Friday, July 14, 2006

Israel, the kid who fights back.

Nearly everyone has experienced a bully in their life, or even a group of bullies. Israel IS the bullied kid. And the rest of world (the U.S. excluded) is apparently the moonbat educrats of the public school system.

Let me take you back some twenty-three years ago. There was a kid that constantly picked on me, he made my life hell. The harassment ranged from verbal abuse to petty theft to physical aggression. I made all the attempts I (or my parents) could to stop the behavior. The teachers and principal instructed me to ingore the bullying or tell the teacher. Ingoring the behavior emboldened my tormentor and telling the teacher resulted in me getting in trouble for "tattling."

The final showdown happened at the school library. The bully and his friends cornered me. My bully hit me in the mid-section, it was not a good punch, but it angered me. I let loose with swinging my fists in the best windmill a nine-year-old could muster. I punished the air around me for several seconds before landing a blow out of sheer luck. When the teacher broke up the "fight" the bully was taken over to sit with the librarian look at books. I on the other hand was taken to principal's office where my parents were called.

What came next was a lecture from the principal of the school explaining that I had no right to hit that child. This child was a poor minority who had lived "a hard life" and his bullying behavior was to be excused. The bullying behavior not his fault, but the fault of his circumstances.

Fast forward to 2006. Israel his given the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians after years of terrorist attacks against citizens of Israel. How do Israel's "neighbors" respond? They continue the attack. Hamas crossed into Israel's land and kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Hezbollah kidnaps two. Now Israel is fighting back and is being condemned as wrong?!

Liberal moonbats are livid because Israel is defending itself. In the next days they will post on their blogs about every offspring of a terrorist (pardon me, 'freedom fighter') that gets killed during this, while caring nothing about Israeli deaths and even applauding them.

Israel's hostile neighbors instigated this hostility, they instigate it in every case. They bullies, and they are excused by the UN and the moonbats who enable them. Israel, well Israel is the kid fighting back.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

WMDs found, Libs try to change the game.

Well, well, well, it looks like we found WMDs in Iraq afterall. So what is next?

This week Senator Rick Santorum and Representative Pete Hoekstra announced that as early as 2004 US and coalition forces have several WMDs in Iraq. The WMDs are mainly comprised of Sarin and Mustard gas shells. You can read the details in this Fox News story (funny that CNN and MSNBC did not think this was news worthy):,2933,200601,00.html

With that I have a question for the Libs in the audience: what now? I mean, you've all these books, made all these t-shirts about how Bush lied about WMDs and now low and behold it turns out there were WMDs. For liberals there is only one thing to do, change the game.

With this discovery there will be three different directions that liberals take to spin this find:

1) The find is insignificant. They will say that the WMDs found were not a threat and not that big a deal. To that I say, tell those Kurds that were murdered that Sarin is no big deal.

2) The WMDs are ours. We supplied them to Hussein. Here's a clue, the WMDs found were primarily Sarin. Sarin the was the primary nerve agent used by the Soviet Union. Now, if it were VX that we found in Iraq then there'd be a beef.

3) Finally the classic claim that the report is false.

Primarily we will see spin #1 played out. Number #2 is primarily for the anti-war crowd and #3 for the paranoid conspiracy theory folks.

This however is to be expected. It will take us finding a nuclear arsenal large than that of the US and Russia combined before the Dems yield on the "WMD lie" spin.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Libs, Dems and America haters spinning about Zarqawi.

In case you haven't heard, Zarqawi is dead. The man that is responsible for thousands of deaths of both coalition soldiers and innocent Iraqis has left this planet courtesy of two 500 lb bombs from a US F-16. Naturally, before Abu's body was cold the hard left, Dems and America haters were starting their spin. Normally, the death of a wartime enemy of a nation is good news to the people of said nation, but not for these guys. If it benefits the war or more specifically George W. Bush, they are opposed. Believe me, our favorite hard left bloggers relish the idea of some great crisis that they can lay at Bush's feet.

The left is trying to spin this victory in a few different ways. The goal is to deprive Americans from feeling good about this victory.

What you most likely here Democrat politicians saying is a rehash of what they said about the capture of Saddam Hussein, "It means nothing, there will be another one (or two) that pops up right behind him and takes over." The second statement may be true, but does not make this victory mean nothing. Here's why, Zarqawi was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, no organization can easily sustain the loss of its leader. No matter how much the Islamofacists release statements and such that they congatulate Zarqawi for becoming a martyr, they would much rather have him alive and leading their operations. The loss of Zarqawi is bad for morale. Secondly, Zarqawi had more than three years of experience fighting us "infidels". He was at the top of the decision making, tactics and strategy making process, now he is dead... and his knowledge and experience with him. The next guy that comes up will not be as seasoned as Zarqawi.

A continuation of that little piece of spin is that "Zarqawi is a Martyr, they will be emboldened more now." To that I say, Is Zarqawi a Martyr? I mean afterall, the Islamofacists are very fond of recruiting the easily persuaded with the promise that if they take on suicide missions against the infidels or die fighting the infidels that they go to paradise. When did Zarqawi take on his suicide mission? When did he engage the American soldiers? He never did. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi has spent the last several years in hiding. He didn't even believe what he was preaching. And deep down inside, our Islamofacist enemy knows this. So is our enemy "emboldened" by that fact that there leader was killed while hiding a in shack? Somehow I doubt it.

Finally we get to my favorite little piece of spin. "This is convenient timing". This a tried and true spin tactic that I have seen for years. The premise is that Zarqawi was dead (or Saddam was captured) long before the Government says he was. Why would the Goverment do this? To have a "get out of jail free" card so to speak. When things are going bad for Bush, he just leaks Zarqawi's death to the news and viola! The sheeple are distracted from whatever. Well the truth is the "This is convenient timing" spin is quite convenient. Simply because they will always be able to apply it. If we had killed Zarqwai in five months from now why it's an "October suprise". If we killed him six months ago, it would be to distract from judicial nominations, or three months ago to distract from the Cheney shooting.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Gulf War I Conspiracy Theory Revisited.

NO WAR FOR OIL!!! Ahhhhh, a new catchphrase for a generation protest and conspiracy-minded people. I was a junior in high school when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the first Gulf War started in 1991. I remember hearing the conspiracy mongers delve into “all the angles” on the issue. One thing was for certain, this was not a just war like WWII when we ended the Holocaust. The only reason we were involved was one thing, oil. We had no business inserting ourselves into the squabbles of other nations. We stood no chance, Hussein had one of the five largest armies in the world and said this would be the mother of all wars. No American's life was worth saving 10¢ per gallon at the pump. And above all else George H. W. Bush was an “OilMan” who gave Hussein permission to invade Kuwait assuring him that is he did invade the US would not interfere (thus making Hussein a hapless patsy).; once the war was over he was going to pillage the Middle East and “steal all the oil.” It seemed plausible enough, to a sixteen-year-old boy that is.

The war started. I remember being at the mall with by friend Christian when word that US and her allies began bombing. I called home to find out what exactly was going on. My mother had been a small child through WWII, had nearly seen my father shipped off to Korea as a Marine, Vietnam and still harbored a ton of Cold War paranoia. Her suggestion, come home now, they may try to strike back. No way was I going home. I tried to explain to my mother that there was no way the Iraqis were going to counter-attack in the US let alone Indiana.

As the war carried on first came air superiority, then came Iraqi retreat from Kuwait, then came the total defeat of Iraqi forces in the land war. Saddam Hussein and his forces were defeated; and not with the “Mother of all Wars” that was promised by Hussein. Relatively low casualties on our side.

Then something strange happened, or didn't happen. George H. W. Bush the “OilMan” did not install the puppet regime in Kuwait, did not march on Baghdad, did not make any aggressive action toward the Middle East at all. In short, the looting of oil as predicted by the conspiracy hounds never happened. Life went on, the US and her allies put out the oil fires and went on. The US base remained in Saudi Arabia, and that is about it.

The conspiracy theory that Bush and the US were going Kuwait and Iraq solely to increase the profits of the evil “BigOil” was dead and buried, right? Wrong.

Just as conspiracy kooks have no trouble re-writing history to fit their theories, they also have no trouble re-writing their own theories to fit history if they cannot effectively re-write it

I recently read an article on the popular conspiracy website, In an article entitled, “Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship” the website contends that nearly every war fought in the last century was done so under false pretenses and always seems to place the US in the role of the aggressor. This where I found the re-write of the Gulf War I conspiracy theory “Gulf War I was so BigOil could profit.”

The purpose of the theory is to convey and “prove” the following: Gulf War I + GHW Bush + X = Profit for BigOil. Previously X = “stealing the oil.” The problem is that the oil was never stolen. So how do you keep your theory intact? Change X to something that did happen. In this case X ends up as the following. We wanted Iraq to burn the oil wells and we wanted to destroy Iraq and further sanction Iraq for one purpose... to take the oil off the market. You see? If there is a shortage of oil then the price will go up and BigOil gets its profits!

It seems plausible... except for one tiny thing. It makes absolutely no economic sense. History will debunk this theory as it did its predecessor, but I don't feel like waiting around.

The premise of this theory is that BigOil makes more money by, pay attention here, not selling oil. With the Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil off the market and not being sold, BigOil makes more money. One could be fooled into believing this if they were not familiar with the way that the market works. Basic economics dictates that a company maximizes its profits by selling the most amount of goods and services possible while keeping expenses down. In other words: Profit = Sales – Expenses.

In this scenario, there are fewer production facilities online, thus less oil is sold overall. There are massive expenses in repairing the damaged facilities. In other words, expenses are up, gross sales are down. Look at any business that has failed miserably and you will find the same thing. From AMC (the automobile manufacturer) to, low sales and high expenses killed them all.

Let's look at some real world businesses that are profitable as examples. Walmart, few companies are as profitable as Walmart. How does Walmart operate? Simple, sell as much stuff as you can, sell it fast, keep your expenses down. Walmart would never dream of allowing only 200 32 inch TV's to be sold and charging $5,000 in the name of “profit” simply because it would not be profitable. Daimler-Chrysler, a very profitable automobile manufacturer that sells a variety of automobiles.

So tell me, which serves the bottomline better, selling a couple hundred Lamborghini Diablos at over $250,000 a pop or selling hundreds of thousands of PT Cruisers at $17,000 a pop? If you can't figure it out it is telling the Daimler-Chrysler dropped Lamborghini.

Everyone knows that BigOil wants to maximize profits, that is a business's sole purpose of existing is to make money for the person and/or people that own it. So how are they going to do it? Easy, sell the most oil (which means that it will abide by the law of “supply and demand”) and incur the least amount of expenses possible (including avoiding having drilling and refining facilities destroyed).