flavio said:
I never quite get the conservatives=love war, commies=love peace thing.
Sorry... if you want detailed political arguments with subtle nuances you have to go to the Real World forum (yeah, right), this is the Entertainment forum. The question to ask here isn't whether it's an accurate depiction of reality, but whether it's funny.
I was laughing the whole time I wrote it (and yes, Hex, I laughed when I posted it too), so
I obviously find it rather amusing. That's good enough, right?
On the other hand, since it's an original work of art, perhaps I should have posted it in the Creative Arts forum... If I had, and you had asked me why I used 'commie' in the title, I would have explained that it was intended both as an analogy, and as a means of generating controversy about the poem. The analogy is between the peacniks who opposed taking a hard line against communism, and those who oppose a war in the middle east against islamicists.
For decades we had people in the US who supported the communists in Russia and China. They went on show tours through the Russian countryside while Stalin was deliberately starving the Ukraine into submission, then came back to the states and said, "famine? I see no famine." They praised the new communist state while Stalin deliberately slaughtered 14.5 million people. When the truth began to be published over here about what was going on, they called the truth-tellers liars while supporting efforts to export food aid to Russia. When Papa Joe made a pact with Hitler to carve up Poland, they made excuses for him. Then when Hitler turned on his ally and rolled into Russia, they said we had to ally ourselves with one bloody dictator in order to defeat the other one. Whatever happened, Russia acould not fall! After the war, when Russia began swallowing up small countries in Eastern Europe and actively supporting the spread of communism across the globe, these people continued to argue against direct confrontation. Some of them made certain that Russia had the latest in atomic weaponry, so that we didn't "dare" try to oppose them. We couldn't use our nukes first, because that would be violating the "peace", and we couldn't do anything that would risk open war with them because they might attack us first. Still, we stopped the Chinese communists in Korea, but when Vietnam came along, that's when the howls for peace intensified, that's when the Peace Movement came into its own. "Make love, not war!" "No more nukes!" All we had to do was unilaterally renounce war, disarm ourselves and there would be peace in the world. Was there peace in Russia? No, their government was making war upon them every day. Was there peace in Eastern Europe? No, they were suffering under the heel of puppet dictatorships installed by the Russians. Was there peace in Cambodia? Anglola? Ethiopia? Cuba? Nicaragua? Nope. Everywhere the Russians went they brought bloody dictatorships that made war on the people. But this was the peace that the communist sympathizers wanted, the peace of a peasant with a boot on his back. Why did they support communism? Did it ever in the long bloody years of its history create a happy life for anyone who lived under it? No! So what purpose did it serve? Its purpose was that it was anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-individualist, and consequently, anti-American. For people who hate those values, it provided an intellectual justification for opposing them, and it provided a tool for their destruction. What would replace those values when they were destroyed? Well, we saw what replaced them...
So, by analogy my title compares today's multi-culturalist peaceniks to yesterday's communist peaceniks. In the islamic world we have the most virulent combination of theocracy and patriarchy, things that the leftists claim to hate. One would think that the overthrow of such oppression would be high on their agenda, but they hedge on any criticism and continue to yell for peace. Why? Because their ideology isn't meant to be a tool for the assertion of American values of freedom-- it's meant to be a tool for the destruction of American values. It's not meant to oppose
real oppression, it's meant to oppose imaginary oppression as a means of establishing its
own real oppression. Women in Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't allowed to drive, or vote, or walk the street without an escort? So what? They don't care about that, they want legislation to forcibly end the male dominance of executive positions in US corporations. Throw the bastards in jail if they won't hire more women for their board rooms. The Iranians want to execute one of their war heroes because he suggested that muslims should be allowed to interpret the Koran for themselves? So what? We can't be bothered with that, we've got to get those Republican theocrats out of office before they enact a voucher program that allows people to get back their education tax dollars and send their kids to religious schools that won't indoctrinate them in socialist and environmentalist issues. (The children are their future, if they can get to them early enough.) So let's fight all this oppression at home, and not worry about those people overseas who want to blow us up. For god's sake, let's don't start a war aimed at regime change because it's certain to end in failure-- just like it did in Germany and Japan, where two native cultures were completely extinguished. (It's taken 50 years to restore Germany to its Weimar state, and the Japanese may never recover from their obsession with capitalism.)
So anyway... that explains my use of 'commie' in the title. Any other questions about my work of art?
it actually made me laugh 
This was a joke song? 
I thought he was being serious. 
