The goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is for there to be democratic and free countries who are allies in the war on terror. That's the goal.''
In the course of the campaign, such shifts have been characterized by Bush's opponents as lies.
Bush voiced no doubt from the beginning that Hussein possessed chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons.
"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush said in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
By the following year, after no such weapons had been discovered and evidence suggested that much of the intelligence was wrong, Bush had toned down such talk and begun to speak of the "threat'' of Hussein developing such weapons.
In his State of the Union address last January, Bush spoke of Hussein's "mass destruction-related program activities."
"Look, there is no doubt that Saddam Husein was a dangerous person,'' the president told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview several weeks before that speech. "And there's no doubt we had a body of evidence providing that. And there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.''
Sawyer asked the president about the distinction between the "hard fact that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons.''
"So what's the difference?'' Bush responded. "The possibility that he could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.''
"What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction,'' Sawyer persisted.
"Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush responded. "And the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.''
In the months since, Bush has changed his standard speech to reflect that failure to discover the weapons.
"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,'' Bush said in July in Tennessee. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.''
There are a few instances where the president's words contradict developments or his previous statements.
On March 6, 2003, for example, Bush insisted during a prime-time news conference that he would offer a resolution before the United Nations calling for the use of force against Iraq even if other nations threatened to veto it.
"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote,'' Bush said.
A few days later, after it became apparent that the measure would not only be vetoed but might fail to win a majority of the Security Council, the Bush administration dropped its demand for a vote.
The president also said last month on NBC's "Today Show'' that "I don't think you can win'' the war on terrorism, explaining instead that the nation could greatly minimize the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The comment came after months of asserting the United States was winning, and would ultimately triumph, in its war on terror. The statement appeared to be little more than an inelegant way of adding nuance to his explanation, and the president quickly retreated from the words the following day.
Some statements now look off-base after developments in Iraq, such as Bush's response in the first days of the war after learning that Iraqis may have captured some Americans.
"I do know that we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely,'' Bush said, many months before American soldiers committed the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison.
-----------------------------------------
NEWS ANALYSIS
Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war
President's rationale for the invasion continues to evolve
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
President Bush
on Iraq
Sept. 12, 2002
Speech before the U.N. General Assembly
"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.''
(What evidence? Bad intelligence? That's not evidence. and there were PLENTY of highly informed experts saying just that at the time. But your boy didn't want to hear it, did he?)
-------------------------------------
Sept. 19, 2002
Response to a reporter's question
"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. ... This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.''
----------------------------------------
Oct. 7, 2002
Speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati
"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. ... Knowing these realities, American must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''
(Iraq was not harboring terrorists, certainly not Al Queda. Again, as Piro's interview made clear - Hussein HATED Bin Ladin and Al Queda, and considered them a threat - TO HIM. And the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric? Really a low point, don't you think? Got that totally wrong, yes?)
-------------------------------------------
March 6, 2003
News conference
"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change.''
(our mission is "disarmamnet?" Really? That's not what he said before, and the congress certainly wouldn't have authorized a vote for war to "diasarm" Saddam)
-------------------------------------------
March 17, 2003
Address to nation (two days before invasion)
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.''
("no doubt?" Really? I'd say his own weapons inspectors and his top intelligence experts were raising plenty of doubt. And, of couse, inconvenient for you, they were, what's the word? Oh, yeah - right)
--------------------------------------------
May 1, 2003
Aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. ... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."
(so, we "didn't invade because of 9/11?" Apparently, your boy disagreed with you, at least in this version of his story)
--------------------------------------------
Nov. 11, 2003
Veterans Day address
"Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is clear to our service members -- and clear to our enemies. Our men and women are fighting to secure the freedom of more than 50 million people who recently lived under two of the cruelest dictatorships on earth. Our men and women are fighting to help democracy and peace and justice rise in a troubled and violent region. Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power, so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America.''
----------------------------------------------
Aug. 16, 2004
Speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati
"Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, Saddam Hussein had the capability to make weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that capability on to our enemy, to the terrorists. It is not a risk after September the 11th that we could afford to take. Knowing what I know
today, I would have taken the same action."
(according to Piro sunday night, Hussein had no WMD, by his own admission. He simply made it up to stay in power. Our weapons inspectors were telling us they saw no conclusive evidence of a serious program of WMD, before they were yanked out by Bush so he could staert invading.)

January 29, 2008 1:55 PM

Travis said...

I guess you were skimming the pages again. Pretty typical I see.
Yet, you completely dismiss the stories from the Washington Post, CNN, and a pilot who was there. I would say those are "mainstream" news sources, as well as a first handed experience would weigh heavily in my favor.
But you don't seem to think so. You seem to think that it's ok to just summarily dismiss them. I used those as a simple example. If you'd like, I can get you MUCH more sources.
So, you're ok with being shot at as long as they didn't "shoot down a plane"? Is it ok if I come to your house and start shooting at you, screaming about how I'm going to kill you, but you won't do anything about it because I'm not actually hitting you with the bullets? That's pretty much what you're saying here.
I copied and pasted a large section of the articles that I cited. Yes, a lot of leaflets were dropped in that timeframe and they were mentioned in the parts I showed. They have nothing to do with the argument that you and I are having, I merely wanted the articles to be shown as a whole, and not taken out of context.
As for your third point, That's really the point of it all isn't it? If you're getting shot at ALL THE TIME, you escalate things into war. You don't go in full force when nothing has happened up until that point. It'd be like us invading Canada before a single Canadian had fired a shot at us.
I notice that you like to use the phrase "going down like a Girl Scout troop" a lot. Is there something that you'd like to confess here? I won't judge, I promise. :)
I wouldn't say I'm a gun-nut per se, however, I do enjoy the rights that I enjoy under the Constitution.
And how I knew you were going to confuse semi-automatic with fully automatic. Call it a gift. A semi-automatic weapon will fire only one round per time you pull the trigger. A fully automatic weapon will fire off bursts of rounds while the trigger is being held down.
A VERY large difference.
Nope, wasn't at Waco, Ruby Ridge, or any other of those places.
However, if you want to try to take away my Second Amendment rights, then you should have no problem if I introduce legislation to take away your Constitutional rights. Freedom of Speech/Religion/Press? Nah, you will only abuse them to insult people and spread your idiotic ways of thinking.
I think that would be a nice start don't you?
Oh wait, now it's becoming a bit personal for you. It's the hypocritical nature of liberals. They don't want people exercising their Second Amendment rights, but get all pissy if you call them on their bullshit, and they scream "Freedom of Speech!"
That's the second time I've caught you wanting your cake and eating it too.
It's called hypocrisy. Since you seem to have it in spades, I'll be happy to introduce you to an article that will show you the error of your ways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

January 29, 2008 2:26 PM

MrsWakely said...

You're beginning to look silly sieve-head. We don't invade a country because they are occasionally shooting at our planes, but haven't ACTUALLY shot one down, over a no fly zone.
(And, since I guess you missed this class, let me define "constantly" for you:
"continually; perseveringly; without cessation" - sort of means, "nonstop")
That's not a smart move. When do you go to war? When the nation is attacked. There's a simple explanation for you. The OTHER times we've gone to war? Hasn't worked out quite so well (see: Korea, Vietnam) IF they had shot even ONE plane down? I'm sure the American public would have supported a vigorous aerial counter-strike. But they didn't shoot one plane down. Not one. So, no vigorous aerial counter strike, let alone total invasion. There are thresholds for war sieve-head. Shooting at planes over no fly zones and not hitting any is not one of them.
Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Something tells me you're way too young. I do. It took guts and superior judgment to hold off the military wing nuts who were counseling JFK to attack the Russians. He didn't. Smart, reasonable, wise decision. Bush 2? He would have gotten us into a nooklear war.
In Korea, we fought the Chinese. Hundreds of thousands of them. Yet, we didn't invade China. Macarthur wanted to, as I'm sure you would have, if you'd been around at the time. Why not? Incredibly stupid idea, that's why. Militarily, geopolitically, etc., etc. Truman relieved Macarthur over it. Cooler heads prevailed. Getting shot at, even by thousands of Chines, was not enough to prompt Truman to invade china. Why? Because he had a brain in his head. Ipso-facto, "being shot at constantly" is not necessarily pretext for war.
To give the evidence I provided even a cursory glance (talk about not paying attention) would have provided you with myriad counter-arguments, based on, you know, the facts, to your crazy, "we didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11" nutsoid take on things.
As to semi vs. fully automatic weaponry - who gives a shit? I won't get sucked into some peripheral (say this while imagining you have no teeth and an Appalachian accent) "you'll take my guns from my cold, dead fingers!" argument.
You lose. Get out of my car.

January 29, 2008 4:33 PM

Travis said...

So, unless someone dies, you're not willing to go to war? You're willing to allow our planes to be shot at on a near daily basis, who are patrolling the skies over Iraq, under a UN mandate, and do nothing in return? I'm sure glad you're not Commander In Chief. We've already seen what happens when you're too cowardly to do nothing when being actively shot at (Bill Clinton)
It's funny you mention the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example. That's actually a perfect example of diplomacy and the threat of force. But you see, you fail miserably (I'm starting to see a pattern), at seeing the one key point in that entire episode: We were only fired upon once. And that was on the orders of a low level Soviet commander. So your savior, JFK, didn't have much to go on in terms of acts of war. Clinton AND Bush had dozens, if not hundreds of acts of war.
That in of itself defines "constantly". But you seem to ignore it and want to play word games with me.
Then, you have the audacity to say this:
To give the evidence I provided even a cursory glance (talk about not paying attention) would have provided you with myriad counter-arguments, based on, you know, the facts, to your crazy, "we didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11" nutsoid take on things.
When YOU were the one that tried to accuse me of trying to link the events of 9/11 to Iraq, when clearly, I have never made that distinction.
You've now tried and failed more times then I care to count, to paint me as something I am clearly not, for having viewpoints that I do not have, and not backing up my opinions with fact.
You dared me to come up with evidence. Remember this?
We were "constantly" being fired upon? Really? Find me one published, credible news report that says, we were being "constantly being fired upon." Those words. I dare you.
So I did, and now you're trying to backtrack.
And even if you can (you won't), try then to make the case that it had anything to do with 9/11. We invaded Iraq in response to 9/11, remember?
I never made that case, you did. Now you're trying to backtrack again. I can't say I'm surprised, most liberals tend to backtrack and become historical revisionists to back up their viewpoints.
We don't need to debate weaponry, when you clearly have not even the faintest clue what you're talking about. You say you wish to elect Obama, then you don't seem to have a problem in supporting a person who wished to infringe on American's Constitutional rights, yet, have likely complained loudly over the recent wiretapping escapades.
So, let's recap shall we? I've caught you backtracking multiple times, met your "dare" (which sounds oddly like something elementary school kids would do), and provided evidence of Iraq's acts of war, (from credible news sources I might add), Hell, I even gave you an interview with one of the pilots, shown you to be accusing me of one thing in your earlier posts, then turn around and proclaim that I have some sort of "we didn't invade..." nutsoid take on things, when you brought it up.
Am I missing anything?
You've failed in your arguments, haven't countered any of my evidence with evidence of your own. Instead you like to bring up past examples of how we acted one way and that should be the way we act all the time.
You complain loudly about what Bush has done wrong, yet, your only "solution" is that we go into Pakistan, yet you offer nothing in return to my questions of sovereignty and other issues that will arise if we do go into Pakistan.
The laundry list of ways you're in the wrong is staggering.
So, you'll have to forgive me if I fail to see how I "lose", and how that relates to how I should get out of your car, whatever the fuck that means.
I know defeat must taste sour for you, and for that I can sympathize. I don't empathize because I don't get my ass handed to me as often as you have been in the past few days across all your posts.
But it's been extremely entertaining, I must admit.
If you'd like, you can rebut, but you should know in your heart of hearts that I'm going to decimate you yet again. It's really up to you. You can turn tail and run like Al-Qaeda, or you can continue on in a futile attempt to get me to admit even a sliver of what you are trying to insinuate is true. Either way is fine with me, I rather enjoy slaughtering you in the debates. Keeps me on my toes, on the edge, where I need to be. :)
As a side note, I noticed that you created your account this month. Tell me, did you create your account simply to post here? If so, I truly am flattered. Usually, I just get a piece of hate mail in my inbox and that's about as far as it goes. But for you to take the time to create a google account to say what you wanted to say, takes a little more fire in the belly.
Travis

January 29, 2008 10:50 PM