[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Again, make that point as you just did, and nobody will fault you - it is just a debate going forward.
But notice that you are debating McCain’s whole statement now. That is something Democrats do not want to do - they want to harp on the “hundred years” comment to whip up the crowds (like you guys) and provide no context at all.
Include all of what McCain said and he becomes much harder to refute - and you can’t do it in a soundbite or some red meat in a fundraising appeal.
[/QUOTE]
OK, include all of what McCain said - and what’s at the link in your next post isn’t it. It’s another sound bite that calls itself a fact check.
The ‘context’ is that McCain supposedly wants us to stay in a peaceful Iraq forever. Yeah well, we’d all like a pony. But in order to stay in a peaceful Iraq for 100 years, it’s got to be peaceful first. And it’s not at present, right?
Has McCain put any upper limit on how long he’d be willing to leave our troops in Iraq while waiting for Iraq to become peaceful, how many dead and wounded would make the point that that job was beyond our abilities? No, he hasn’t. He only says he wants our troops to stay, period.
That’s the context - all of it.
Sure looks like the Forever War to me. Feel free to explain how that’s wrong.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
McCain was petulant and stupid in his bravado of committing America to being in Iraq for 100, 1000, or 10,000 years. I know it sucks to eat a shit sandwich, but damn, Mr. Moto, you’re just gonna have to belly up to the bar. Boo fucking hoo.
[/QUOTE]
Methinks that the Repubs are going so berserk over any mention of McCain’s “100 years in Iraq” comment because they fully realize what a stupid, election-losing thing it was for him to say. Therefore, they are trying to browbeat the Democrats to stop referring to it by screaming “liar” every time someone brings it up, even tangentially.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
So she was telling the truth. He said he’d be ok with leaving four generations of troops in Iraq. The qualification of “as long as they’re not being harmed,”** does not get him out of the box because, if there isn’t any danger then *why would they have to be there?[/**i]
It’s also disingenuous because the troops are being harmed and his suggestion is that we should stay there no matter what. I’ve never heard him say we should leave under any circumstances.
She didn’t lie and the Republicans acted like fucking babies. It’s going to be a pleasure to take this country away from the neocons and see President Obama put an end to that abortion in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
That is one of the most naive things you have ever said, and I read and respect your opinions quite a bit.
Are the soldiers manning the DMZ between north and south Korea being harmed? What about the soldiers in bases within the European NATO network? Japan?
I honestly believe that that was what McCain was talking about, even if he is old and inable to properly articulate his position (which I also do not think is true).
People always want to jump on something that they perceive as a weakness or when someone speaks with candor, even to their detriment.
The liberals wuold do well to remember their own shortcomings and why they weren’t elected the last ime around, giving nothing to the GWB admin, of course.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
People always want to jump on something that they perceive as a weakness or when someone speaks with candor, even to their detriment.
[/QUOTE]
People are good and goddamn tired of having to do mental gymnastics in order to make any sort of decent sense out of what presidents and candidates for president say to us.
If McCain can’t do straight talk, he should get off the bus. We’ve had far too much tortured rationalizing from Washington these past eight years to have any need of any more.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
That is one of the most naive things you have ever said, and I read and respect your opinions quite a bit.
Are the soldiers manning the DMZ between north and south Korea being harmed? What about the soldiers in bases within the European NATO network? Japan?
I honestly believe that that was what McCain was talking about, even if he is old and inable to properly articulate his position (which I also do not think is true).
People always want to jump on something that they perceive as a weakness or when someone speaks with candor, even to their detriment.
The liberals wuold do well to remember their own shortcomings and why they weren’t elected the last ime around, giving nothing to the GWB admin, of course.
[/QUOTE]
I know that’s the analogy McCain tried to draw but it doesn’t fly for multiple reasons. For one thing, we would have no reason to stay in Iraq if there were no hostilities. What would be the point. The mission would be accomplished, so why would we still be there?
For another thing (and more importantly), there is no way to get to that peaceful scenario of his without first going through an indeterminate period violence and McCain has not set a limit on how many people he’s willing to lose to get there or how many years he’s willing to stay without peace. His answer amounted to an admission that he will never be willing to leave no matter what. Unless and until he clarifies his answer to say that he would pull troops out if they are still in danger, then 100 years of violence is exactly what he’s saying he’s on board for.
[QUOTE=Nancarrow]
Neither in WWII nor in Vietnam was anything approaching even a single generation sacrificed. (By Americans. By the people they were fighting… closer)
PRECISION, people! Chrissakes. What the hell is this board, a sodding Youtube clip commentary? FUCK. :mad: :mad:
[/QUOTE]
Well, speaking precisely, two generations of my family served in the US Army during Vietnam. But, we didn’t get killed, so I guess that means no sacrifice, right?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I know that’s the analogy McCain tried to draw but it doesn’t fly for multiple reasons. For one thing, we would have no reason to stay in Iraq if there were no hostilities. What would be the point. The mission would be accomplished, so why would we still be there?
[/QUOTE]
So, why do we have troops stationed in Japan? Why did we have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia for more than 10 years after the Gulf War? In neither of those cases are/were our troops there to prevent internal conflicts from happening. The M.E. is a dangerous place, and the US likes to have a presence there. If we have a friendly government willing to allow our troops a place to stay, we will accept it. This has been done by Democrats and Republicans ever since WWII.
n.b.: Not saying I agree with that policy, just explaining it.
[QUOTE=Nancarrow] Mr. Moto, if you parse the statement logically, BG is perfectly right that there is no lie there. You would do your side more credit if you acknowledged the difference between a lie and a misdirection.
And you, BrainGlutton (and Dio) would do your side more credit if you acknowledged that there was a pretty nasty misdirection there.
Consider this statement, assuming for the sake of argument that Bush likes waffles and McCain likes pancakes: “The president wants waffles served in all Federal buildings, and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could open pancake stalls in the Capitol. But Madam Speaker, history will not judge us kindly if we spend the next century shouting ‘Heil Hitler’ whilst clubbing newborn babes to death with steel-tipped kittens”.
All three propositions in that quote are perfectly true (ok, two perhaps only arguendo). But there is a rhetorical implication from the first sentence to the second, that is not logically justified, and is… rather mean.
Hey I can see what a bloodbath Iraq is, that doesn’t mean a military presence there for a century would even come close to sacrificing four generations.
Neither in WWII nor in Vietnam was anything approaching even a single generation sacrificed. (By Americans. By the people they were fighting… closer)
[/QUOTE]
That is not misdirection, it is hyperbole. What Speier means – very, very obviously :rolleyes: – is that Americans of the next four generations will die in Iraq if the occupation continues that long. You may not agree, but there is nothing dishonest about the way she put the point; it is an entirely commonplace and transparent-in-the-good-way rhetorical device. And it does follow clearly and logically from the matter of the previous sentence. Unlike your utter nonsequitur with the steel-tipped kittens.
[QUOTE=friedo]
I’ve always thought the House of Representatives should be more like the parliaments of other countries, where the members are constantly booing, grunting loudly, shouting over one another, chugging beer, and occasionally engaging in brawls.
[/QUOTE]
In this corner, JOHN McNasty McCain! In this corner the challenger Rick Renzi!!!
Again, that article fails to place those casualties in any sort of context. Were casualty rates higher in the past or lower? Were there any major offensives that would tend to create them? Soldiers tend to get hurt and killed more when they fight more, which seems commonsensical on the face of it - but the media seldom spells out what they were doing when they were killed.
So no - they’re not paying attention very closely.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There’s no justification for any of them being killed, so no context is relevant.
[/QUOTE]
Well, as McCain says in the 100 years exchange, as quoted in the New Yorker piece I cited above, he cannot give an estimate of the acceptable ratio of soldiers’ deaths per day four years from now in Iraq, so context must be relevant, right? Apparently something more than 0 could be acceptable to him.
Why is this douchebag given a shred of credence regarding foreign policy? You do know that he was still fucking up the question of whether Al Queda is Shia or Sunni well after your pit thread about him, right?
Hopefully, at some point (maybe during the debates) someone will ask McCain staright up how long he’s willing to stay in Iraq while Americans are being killed. My prediction is that he’ll say setting a timeline encourages the terrorists.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Hopefully, at some point (maybe during the debates) someone will ask McCain staright up how long he’s willing to stay in Iraq while Americans are being killed. My prediction is that he’ll say setting a timeline encourages the terrorists.
[/QUOTE]
People stopped being killed in Korea and around Japan because cease fires and treaties were signed. If we try to do that in Iraq, we’re negotiating with terrorists, and that’s a no-no. (Unless we pay them off and arm them, that is.) So, if people are still dying, will we leave? No, just as you said. So, a miracle must happen, and all the insurgents must suddenly wake up and realize the benefits of our kind of democracy (and no doubt convert to Christianity while they’re at it.)
BTW, imagine the fits our friend would be having if the Democrats walked out. If one party walked out whenever the someone from the other party told a lie (not that this was one) there would never be a quorum.