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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.