Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Kid Dynomite and giving in to Muslim imperialism
Little Obama and the chattering Marxist obsession with defeat.
by Ferdinand III
There are at least 57 reasons not to vote for Kid Dynomite Hussein Obama – one for every state in his fevered 'hope and change' imagination [only a genius thinks there are 57 states the media assures us]. JJ Obama is of course just another angry, tired, vapid, repetitive left-liberal marxist clown, with a racist slant, endlessly sputtering about the benefits of big government, protectionism, higher taxes, and giving up god and guns. He is dangerously wrong on every topic – none more so than with Islam.
Kid Dynomite shares a lot with Jimmy Carter. Low intellect, febrile constitution, an aversion to the real world, a predisposition to theory over fact, and an instantaneous desire to appease, grovel and run away from civilisation's enemies.
Much as Jimmy Carter lost Iran and US influence in the Middle East during the worst presidency in US history [Peanut man Carter was assuring the US public as late as November 1978 that all was well with Iran – in January the Shah was toppled, oops], little JJ Obama from 'Good Times' would imperil US foreign policy and irrevocably weaken the West in the fact of the Muslim challenge. That alone should disqualify him from anything more meaningful than managing the crossing guard team at the local Chicago community high school.
Obama's theoretical framework developed in the nuanced and complicated atomosphere of intellectualised Harvard life goes something like this:
“Islam is peaceful. Muslims are peaceful. If there is Islamic violence it must be caused from external stimuli. We, the US and Israel are the biggest stimuli in the Middle East. Ergo we have created the problems. Creating Israel, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, punishing Arabs and threatening Iran is therefore wrong. We are the root cause of the problems with Iran, in Iraq and elsewhere. If we talk to them, listen and negotiate the world will be safe, everyone will be happy and Muslims will stop committing terrorist acts across the world [a measly 11.000 such acts since 9-11 encompassing 1 million dead and wounded].” [Looney tunes starts to play....]
This Harvard-marxist view of geopolitics can only be held by chattering incompetents. But the anti-reality class in the media and politics is pervasive and has the ability to be very persuasive. The position of Obama and his like minded children is that Iraq was better off under Hussein, that Iran is a small country, to use his own words that is not a threat to the US, and that Islam is inherently peaceful and fun-loving and that the US is wrong to name Islam as part of the problem with terrorism or the 'clash of civilisations'. None of these beliefs have any basis in intelligence or reality. It makes one want to break out crayons and smurf dolls.
The US has little to do with modern Islamic imperialism. The causes for Iranian bids to Persian Gulf supremacy; or Hussein's pan-Arab project and his lust for oil money and regional power; or Nasser's Egyptian enterprise to create a modern Egyptian-Arab empire; have little to do with America. Islamic and Arab states are motivated by the endless impulse of self directed power, glory, national acclaim, international relevance and money. When Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 or invaded Kuwait 10 years later he was prompted not by American or Jewish concerns, but by a desire to blunt Iran's Shiite meddling in Iraq in the first instance and to stop the Iranian revolution from being exported to Iraq, and by a need to control Kuwait's oil money to pay off the debts of the Iranian-Iraq war in the second.
Likewise the Iranian leadership's desire to expand their Islamic revolution is an Iranian doctrinal position that is hardly unique in Muslim history. Various caliphates, empires and Islamic theocracies throughout history have wanted to return to a pure Islam, and export that fundamentalist-Mohammedan set of 7th century codes to the rest of the region, or even the world.
Khomenei's 1979 revolution which took Jimmy Carter and the Americans totally by surprise was a societal reaction against a Westernizing Shah, corruption, lax morals and the loss of Persian-Iranian Islamic purity. It was in essence a national revolt to assert national greatness and return Persia to its fundamentalist Islamic roots and avoid the contamination of the ideas emanating from the 'Great Satan'. Even so the Iranian theocracy is an Iranian nationalist project aimed at Iranian greatness and expansion of power.
The Americans have never had as much power in the Middle East or with Iran as people think. They ran out of Lebanon in 1983 after 241 US marines were murdered by Hizbollah. Various attacks in the 1980s and 1990s by Muslim radicals and fascists went unpunished. Baghdad the obvious objective in the first Gulf War was left unconquered due to Arab state's sensitivities and American fears of losing their Arab allies.
America supported the recent creation of the Muslim state of Kosovo on ancient Serbian lands; and Americans have fought on the side of Muslims in 15 recent wars. This says nothing of US financial support for Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan and their incestuous relationship with the Saudis all of which outstrips US aid to Israel by a 10 to one margin. If anything the Americans are terrified of getting too involved in Middle Eastern affairs and are leery of opposing Arab-Muslim power – almost the opposite of what you hear in the media and university system.
American reluctance to use power is obvious when looking at Iraq. Until recently the second Iraq war was going badly because the Americans did not want to prosecute the war too harshly and lose the hearts and minds of Muslims in Iraq and the region. Iran has killed US soldiers in Iraq with impunity and Iranian militia are fighting in the Shia slums in Baghdad against the Iraqi goverment. Yet the Americans do nothing. Iranian gunships taunt US and international naval traffic, and yet the Americans do little but issue stern warnings. Iran is confident or at least appears so. America looks weak.
This then is the crux of the latest Obamination – treating Iran like a little dog, who barks too much and should not be taken seriously and just needs a pet and a good talking too. Iran is a militant theocracy with a revolutionary ideal as dangerous and as compelling for Persian nationalism as the French or Russian revolutions were for France or Russia. It is exporting this miltant Islamic fundamentalism across the world and openly funds Hizbollah and Hamas as well as Shia radicals in Iraq. Not confronting Iran will mean losing what we have gained in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What have we gained? When Iraq is stabilised we will have: a permanent ally, a military base in the worst part of the world; control over the Gulf; and the capability to smash the Iranian regime at will, if they don't cease their efforts to destroy Israel, stop their nuclear program or stop their global funding of Islamic terror.
Yet what does little Obama want to do? He wants to leave Iraq, talk immediately with the fascist leadership of Iran, allow them to have nukes; and treat them as a small state which is not a threat to anyone, anywhere.
This man is simply an embarassment.
You don't negotiate with fascists, theological revolutionaries or expansionary Muslims. You win wars, build up a military along their borders and make it very clear that their regime will be destroyed unless they start to comply with your wishes. But such logic is lost on Harvard trained populists and race baiting marxists like little JJ Obama. For Hussein Obama appeasement, holding hands and crying 'can't we just get along' is more appropriate and more compassionate. That is until an Iranian nuclear warhead takes out Tel Aviv. But then again mostly Jews live there so who cares.