“I will go to the NAACP convention and tell the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps.” — Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich
It’s not surprising that New Gingrich would make such a condescending and racist statement. The ethically-challenged Gingrich frequently disparagingly refers to President Barack Obama as the “food stamps president.”
Unfortunately, Gingrich isn’t the only GOP presidential aspirant playing the race card, Rick Santorum was talking about entitlement reform when he said, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” We are all too familiar with Ron Paul’s infamous newsletters, in which he made many derogatory statements about blacks, homos[e]xuals and Jews.
The African American community isn’t desperately waiting to hear from the ethically-challenged former Speaker of the House, on welfare reform or any other subject.
Gingrich and Santorum are only slightly more sophisticated than the racists politicians of yesterday who would have warned white voters:
These Negroes are living high of the hog, munching on fried chicken and eating watermelon at the expense of God-fearing decent White people. If elected I will end all welfare programs!
Gingrich’s statement presumes and implies that black people are demanding food stamps, when the truth is that out-of-work blacks are demanding the same thing that out-of work whites are demanding: JOBS.
It’s very telling that the only time the Republican presidential candidates mention the African American community, is when they stigmatize them as leeches who live off the welfare state.
Any person of color who votes for anybody the likes of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry (remeber the n-work rock controversy?), needs to have his head examined.
By Robert Paul Reyes
Follow Robert Paul Reyes on Twitter: http://twitter.com/robertpaulreyes
Bashir: Gingrich & Santorum are Damaging Race Relations With Cheap & Nasty Racist Slurs
“We’ll make a pastrami sandwich out of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” ~ Ariel Sharon, 1973
“After the Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of St. Germain, the German people were not only bankrupted, they were thoroughly humiliated. The Jews thought they had outsmarted everyone and the world was now theirs. The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, wrote: ‘The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all to one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs.’
“Does that sound familiar? If not, it should. It is exactly what the leeches at Goldman Sachs and their butt boys in Congress and at the Federal Reserve are doing today. When these Palestinian hating, Jew loving morons in the US and UK whine about losing their jobs, homes and pensions, I suggest they go ask the Jew Master, Lloyd C. Blankfein, for help. To his credit, he only took a $67 million bonus a few months before the bailout of Goldman Sachs. Case in point:Bernard Madoff was able to steal billions of dollars simply because 93% of his victims were Jews, and knowing Jews as he did, he simply used their own greed against them.
“Do I hate all Jews? I most certainly do not. I admire Jews for their inherent ability to use the Christians in the US and UK, all their live long days, to wage wars against the Jew’s enemies and to secure, protect and maintain Israel while their own countries go deeper into debt, infrastructures crumble, and their healthcare and social security programs become unsustainable… ‘This year, the U.S. Congress approved $2.76 billion in its annual aid package for Israel. The total amount of direct U.S. aid to Israel has been constant, at around $3 billion–usually 60% military and 40% economic–per year for the last quarter century.’ ~ Matt Bowles is a member of SUSTAIN?Stop US Tax Funded Aid to Israel Now.
“While the Jews and their butt boys in Washington will not cut the billions of tax dollars going to Israel by fifty cents, they’ll fix it so that 50% of Main Street USA will never draw a penny of the Social Security they pay into the account… ‘Young Americans might not get full Social Security retirement benefits until they reach age 70 if some trial balloons that prominent lawmakers of both parties are floating become law.’ ~ McClatchy Newspapers 7/11/10
“Few Jews are as out spoken as Ariel Sharon was, but many agree with Sharon that God provided Christians as tools to be used to make Israel the supreme country in the entire world, thus fulfilling their God’s will as stated in Deuteronomy 7:6-8 (NIV). The way Christians, Hitler being the exception, freely give their children and money to Jews, logic dictates that this Jew, Sharon, was as smart as he was fat. Then there are the orthodox Jews. I consider them to be the pus in a boil and the stink in a fart.” ~ B. W. Miller
When the Jews rebelled against the occupying Romans, they knew full well what might be the consequences of their actions: exile followed by the eventual loss of their land.
After all, the peoples that later coalesced into the Jewish nation have conquered the territory that was to become the Land of Israel from its erstwhile inhabitants, committing multiple, divinely-sanctioned genocides in the process.
By choosing mutiny, have they, therefore, relinquished their right to Palestine?
Have they given up on Eretz Israel?
Have they disastrously gambled with their future and that of their off-spring – and lost?
And, if the answers to all these questions are in the affirmative, do the Palestinians possess this right now making them the rightful owners of this disputed Middle-Eastern patch?
Israel has annexed some of the territories it has conquered in the 1967 Six-Day War. It claims historical rights to big chunks of Jerusalem and the West Bank. It, therefore, regards and treats Palestinian militants as either insurgents or terrorists. This point of view is rejected by the international community. Why so?
Insurgents in International Law
Traditionally, the international community has been reluctant to treat civil strife the same way it does international armed conflict. No one thinks that encouraging an endless succession of tribal or ethnic secessions is a good idea. In their home territories, insurgents are initially invariably labeled as and treated by the “lawful” government as criminals or terrorists.
Paradoxically, though, the longer and more all-pervasive the conflict and the tighter the control of the rebels on people residing in the territories in which the insurgents habitually operate, the better their chances to acquire some international recognition and standing. Thus, international law actually eggs on rebels to prolong and escalate conflicts rather than resolve them peacefully.
By definition, insurgents are temporary, transient, or provisional international subjects. As Antonio Cassese puts it (in his tome, “International Law”, published by Oxford University Press in 2001):
“…(I)nsurgents are quelled by the government, and disappear; or they seize power, and install themselves in the place of the government; or they secede and join another State, or become a new international subject.”
In other words, being an intermediate phenomenon, rebels can never claim sovereign rights over territory. Sovereign states can contract with insurrectionary parties and demand that they afford protection and succor to foreigners within the territories affected by their activities. However, this is not a symmetrical relationship. The rebellious party cannot make any reciprocal demands on states. Still, once entered into, agreements can be enforced, using all lawful sanctions
Third party states are allowed to provide assistance – even of a military nature – to governments, but not to insurgents (with the exception of humanitarian aid). Not so when it comes to national liberation movements.
National Liberation Movements in International Law
According to the First Geneva Protocol of 1977 and subsequent conventions, what is the difference between a group of “freedom fighters” and a national liberation movement?
A National Liberation Movement represents a collective – nation, or people – in its fight to liberate itself from foreign or colonial domination or from an inequitable (for example: racist) regime. National Liberation Movements maintain an organizational structure although they may or may not be in control of a territory (many operate in exile) but they must aspire to gain domination of the land and the oppressed population thereon. They uphold the principle of self-determination and are, thus, instantaneously deemed to be internationally legitimate.
Though less important from the point of view of international law, the instant recognition by other States that follows the establishment of a National Liberation Movement has enormous practical consequences: States are allowed to extend help, including economic and military assistance (short of armed troops) and are “duty-bound to refrain from assisting a State denying self-determination to a people or a group entitled to it” (Cassesse).
As opposed to mere insurgents, National Liberation Movements can claim and assume the right to self-determination; the rights and obligations of ius in bello (the legal principles pertaining to the conduct of hostilities); the rights and obligations pertaining to treaty making; diplomatic immunity.
Yet, even National Liberation Movements are not allowed to act as sovereigns. For instance, they cannot dispose of land or natural resources within the disputed territory. In this case, though, the “lawful” government or colonial power are similarly barred from such dispositions.
Internal Armed Conflict in International Law
Rebels and insurgents are not lawful combatants (or belligerents). Rather, they are held to be simple criminals by their own State and by the majority of other States. They do not enjoy the status of prisoner of war when captured. Ironically, only the lawful government can upgrade the status of the insurrectionists from bandits to lawful combatants (“recognition of belligerency”).
How the government chooses to fight rebels and insurgents is, therefore, not regulated. As long as it refrains from intentionally harming civilians, it can do very much as it pleases.
But international law is in flux and, increasingly, civil strife is being “internationalized” and treated as a run-of-the-mill bilateral or even multilateral armed conflict. The doctrine of “human rights intervention” on behalf of an oppressed people has gained traction. Hence Operation Allied Force in Kosovo in 1999.
Moreover, if a civil war expands and engulfs third party States and if the insurgents are well-organized, both as an armed force and as a civilian administration of the territory being fought over, it is today commonly accepted that the conflict should be regarded and treated as international.
As the Second Geneva Protocol of 1977 makes crystal clear, mere uprisings or riots (such as in Macedonia, 2001) are still not covered by the international rules of war, except for the general principles related to non-combatants and their protection (for instance, through Article 3 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions) and customary law proscribing the use of chemical weapons, land and anti-personnel mines, booby traps, and such.
Both parties – the State and the insurrectionary group – are bound by these few rules. If they violate them, they may be committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Secession in International Law
The State of Israel has consistently mistreated its human charges in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. According to international law, this abuse gives them the right to secede, by force if need be.
Consider the case of Kosovo:
The new state of Kosovo has been immediately recognized by the USA, Germany, and other major European powers. The Canadian Supreme Court made clear in its ruling in the Quebec case in 1998 that the status of statehood is not conditioned upon such recognition, but that (p. 289):
“…(T)he viability of a would-be state in the international community depends, as a practical matter, upon recognition by other states.”
The constitutional law of some federal states provides for a mechanism of orderly secession. The constitutions of both the late USSR and SFRY (Yugoslavia, 1974) incorporated such provisions. In other cases – the USA, Canada, and the United Kingdom come to mind – the supreme echelons of the judicial system had to step in and rule regarding the right to secession, its procedures, and mechanisms.
Again, facts on the ground determine international legitimacy. As early as 1877, in the wake of the bloodiest secessionist war of all time, the American Civil War (1861-5), the Supreme Court of the USA wrote (in William vs. Bruffy):
“The validity of (the secessionists’) acts, both against the parent State and its citizens and subjects, depends entirely upon its ultimate success. If it fail (sic) to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it. If it succeed (sic), and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation.”
In “The Creation of States in International Law” (Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 2006), James Crawford suggests that there is no internationally recognized right to secede and that secession is a “legally neutral act”. Not so. As Aleksandar Pavkovic observes in his book (with contributions by Peter Radan), “Creating New States – Theory and Practice of Secession” (Ashgate, 2007), the universal legal right to self-determination encompasses the universal legal right to secede.
The Albanians in Kosovo are a “people” according to the Decisions of the Badinter Commission. But, though, they occupy a well-defined and demarcated territory, their land is within the borders of an existing State. In this strict sense, their unilateral secession does set a precedent: it goes against the territorial definition of a people as embedded in the United Nations Charter and subsequent Conventions.
Still, the general drift of international law (for instance, as interpreted by Canada’s Supreme Court) is to allow that a State can be composed of several “peoples” and that its cultural-ethnic constituents have a right to self-determination. This seems to uphold the 19th century concept of a homogenous nation-state over the French model (of a civil State of all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religious creed).
Pavkovic contends that, according to principle 5 of the United Nations’ General Assembly’s Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations, the right to territorial integrity overrides the right to self-determination.
Thus, if a State is made up of several “peoples”, its right to maintain itself intact and to avoid being dismembered or impaired is paramount and prevails over the right of its constituent peoples to secede. But, the right to territorial integrity is limited to States:
“(C)onducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples … and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed, or colour.”
The words “as to race, creed, or colour” in the text supra have been replaced with the words “of any kind” (in the 1995 Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations).
Yugoslavia under Milosevic failed this test in its treatment of the Albanian minority within its borders. They were relegated to second-class citizenship, derided, blatantly and discriminated against in every turn. Thus, according to principle 5, the Kosovars had a clear right to unilaterally secede.
As early as 1972, an International Commission of Jurists wrote in a report titled “The Events in East Pakistan, 1971″:
“(T)his principle (of territorial integrity) is subject to the requirement that the government does comply with the principle of equal rights and does represent the whole people without distinction. If one of the constituent peoples of a state is denied equal rights and is discriminated against … their full right of self-determination will revive.” (p. 46)
A quarter of a century later, Canada’s Supreme Court concurred (Quebec, 1998):
“(T)he international law right to self-determination only generates, at best, a right to external self-determination in situations … where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social, and cultural development.”
In his seminal tome, “Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Appraisal” (Cambridge University Press, 19950, Antonio Cassese neatly sums up this exception to the right to territorial integrity enjoyed by States:
“(W)hen the central authorities of a sovereign State persistently refuse to grant participatory rights to a religious or racial group, grossly and systematically trample upon their fundamental rights, and deny the possibility of reaching a peaceful settlement within the framework of the State structure … A racial or religious group may secede … once it is clear that all attempts to achieve internal self-determination have failed or are destined to fail.” (p. 119-120)
America can no longer continue to impose its will on the world community. Nor can it suppress Islamic fundamentalism or its spread by its military power alone. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism with its current ferocity is a problem for the Muslim populace as well. But they will be reluctant to join the fight with true conviction unless America is willing to change its attitude towards Muslims and correct its past mistakes. Unless America plays its cards right, the consequence of its military exercise in Afghanistan will be just as futile as the war in Vietnam.
By: Prof. Mahfuz Chowdhury America has often fought the wrong war, at the wrong time, and against the wrong people. The wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan would seem to fall into such categories. Although, apart from the human tragedy, the enormous economic fallout of the Vietnam War might be imagined, the full outcome of the Iraq war must be awaited as it is not over yet. However, the debate on the launch of the Afghan war has only begun and it would take many more years to assess the damage, assuming the war is not going to end anytime soon. This war is also affecting neighboring Pakistan and creating a great controversy in terms of its economic cost and more importantly about whether it is winnable. Opinions vary, but those who doubt that the war could be won seem to be gaining ground.
Here are some of their arguments. Afghanistan was such a sectarian and unmanageable country that super powers like the Soviets and earlier the British failed to control it. This country has not changed much since those days. The enemy that America is fighting in Afghanistan is elusive and the situation on the battleground itself is very erratic and unpredictable. The daily news of horrors such as the recent killings of the chief CIA operative including 6 other colleagues in Afghanistan, and the unprecedented and ever increasing human carnage in neighboring Pakistan should provide some important clues. In fact, the escalating conflict and mayhem in Pakistan, a nuclear country, is now adding to the genuine fear that its nuclear weapons are not safe in the hands of its government.
Is America’s goal to contain terrorism or to oppose organized Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan? If the fight is to contain fundamentalism, winning this war in Afghanistan alone is not likely to achieve it. The skeptics should only look at the unrelenting and vicious terrorist activities as well as the outright defiance that is spreading not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also in Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and many other countries, including America itself. (Notethe recent shooting rampage by an American army psychiatrist in Fort Hood, Texas, that claimed 13 lives plus many more injuries). Clearly, there are innumerable signs that the conflict is spreading. Indeed, after the failed 2009 Christmas Day bombing plot on a flight from Amsterdam, the U.S. government imposed intense screening of passengers at airports worldwide from 14 terror suspect nations. America had thought that it had found a willing partner in the Yemeni government that would support the deployment of American troops to fight the rising Islamic militants there. But it has been reported that the government of Yemen has rebuffed the idea for fear of losing popular support.
Religious fundamentalism is nothing new as it has been in existence since the birth of religion itself. The main theme of every religion was supposed to guide people to lead a noble life. Yet human society has experienced enormous oppression, suppression, violence, crime, brutality, fatality, and war in the name of religion. No religion is immune from the appeal of fundamentalism, and fundamentalist practices are still very much in existence, though subtly in some cases and violently in others. Without a doubt, Muslims have had their share of religious violence, and the present situation is no different. But to blame only Muslims for what is happening now would be morally wrong. How could one justify what Jews are doing to Muslims in the Middle East? Does not anyone see how Israel is provoking the Muslims?
Every heinous act of terrorism is a serious crime, and it must never be condoned under any circumstance, be it individual or collective. But, instead of looking or treating every terrorist act equally, if society condones or overlooks one and tries to punish the other, it only intensifies violence. This is precisely what seems to be the case with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
Islam is a world religion with a great following, and it certainly deserves respect. Yet the Muslim community always felt that they were being treated unjustly by the affluent west. The Arab-Israeli conflict has kept that feeling alive and very intense. The Muslims believe that the creation of Israel and the continued atrocities that are being perpetrated by Israel is nothing but a big conspiracy by the west to suppress them. They also believe that the Iraq and Afghan wars initiated by the United States are all part of the same conspiracy. And the religious fundamentalists are taking full advantage of public sentiment to create havoc and spread terrorism everywhere.
America claims itself to be the promoter of human rights and preaches self determination of all people. But it utterly fails to help the Palestinian cause. Why? The most difficult and painful situation for Muslims and other rational people, is to see and accept the sufferings of their fellow brethren in Palestine. The Muslims squarely blame America for the present tragedy because of its unequivocal support of Israel. After many years of armed struggle, the Palestinians have agreed to live peacefully with Israel in the internationally recognized pre 1967 border of Palestine. But Israel steadfastly refuses to compromise and continues to thumb its nose against world opinion by brutally suppressing the Palestinians, using American weaponry.
The best case for the Palestinians has probably been made by none other than the former U.S. President and a Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter, who argues in his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” that Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East. The Israeli blockade of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents for the past year?as a collective punishment, which has drawn many international condemnations including allegations of war crimes?is a glaring example of actions that openly provoke Muslims to resent America, which refuses to intervene and stop such Israeli atrocities.
There are other issues of contention for Muslims. America supports Saudi Arabia, an autocratic country with no democratic rights, while it refuses to recognize the democratically elected Palestinian representatives of Hamas in Gaza. By the way, America along with Israel once supported the Hamas in Gaza as a counter to the Fatah movement. On the other hand, many believe that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring fundamentalism by providing financial help to religious schools in Pakistan and other Muslim countries.
Additionally, America went to war in Iraq under false pretexts and different agendas, though it now claims that the purpose was to save the Iraqis from the brutality of Saddam Hussein. Muslims believe that the main purpose for invading Iraq was to protect America’s oil supply. And they have plenty of facts to justify their claim that America is driven by its economic greed. They look at the situation in Darfur, Congo, Myanmar and other countries where America failed to prevent atrocities or promote democratic rights.
Muslims even question the American policy of allowing Israel to hide its nuclear weapons and maintaining its own nuclear stockpile, while it rallies its western allies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Ironically, America’s success against Iran would depend entirely on the co-operation of China and Russia, which might not be forthcoming as they too have their own world agendas to pursue.
The above exemplifies the ways that America has alienated Muslims over the years. Now the new generation of educated Muslims is getting impatient with American prejudices, and is effectively using the internet to communicate with and receive feedback from each other. The fundamentalists are successfully indoctrinating these young people to resort to violent tactics in the name of “Jihad“, a religious word for martyrdom. America and the rest of the world have already witnessed some of their brutal suicidal acts during and since 9/11. If the core issues are not addressed, even if America wins the war in Afghanistan, it might not dampen the spirit of young Muslims around the world to pursue their resistance. American suppression is likely to embolden the fundamentalists to embrace new or more dangerous tactics of terrorism. Violence begets violence, and it would be impossible for America to monitor, invade, occupy or control every Muslim militant country in the world.
Although it is the sole remaining super power, America seems to be losing its grip on its economic power. The country has yet to recover from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent, the federal debt has already surpassed $7.5 trillion, and the federal budget deficit was $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009. There are other emerging economic powers now, who are preparing to compete and check American hegemony in the world. In fact, America can no longer continue to impose its will on the world community. Nor can it suppress Islamic fundamentalism or its spread by its military power alone. It clearly needs to reassess its overall foreign policies if it wishes to rein in the fundamentalists and remain an important international player.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism with its current ferocity is a problem for the Muslim populace as well. But they will be reluctant to join the fight with true conviction unless America is willing to change its attitude towards Muslims and correct its past mistakes. A speedy and just settlement of the Palestinian crisis would be a good start. It should then be followed by a quick withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and a winding down of the Afghan war as fast as possible. Unless America plays its cards right, the consequence of its military exercise in Afghanistan will be just as futile as the war in Vietnam.
About The Author: Professor Mahfuz R. Chowdhury teaches Economics at C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, New York, USA.
He has published articles on various issues of Bangladesh and other economic issues, which are posted on numerous web sites. He has wide ranging experience in international business and commerce, and has written on failure of communism & problem with developing countries.
Columnist – John Sammon Three of the major, tubby, fat-faced-jowly, chubby white boys who serve as right-wing racist talk show hosts on Fox News, and the Fox News blonde she-male, if asked to rank their least favorite people, with the most despised starting at the top, would rank them as follows.
The names used here are the same slang names the tubby, fat-faced-jowly, chubby white boys who serve as right-wing racist talk show hosts on Fox News, and the Fox News blonde she-male, would themselves use once the mike is turned off.
Fox stands for Fear Others Xenophobically.
Here’s the list. No surprise to some of the rankings.
1. Niggers, coons, jungle bunnies (African Americans). All three Fox newscasters, and the Fox News blond she-male, secretly wish black people were back in fields picking cotton like in the good old days. Also, as a general rule, the greater the number of racist epithets (slurs) assigned to a people, the more they are hated, and the more they can be justifiably proud for being hated by the goons at Fox.
2. The Fox racists also despise those whom they think of as:
3. Spicks (Mexicans, also known as beaners, wet-backs or greasers).
4. Gooks.
5. Chinks.
6. Zips (Koreans).
7. Hajis (Iraqis).
8. Muzzies (Muslims).
9. A-Rabs (also known as rag-heads, sand niggers, or camel jockeys).
10.Editors’ Note: Remember, none of the chubby Fox News broadcasters thought enough of their country to serve in the military, not one. They let other young men their age serve while they learned their vile craft safe from harm at the college campus radio station.
11. Wops (Italians, also known as I-ties, garlic eaters or Dagos).
12. Kikes, Hebes (Jews). Jews advanced down a notch from #9 to #12, in other words being slightly less hated in the opinion of Fox News, because they kicked ass on the A-Rabs.
13. Frog Connucks (French Canadians).
14. Frogs (French).
15. Bohunks (Eastern Europeans).
16. Polacks (Polish. Another racist epithet is to go up to a Polack and ask, “How’s the bowling team?“).
17. Limeys (British). The presence of the Brits so high up the list is due to the Fox News blonde she-male and her opinion that Prince Charles and the Beatles were five English faggots.
18. Japs or Nips (Japanese).
19. Faggots (all persuasions, also called queers or limp-wrists).
20. Socialists (liberals).
21. Papists or mackerel snappers (Catholics).
22. Micks (Irish. Hannity and O’Reilly disagreed with this one).
23. Towel-heads, wogs or Sabu, for Sabu the Elephant Boy (East Indians).
24. Injuns or Redskins (Native Americans).
25. Congo Lisa (the name they secretly assigned Condoleezza Rice even though she is a conservative).
26. Uncle Tom (Michael Steele).
27. Tree huggers (conservationists).
28. Krauts (Germans. Beck and Coulter disagreed with this ranking).
29.Editor’s Note: All three major, tubby, fat-faced-jowly, chubby white boys who serve as right-wing racist talk show hosts on Fox News, and the Fox News blonde she-male, strongly and angrily disagreed that they are cracker honkies (white men).
America has often fought the wrong war, at the wrong time, and against the wrong people. The wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan would seem to fall into such categories. Although, apart from the human tragedy, the enormous economic fallout of the Vietnam War might be imagined, the full outcome of the Iraq war must be awaited as it is not over yet. However, the debate on the launch of the Afghan war has only begun and it would take many more years to assess the damage, assuming the war is not going to end anytime soon. This war is also affecting neighboring Pakistan and creating a great controversy in terms of its economic cost and more importantly about whether it is winnable. Opinions vary, but those who doubt that the war could be won seem to be gaining ground.
About The Author: Professor Mahfuz R. Chowdhury teaches Economics at C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, New York, USA.
