when a woman shouted at a mccain rally that obama was "an arab," mccain defended obama by saying "no, he is a decent family man." so, arabs can't be decent family men? as has been mentioned, what would the reaction have been if someone said "obama is a jew," and mccain responded "no, he is a decent family man." what about "obama is a chirstian," being responded to with "no, he is a decent family man." finally, how about "john is white," and the response "no, he is a decent family man." now, for this tepid defense of obama, mccain was harshly booed. ironically, it is the republican sponsored onslaught which may have encouraged the comment. for example, corsi's book "obama-nation" insinuates the possible arab/obama connection. the deal is mccain needs these racist rumors out there to scare the average dickhead, but he himself, to uphold the facade of american fairness and equality, needs to speak in a manner of relative inclusion. of course, this relative inclusion apparently doesn't encompass arabs.
yeah, the "new mccain." reminds you of the "new nixon." remember that? the only thing that allowed the new nixon to come into being was the assassination of every kennedy over the age of 5. the new mccain...what a load of crap. speaking of mccain, he has repeated a few things that i would like to comment on. for one, he often says "we give 700 billion dollars to countries that don't like us very much." i suppose he is referring to oil rich muslim countries, such as saudi arabia. of course, these are client states that do our bidding. certainly, mccain doesn't suggest altering these relationships? if he does, why doesn't he explicitly state his support for secular, democratic forces in the middle east and beyond? venezuela is a progressive, secular democracy. that doesn't stop either candidate from referring to its leader as a "rogue" and their society as "authoritarian." mccain doesn't mention how much money saudi royalty has invested in the u.s. economy. the relationship is mutual; it is not just a matter of the u.s. "giving" anybody money. is it possible that a lot of money flows to saudi arabia, egypt, and elsewhere, because a lot of oil flows in our direction? furthermore, we arm these nations so that their militaries will control their populations, for yes, it is true that these countries "don't like us very much." therefore, we buy off their governments to ensure access to resouces and compliant populations.
moving on, but in connection, mccain has mentioned in both debates that we did a great thing to help the afghanis in their struggle against the soviets, but then left the country after the soviets were defeated, hanging the new government out to dry. you would never know from this statement that the guys we supported against the soviets are the same guys we are fighting now! in fact, you can trace the rise of so called militant islam, or islamic fundamentalism, to u.s. support in this period. bin laden himself was one of the guys who received u.s. training and funds in afghanistan during the afghan-soviet war. say what you want about the soviet union, but it was they who supported the more democratic forces, it was they who believed in women's equality, and it was they who supported a government that attempted to bring education and health care to the masses of people. by no means does this excuse their conduct in the war, but it is the case. it was the u.s. who funded the fundamentalists. in fact, this is the secret they don't want you to know. the question is, why does "islamic fundamentalism" exist? well, there are a few reasons. for one, all of the major western religions have militant members, aka fuckheads. islam is no exception, and we practice racism and ignorance when we insist on this being a unique characteristic of islam. more specifically, people like bin laden have been funded. they have been trained with u.s. money. schools of religious fundamentalism were created in pakistan that the cia closely supported. our money and training have a lot to do with this. why did we fund it? we did it to create a force that would fight the progressive forces that existed in these nations. in the 50's, you heard a lot about "arab nationalism." nasser of egypt was a representative of this. they wanted no part of the cold war. they did not want to blindly follow american orders, and therefore, we considered them the enemy. hence, funding an extremist force to fight a secular, comparatively progressive force in afghanistan was a logical outgrowth of a policy that already existed. it is only now that "blowback" has occurred, that these forces are now "our enemy."
lastly, a lot of these "extremists" are guys that have had enough of occupation and war. for in today's afghanistan, and now iraq, where is a young person, angered at the bombing of his country, supposed to turn, if not to something we would label "extremism?" what else is there to turn to? arab nationalism has been destroyed, thanks in large part to us. even a right wing nationalist leader, like saddam, who slaughtered the left when he was in the pay of the cia in the 60's, has been gotten rid of. let us not forget that saddam's iraq offered relative gender equality, the best health care system in the middle east, and quality education. where now christians are being attacked in mosul, under saddam they served in government. where now the various ethnic groups are at each others throats, under saddam they often intermarried. saddam offered no political freedom, but today, there are no freedoms of any kind to be had in iraq, thanks to our "freeing" of that country. so yes, extremism is in part a reaction to the extremism of war practiced by an imperial america. with every society we decimate, we will likely create some people who will become "extremists" in there attempt to end that decimation. when that happens, we can blab on about a "clash of civilizations" and then excuse our violence, which precipitated the confrontations, as self defense. lunacy.
the new mccain, i am sorry to say, continues to tell the old lies.
and the guy from kansas still hasn't knocked him on the canvas.
kenya believe it?
let ralph debate!
No comments:
Post a Comment