and the comments on TV of US voters who watched the debates, my
conclusion is that the US citizens are more concerned about winning
about their economic prosperity.
The prominent message given by McCain that the "burst" led to the
winning in Iraq but this is false. It was the support given by Iraqis
that led to the reduction in sectarian violences and US deaths.
Couldn't it be due to the threats by Democrats to give a time table
withdrawal, which made the Iraqi government more earnest in solving
their security problems rather than amassing their personal wealth?
I'm surprised that Obama didn't elaborate on this but it could be due
the sentiments of US citizens who believe that Iraqis are imbeciles
are incapable of looking after themselves, typical of racist attitudes
that I observe prominently in the citizens of USA. (racist here is the
true meaning: superiority derogatory, not racial discrimination)
Obama in the debate mentioned briefly about the need of Iraq to
the burden of security for themselves but somehow commentators missed
this issue. Obama didn't help by not emphasising forcefully on this
issue. But many European commentators are already aware of this
of Obama in trying to get allies to shoulder more of the burden of
security for the world.
McCain's main message is the USA is winning in Iraq, and Obama had not
supported the move that led to the win, which is a blatant lie. In the
end the bill was passed but timetable for withdrawal is set at a later
date. This tentative withdrawal date which led the US commanders to
change their tactics in trying to get help from the Iraqis and the
Iraqis were more desperate in solving their own problems.
The US citizens' tendency to support winning at all cost despite
suffering from economic disaster as a result of this win is clearly
shown by the result of this debate. Obama dare not even touch on this
topic despite the obvious fact that losing in Cambodia and Vietnam,
never led to any security loss to USA but led to economic prosperity
USA which contributed greatly to ending the era of the cold war.
McCain's disregard for the well being of the citizens of the occupied
nations is also well respected by the US citizens. As pointed out by
Obama, supporting dictatorship regimes in Pakistan had not brought any
reward to USA in terms of increased security. The problems with Iraq
Afghanistan is that they are corrupt and inefficient. They were chosen
not because of their patriotism to their nations but by their
unconditional support for USA interests, above the interest of their
citizens. Taliban will never take root if Hamid's government is
respected by Afghans. Similarly for Iraq.
USA, no doubt supported by its citizens, mocked Iran for being a false
democracy, despite the fact that no citizen is denied the right to
vote, unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq. And yet dare to proclaim that
Afghanistan and Iraq are true democracies, while Iran is not.
Another failed US policy that is also supported by its citizens, is
acceptance that talking to terrorists is deemed as giving credibility
the terrorists. It does not occur to even Obama and US journalists,
this is mocking Jesus, the founder of Christianity who routinely
to criminals, prostitutes and even the Romans, his enemies.
Even if Obama were to win, it is more due to the concern for the
economy. Most of the citizens of USA do not believe in just, freedom
democracy for people other than US citizens and Jews. Obama may be the
voice of reason, talking to people, even terrorists, concentrate on
real security of USA instead of just winning, which includes giving
justice and freedom as well as mutual respect for other nations, but
may have a hard time with the citizens of the USA. Obama should start
with the journalists who control the US media.
Sabah is heaven. Beautiful shark-free beaches and mountains next to
civilisation with no natural and man-made disasters except Malaysia.