McCain joke: Kill Iranians with ciggies

McCain joke: Kill Iranians with ciggies

www.news.com.au

US Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who once sang in jest about bombing Iran, today reacted to a report of rising US cigarette exports to the country by saying it may be "a way of killing 'em".

A rise in cigarette sales was a big part of that, according to an Associated Press analysis of seven years of US trade figures.

"Maybe that's a way of killing 'em," Senator McCain said to reporters during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh.

(visit the link for the full news article)

A-huh. Another quality candidate for a position of power and importance.

Sure, I can take a joke. However, there's a time and place for a joke.

With the world on a knife-edge, why would he want to joke about killing Iranians?

These peope are beyond human understanding and reasoning.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

Ha - ha - ha - ha. That McCain is a real card, isn't he?

I endorse his proposal as long as he personally delivers the cigarettes to Iran with no security.

McCain - a true bastion of leadership and inspiration personified.

Based on this, he will be the next President no problem.

Breifne

Hey, he is crackers as an improv comedian!

But, wait, he's running for POTUS!

He's enough to make me get religion. "Dear God, please don't let us have another George Bush. What did America do to deserve these plagues they've caused? What, God, we voted for them? So you had nothing to do with this. It's all our fault. And we can take matters into our own hands and vote them out. Sweet. Amen."

he's quite the comedian of questionable material

This goes right in with his joke about beating his wife when he responded to a question with

"yeah....and i stopped beating my wife yesterday"



......yeah....real funny McCain. Leave the improv to Wayne Brady, and go back to one of your mansions :shk:

[edit on 7/8/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

I despise the fact that he has such a low regard for human beings. Oh lets just go kill more nnocent people.

Why do people go along with this?

reply to post by theendisnear69


It's all about money
and especially power.

I thought the same thing. McCain really has a quick wit.

The real story here is not that we now have some stupid, meaningless reason to bash McCain, it is that the US is still doing all we can to support the people of Iran while doing our best to get the government to go along.

Even throughout the Iraq war in which the Iranian fruitcake government is training insurgents and doing their best to build nuclear weapons and threatening to blow the US and Israel off the map, we are doing our best to provide the oppressed Iranian people with the basic necessities of life.

Some might argue that cigarettes are not a necessity of life, but smoking is viewed completely differently in other countries.

As you know, there are exceptions to our sanctions on Iran for certain categories of goods, primarily agricultural and medical exports, trade sanctions, reform and enhancement -- excuse me. The Trade, Sanctions, Reform, and Export Enhancement Act, adopted by Congress in 2000, was specifically intended to demonstrate that our policy targets the bad behavior of regimes, not innocent populations.

... Our goal here has been to provide agricultural and medical products as well as other humanitarian goods and services that are useful to the Iranian people, because our quarrel is not with the Iranian people; our quarrel is with the Iranian government that continues to proceed down this path.

I understand that these exports have increased. However, we believe that they are increasing to a segment of the population that we want to reach out to, we want to know and understand that the U.S. government -- the U.S. people want to be friends with them, want to work with them to integrate them into the world economy and become partners in the future.

blogs.usatoday.com...

This is really the "Breaking News," not McCain's off the cuff remark, which is probably what everybody thought when they read this news, anyway.

All those who think that America is evil, let them notice the remarks quoted above and how much effort the US is making to avoid war with Iran.

Iranian youth are becoming increasingly pro-Western and more hostile to their oppressive theocratic government, as dangerous as that might be.

By tightening and relaxing sanctions against Iran according to government action helps to put pressure on the public to resist their oppression.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
but smoking is viewed completely differently in other countries.

Is lung cancer viewed differently over there as well?

This man is a complete fool.I mean really...something is not quite right with this guy.As much as I respect his service to this country and what he has gone through in Nam...hes not fit to be the president.You can be a "war hero" and a fool at the same time.

I'm all for the trade with Iran. That trade probably would be news to most Americans, as trade issues are better known re Cuba, and that country is not one of the Axis of Evil.
However, to joke about killing Iranians is no joke, for two reasons. One, killing is not a good thing. Two, what could be reported to the Iranian people, "Presidential Candidate Thinks Iranians Should Be Killed"?

In another day and time, this would be merely a sick joke. In today's day and time, it could be deadly, to Americans.

OTOH, if he is serious about an ultimate effect of smoking, then I applaud him for bringing his anti-smoking stance to the table. Maybe he truly was concerned about Iranians, that, since smoking kills, it is appalling that we would be doing something like this. I don't believe he meant it like this, however.

When I see him on television his eyes don't open bilaterally. His right is usually squinted a bit.
I really have to wonder after this latest 'jest', if he is not organically damaged.
The man is not right.

Originally posted by jpm1602
When I see him on television his eyes don't open bilaterally. His right is usually squinted a bit.
I really have to wonder after this latest 'jest', if he is not organically damaged.
The man is not right.

Real classy. He suffered major facial muscle & nerve injuries thanks to daily beatings while in a POW camp. Regardless of the man's political shortcomings, I think it's in pretty poor taste to judge him based on injuries he sustained defending your right to sit in Ohio and take verbal jabs at him. What's next, questioning his sincerety because he doesn't raise his arms any higher than his chest to wave to people?

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
I think it's in pretty poor taste to judge him based on injuries he sustained defending your right to sit in Ohio and take verbal jabs at him.

Remind me again what threat the Vietnamese army posed to invading the USA and taking away the rights of people to comfortably live today?

No, he wasn't defending anyone's right to be safe and sound on their homeland. He, like many others, were pawns in a political pissing contest.

reply to post by tezzajw


Sometimes I wish the Manchurian Candidate would lose his voice and never regain it.

(But I am of the opinion that his opponent is every bit as much of a disaster for different reasons.)

The Manchurian Candidate is so woefully ill-equipped for the world stage that he really is a sort of George Bush III. George HW Bush couldn't give a convincing speech if his life depended upon it. George W. Bush, well, we're not sure it can be called "speech", and McCain's speech shows he's just an @$$ho!e.

reply to post by tezzajw


Every soldier in the US service ranks who performs his duties honorably defends the American Constitution and the people's rights. The actual duty they are performing is insignificant. The grunt that cleans the latrines in boot camp is serving his country and defending liberty simply by doing his part and being there to serve. By your logic, this nation didn't have a single serviceman defending liberty and the Constitution since WWII and Afghanistan as no war was fought during that span that directly protected the US from an attack on our home soil.

Our troops aren't the ones that decide where they go or who they fight, but the fact that they decide to be there available to fight if called upon is a defense of your rights, my rights, and every American's rights. I'd also submit the fact that McCain refused offers of release because he felt he owed the other Americans imprisoned alongside him more than just taking a release by himself based on family ties.

What I said stands.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

Nice speech, burdman30ott6. I wish you could hear the sound of my one hand clapping.

Maybe you could be McCain's spin doctor and convince us all how he's the best man for the job and that the USA really really needed to be in Vietnam to protect the rights of US civillians.

Sure...

What I typed still stands.

Whether serious or just an off the cuff joke, theres a time and a place for jokes like this. Clearly this was'nt the time. McCain would come down on Obama like a ton of bricks for a comment like this, so as long as he does'nt mind the same response then thats fine.

What annoys me is the blanket statement of "kill em all" when talking about the Iranians, as though every last one of them in Iran is bad.

Kind of like a lot of the world hating US citizens due to what the Bush administration gets up to.

Not fair really is it?

CX.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Remind me again what threat the Vietnamese army posed to invading the USA and taking away the rights of people to comfortably live today?

No, he wasn't defending anyone's right to be safe and sound on their homeland. He, like many others, were pawns in a political pissing contest.

I'll remind you.

You could do about thirty minutes of research and learn this, but you'd probably get distracted by all the lies, which apparently you've already fallen prey to.

The US, South Vietnam, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and France comprised the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, a group that agreed on terms of mutual protection, viewing any attack on a member nation as an attack on all member nations. Not surprisingly, France decided to not participate, except to offer accommodations for the idiotic Paris Peace talks, where delegates argued endlessly over the shape of the table.

But I digress. Ever since the end of WWII, the US and the free world was in an ongoing struggle to quash the global expansion of Communism. There were many hot fronts in the so-called Cold War in nations that served as proxies for the Chinese and the Soviet Union, who strangely enough had plenty of conflicts between themselves.

There was the war in Korea pitting the Communist north against the Democratic south that eventually the Chinese entered in support of the communist North Koreans. This development resulted in one of the most deadly and vicious battles in all of history at the Chosin Reservoir. You can Google it and all the actions which will be named here. North Korea still remains a threat to world peace and the war has never been declared over. It remains a stalemate.

Then there were the Communist efforts in South and Latin America, which continue in some form to this day. Cuba fell. War raged in Nicaragua. Venezuela is run by a Communist dictator. Colombia is ravaged by Marxist guerrillas who fuel the drug trade and profit from kidnapping mostly American tourists.

Africa was also the site of several hot wars in which communists sought to gain a foothold. The war in Angola comes to mind. The African National Congress of South Africa was a communist organization fueled by the Soviet Union. There was the war in Rhodesia. There are more I'm sure.

There were other proxy wars around the globe that were called civil wars when in fact they were wars for Communist world domination. The Spanish Civil war was fueled by Communists as was the Greek Civil War. There was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And of course we cannot forget Vietnam Cambodia and Laos.

So, it is not particularly hard to understand that the Cold War was really WW-III, fought between Communist nations and the free world in the form of probably a dozen proxy wars around the globe.

The global expansion of Communism was a direct threat to the United States and our freedom and direct war between the US and the Soviets might well have occurred if it hadn't have been for the policy of "mutually-assured destruction."

As stated before, what drew the US into the war in Vietnam was a treaty that obligated member nations to come to the aid of the South Vietnamese. You may not know it, but the Australians, the New Zealanders, and the South Koreans were all involved in combat operations in Vietnam to one extent or the other.

It was also feared that the fall of South Vietnam would lead to a "domino effect" that would take down Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, among others.

So, even to the casual, but objective observer, the US had quite a lot at stake in Vietnam. Vietnam was the US stand against the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia and a show of force to the Communist giants, the Soviet Union and China.

The American military fought gallantly in Vietnam and had by 1969 or 1970 put the North Vietnamese on their backs.

Why did the war last so much longer? Well, mainly because we had so many enemy sympathizers in the US and especially in the academy, where self-centered, hedonistic college students were easy prey for professors who preached their message of Marxism in their classrooms, even if the class was math or English. Literature books were even full of Marxist and pacifist propaganda.

Well, I think almost everyone knows the rest of the story.

Despite a military victory on the ground in South Vietnam, brainwashed American kids turned the our streets and campuses into battlegrounds and eventually the will of the American people was broken and America fell to the enemy and began to vilify the young men they had sent to war. The once who loyally answered the call and fought in a foreign land to preserve the freedom of people they did not know and would probably never see again.

The left doesn't talk about the truth of the aftermath of the war. They forget that they forced a withdrawal of combat troops in 1973 and that it would be another two years before the North Vietnamese gained enough strength to successfully invade the South and overtake Saigon.

The result of that was the murder of millions of Southeast Asians in the carnage that followed and the suffering caused by the massive boat lift of Vietnamese trying their best to escape certain death by the Communists. Millions died in Cambodia by Communist leader Pol Pot, who like Mao murdered people simply for having an education.

Naturally, the US did not fall because of our capitulation in Vietnam and many feel that just because we did not fall that Vietnam was a waste, or unnecessary, or that it had nothing at all to do with our freedom at home.

The reality is that our stand against the Communists in Vietnam was a huge drain on Communism globally and to some extent their cause was damaged even though it would be nearly two decades before the Soviet Union would fall, taking a lot of wind out of the global expansion agenda.

But, don't relax too much because the threat is not over. We still have Marxists aplenty in the US and very many of them are poisoning the minds of the youth who can quote Marx, but consider the Founders to be dead white men.

It is really only a willfully obtuse and selfish person who would support the cause of the enemies of America during a time of war. That's about as nice as I can put it.

But that is what happened then and it is what is happening now with the war on Islamist terrorism.

The propaganda includes calling our warriors murderers, claiming that 9/11 was an inside job and denigrating our president at every turn and even the Republican nominee because he wants America to defeat terrorism, too.

Just like with Vietnam, a large portion of the American people are actively supporting the enemy and eventually, these lunatics will support an enemy that is capable of bringing America to its knees.

For all those who are still claiming that the war in Vietnam was immoral, illegal and unnecessary should really give it a rest. That war is over and you're not going the be called to fight it no matter what. The lies have served their purpose.

Excerpts from an interview with Col. Bui Tin, NVA.

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.

Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

...

Q: What about the results [of Tet '68]?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

www.viet-myths.net...

[edit on 2008/7/9 by GradyPhilpott]