Right Wing Lunatic

I don't know what kind of evidence they have that this guy died under abnormal circumstances, but, I wouldn't put it past the Israeli's to assassinate key nuclear scientists in order to slow Iran from getting the nuclear know how. I can't say I blame them either if that turns out to be the case.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

So she says she'll end the Iraq war if it's not done by the time Bush leaves office. Who cares if the job is done by then? Who cares if the Iraqi's are still needing support, even if in a non military way? Hillary has shown in the past few days her true positions on things and she would be a horrendous person as president. What's worse is that she's blatantly lying and no one's calling her on it. She voted in 2002 for military action against Iraq, but then in this article, she's quoted as saying "And let me add one other thing, and I want to be very clear about this," she said. "If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war." Now which is it? She voted for the war in 2002, so if she were President, how would that make any difference in her decision? She had access to the same intelligence and could have easily said no then. She would have voted for the war if she were President in 2002 and is simply lying to make her constituents think that she's on their side.

She has shown she is unwilling to make tough choices that don't have a neat and tidy outcome. She's always looking for an easy way out. Now she's showing that she won't stand by the Iraqis and will pull the plug on operations regardless of if the job is done or not. She doesn't care about military people, and they certainly don't care for her, and she will make those who've made the ultimate sacrifice die in vain. It is extremely short sighted to set a date to pull the plug and will embolden our enemies to hang in there just a bit longer because they know we're leaving on X date.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

You're never going to have people believe you if you go shooting up the place. They could be terrorists, or they could be normal US citizens who are doing nothing wrong. Let the police/fbi/cia handle that kind of thing. Now if they were up to no good, who's going to believe it now? Unless you see a direct threat, you have no business shooting into their door. You could have killed someone with a ricocheted bullet. Enjoy jail idiot.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

They only thought this poor guy was a spy for the US. Let me ask you all something, this happens and it gets barely a blurb, but if we were to behead a suspected, or even known al-Qaeda person and stuck him in the middle of town, it'd be all over the news outlets before the body cooled. These people need to be shown for the savages that they are. They need to have their rats nest lit up so everyone can see what militants are capable of. The rules of engagement only apply to Americans. If we played by their rules, we'd get condemned by every nation on earth, but since it's happening against us or our suspected spies, no one seems to care. If we played by their rules, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Iraqi militants would be eradicated within months.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Because if you do, this is what happens. When pro Taliban town elders are found, you need to treat them the same as Taliban members. Otherwise you'll get a knife in your back each and every time.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

This is in response to China's using its currency and slave labor to keep out American companies from competing with Chinese companies. Other companies do the same thing to us, so turn about is fair play. This of course will take a very long time to resolve, so keep your eyes peeled for updates.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

They would like to include a mention that if a law enforcement officer does not announce who they are when they enter a building, the occupant has every right to defend themselves with deadly force if they feel threatened. Everyone knows I support law enforcement officers 100%, but you have to look at this from a citizens perspective. If someone is breaking into my house, and I feel threatened, I have every right to defend myself and my home with deadly force. If an officer says "Police" then all bets are off and my gun is put down on the ground and they can conduct their search and arrest whomever committed a crime. It's basic common sense.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

That's basically what it boils down to. Don't believe me? Have a look yourself. Do you think she'd say that about Krispy Kreme? Do you think that she'd say "I'd like to take Krispy Kreme's profits and put them towards a free gym membership for everyone". Of course not. What Hillary doesn't tell you is that she can't legally do that. Sure, Congress could pass more taxes onto oil companies, but who do you think is going to pay for that? Oil companies are just like any other corporation. Sometimes they make money, sometimes they lose it. A barrel of oil is sitting at $55 and in July it was at $78 a barrel, so of course profits are going to be larger. You didn't hear this kind of talk when oil was at $10-20 a barrel in the 90's. With government taxes, local levies, and additives that make gas cleaner to burn, gas is always going to go up. OPEC has more to do with the cost of gas then oil companies could ever dream of having.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

So a local Muslim cleric is pissed that Britain is uncovering terror plots such as the recent "beheading" plot?

"The country is moving toward a police state. That's not right. We have to change this," he said inside the mosque, where some 2,000 Muslims gathered for weekly Friday prayers.

He's exactly right. They do need to change, but they need to change those within their communities that would blow up airliners, behead innocent people and put bombs on city buses. Maybe if they take a good hard look at themselves, they'll see what the problem really is. They are becoming the "it's because I'm Muslim" groups. Many young black men that I grew up with in my neighborhood did the same thing in the early 90's. "They are trying to keep me down because I'm a black man." Sure. It had nothing to do with the fact you robbed a woman of her purse and then broke into several cars. It's only because you're black, it had nothing to do with the fact you're a criminal.

We all know they preach hate in certain mosques as shown by the Undercover Mosque special. So don't go expecting everyone to buy into your line of bullshit.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

If this proves to be true, it would call into question the loyalty and intentions of everyone. For Iraqi generals to be involved would explain the sophistication of the attacks and should worry everyone involved as to the extent of corruption if this is true.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

So the Speaker Of The House gets to use military aircraft for when they travel. Understandable given security issues and such, but tell me, why should everyone get to ride along with her? I can understand immediate family members such as children or a spouse, and her staff members, but this borders on taking advantage of the situation. Let's see how she uses it and see if it becomes a party plane.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Well this could very likely be true. However, Democrats have said that they plan on ending the war. So if they don't end the war, then they look like liars. Iraqi's are now starting to stand on their own two feet and rooting out insurgents and seizing weapons caches and explosives. It will take time to get them back to full health.

As a side note, show me a Democrat that wanted to put Saddam back in power. There wasn't one. However, many Democrats love to tell you that the war was wrong and illegal. Well if it was illegal, then Saddam should have been put back in power. No one is willing to step up and say that. They all agree that Saddam should have been removed from power because he was a threat to his people, his neighbors, and yes, even the USA. Saddam was even asked by Bush to leave the country with his two sons within 48 hours. Saddam didn't do so and the Iraq war started.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Holy Christ, you can't seem to count on Chirac for anything in confrontations. He's now claiming that if Iran were to get a bomb, it wouldn't be "very dangerous" because if they used it on Israel, then Tehran would be "razed". Ok, I shouldn't have to explain this to him, because he's the President of a country, but it appears that I need to.

You have a President in Iran who believes that the end times are coming and that Israel must be "wiped off the map". He's not thinking like a rational person would. They won't mind if they die. Then you have to explain why Tel Aviv is a smoldering crater with thousands or even millions dead. You'll see people screaming at why nothing was done when it was festering to begin with. You don't wait for a rattlesnake to strike on the hopes that the snake will be "reasonable" and count on the fact that the snake may or may not die.

There's a world changing event going on at this moment and Jacques Chirac is showing that he's not willing to confront world problems head on like any responsible world leader should. This reversal of a strong opposition to Iran's nuclear issue will embolden them and lead them to believe that they can and should continue their uranium enrichment. Who's to say that they won't give the bomb to Hezbollah, the militant terrorist group that they've already acknowledged that they support? Hezbollah would have a field day at deciding which target they'd like to hit. Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, or even the US would all be potential targets. The only question would be, which one gets the unlucky roll of the dice. Worse, the radiological fallout would give cancer and other horrible side effects for everyone in the region for years to come.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

What I don't get is why Congress is wasting time on a resolution that is non binding? Aren't there other problems that need to be taken care of? Sure, the Iraq war is on everyone's mind, but if the resolution is non binding and the President has made up his mind, what's the point? Democrats are walking a very fine line between opposing the President's plan versus being shown as not supporting the troops. If military commanders are saying that more men will help, why are Democrats so against the idea? Military commanders do this for a living, it's a good idea to listen to what they have to say.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Let's see liberals explain this one away. I thought that protests were supposed to be peaceful? Why did Chief Phillip Morse and Deputy Chief Daniel Nichols order officers to stand down? The protesters were committing a crime and needed to be arrested for that crime. If they wanted a confrontation with police, a canister of tear gas to disperse the crowd would have been all that was needed. There's some serious questions that I have about this story.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

They seem to only want to be a responsible world power when it directly effects them or the people they are dealing with have an actual bomb in place. They talk tough when it comes to North Korea because they are a neighbor. They only want to talk tough when it's known that they already have a nuclear weapon.

They don't want to do the same thing with Iran. They have heavy financial ties with Iran and don't want to screw that up. They don't care if Iran has ties to terrorists, even though Russia has a problem with Chechen terrorists. They can't seem to think ahead in anticipating one day where Iran may turn on them and offer a nuclear weapon to Chechen terrorists to use against Russia. The writing's on the wall for Russia and if they want to be a world power again, they'd better start acting like one.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

First, they decide that a troop increase is the way to go. Then, as soon as President Bush authorizes it, they decide that it's not a good idea. You just can't win with people who Monday morning quarterback every decision that you make.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

So they want us to lift the blockade against the Hamas led Palestinian government? The same Hamas that has bombed school buses, night clubs, and synagogues? This is the government that can't meet three simple demands: forswearing terrorism, recognizing Israel, and accepting previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements. If they can't do that, then they don't deserve to have the blockade lifted.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I've made the switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs in my home and they do make a difference in your electric bill. Now granted that California has a program in place the reduces the cost of the bulbs, but there's still an added upfront cost to Californians. Of course, they will save the money across the scope of the first year, so that's a moot point. I'd be more interested in LED lighting. I've read articles that state that LED lighting is significantly more efficient then CFL lighting and uses even less electricity then CFL's.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I'm going to defend Disney on this one. Granted, no parent should ever have to bury their child. It is a devastating, lifelong scar on your heart and mind. However, this child had a heart condition that was aggravated by the ride. That wasn't Disney's fault. The parents claim that Disney didn't properly warn people about the hazards of their rides. I find that rather hard to believe. Every ride I've ever been on, including Disney ones, have a sign that clearly states that people with heart problems, asthma, or pregnant women shouldn't ride these rides. Now, do you think that if the child had gotten excited in a normal, everyday situation and died, that there would be a lawsuit? Probably not. Now, if the parents sued and just asked for more signs warning parents, I would be ok with that. However, I find that rather hard to believe as well.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

So if Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper says that Kyoto was a "socialist scheme designed to suck money out of rich countries." I'm confused. When America had a problem with the Kyoto accords, we were branding all sorts of nasty names and told that we were going to ruin the planet and such. Well if a Canadian says it, does all that rhetoric about us also apply to Canada, or is that all just standard America bashing? Does that mean that America was right?

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Colorado is debating a law that would allow a person who feels threatened to use deadly force if they are in a car or business. Where's the problem here? If I am feeling threatened by someone enough to draw my gun, they would have to have a weapon drawn on me or threatening someone in my presence. If I draw my gun, you have about 5 seconds to decide if you want to live or die. You drop the weapon or back off, or you get a bullet in you. This law just makes sure that I am protected against prosecution because it would be self defense or defense of others. Liberal prosecutors might say "why didn't you run away" or some such nonsense. This is America, we don't run from confrontations with bullies and criminals.

When you draw a weapon on someone, you have just a split second to decide if you want to kill that person or not. Many times the circumstances don't allow for you to run away, or you're only focused on the threat to care about avenues of escape.


Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

"If you don't give me what I want, I'll hold my breath until I get what I want" seems to be what they are saying here. North Korea is threatening another nuclear test if talks fail again. I don't know how much more clearer we can be with our demands. There's already rumors that North Korea is sharing nuclear technology with Iran and possibly other countries, so why should we give in to them now? The knowledge and materials are already out there.

We had an agreement with them in 1994 under Bill Clinton that they have reneged on, and they are known to be counterfeiting US currency, so where's the incentive for us to believe them now? China's right around the corner from them, and they want to be a world superpower, let them take charge of talks. Oh that's right, America must solve everyone's problems and still be the bad guy in everything we do. Yes, we'd all like to stop nuclear proliferation, but other, larger nations should start acting like world leaders instead of asking America to bear the brunt of everything on every issue that comes up.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Britain has conducted a raid to foil a plot to kidnap and behead a Muslim soldier serving in the British military. The act seems to have focused on one particular soldier, but if people like this are willing to do this, who knows what they may have tried in the future. They may have become emboldened and tried worse crimes. Kudos to the British.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

This guy nails it on the head. Americans have a mostly negative view because of terrorist acts as well as rioting and violence because of anything that they feel slighted for. Moderate Muslim people need to be more public and more vocal of their condemnation of these violent acts. Then they need to back it up with real action, not this CAIR bullshit that everyone seems to buy into. Practice what you preach is what I'm saying.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Good. Destroy all spare parts that can't be used by ourselves or our allies. It seems ludicrous that this even needs to be said. Parts and things that can't be used by the general public should be melted down and recycled to make other parts or playgrounds for military children.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

If proven true, this is a blatant act of war. President Bush has already said that an invasion of Iran wasn't going to happen, that doesn't mean we can't bomb the shit out of targets inside Iran if these allegations prove to be true.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Sorry for the lack of updates for the past two days. I've been on vacation and catching up on various outstanding issues. I will have more posting tomorrow.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

This guy just doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. :) With the idiocy of angering the US, pushing it's main allies into a corner in regards to it's nuclear programs, and disastrous economy, it's no wonder this guy is not very popular.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

According to this guy. I'm sure he'll get a lot of hate mail. :)

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Now they are leading their own raids, killing and capturing insurgents and starting to look like they can stand on their own two feet. I'm cautiously optimistic, but I will give credit where credit is due.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

In a weird and twisted way, if Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other terrorist organization only attacked Israeli soldiers and left civilians alone, I could ALMOST understand. However, since they do not adhere to the rules of war, none of this even applies. But since they are setting bombs off in bakeries, and they have popular support from the Palestinian population, why should they be rewarded with their own state for such behavior?

But they don't adhere to the rules of war. They attack civilians, they don't wear uniforms, they hide amongst the population, they hide behind women and children like cowards. If they are a fraction of what the Palestinian people want and they don't want Islamic Jihad and their ilk to bomb Israel, help Israel capture or kill these people. Extend your hand out in peace and you'll get one in return. Bomb a bakery, and you'll be looking down the barrel of a gun. Palestinians like to point to Israeli atrocities. If an Israeli kills a Palestinian illegally, they should stand trial for it. However, please show me one instance of Israeli soldiers planting a bomb in a civilian area.


Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Well that's the general idea that I get when she states that Bush should have all troops out of Iraq by January 2009. What if the Iraqi's are still in need of our help? What if we move to a support role and they still need support? What if they ask us to leave some troops there as a contingency? There's too many "what if's" to just make a blanket statement of "they must be out by January '09". That leads me to believe that if she were elected President (God help us all if that happens), then she wouldn't want to deal with the responsibility and tough choices that would need to be made when it comes to dealing with the military. If she's not willing to step up to the plate on that issue, she's not worthy of being President.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

You can tell with the questions that he keeps asking Abdul Mahdi.

But will Bush's "surge" make a difference?
As Iraqis, we think we need more troops in Baghdad. It's up to the multinational forces to decide whether they need more troops.

Mr. Mahdi states right there that more troops are needed in Baghdad. He's not saying where they should come from. However, earlier in the article the reporter states that he's at best, lukewarm to the idea.

But it's not a military question. Americans are going to die. Is it worth the sacrifice?
I can [only] measure things seeing things as Iraqis [see them]. They are there to succeed, not because they wish to be there. If they want to succeed, we need more troops.

Such an inflammatory question and Mr. Mahdi clearly states that there's a need for more troops, but Newsweek doesn't want to report that. They want to report that even the Iraqi's don't want additional troops, even though they clearly state they do want them.

Later on in the article they talk to the Egyptian Prime Minister, Ahmed Nazif.

Do you worry about the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq?
Under the current circumstances? Of course! There is no alternative in place. You'll just give those militias a free hand. And I think it would be seen as the U.S. opting out of the region. The U.S. started this, and they need to give closure to it in a proper way. Now, I think that what President Bush came up with is not an opting out, it's a commitment to peace and order. We support this, provided the Iraqi government deals even-handedly with both the Sunnis and the Shias.

The Egyptian Prime Minister is even saying that more troops "is NOT opting out, it's a commitment to peace and order." That's a pretty definitive statement about the thoughts about two powerful people in the region on the troop increase. Democrat's won't listen to that. They just want to turn tail and run home to mommy. So let's see how the Democrats will respond to this.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I told you so. To think this guy almost got the presidency is scary as hell. Good going Kerry, when the rest of the world looks badly at us, you decide to follow the group like a sheep and gang up on us. Thanks a lot you two faced bastard.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com