More satisfying for him, maybe. Probably not for his partner, unless he wears a ball gag.
John McCain has always been the “US should be the world’s policeman” guy. While we can certainly disagree on whether that’s a good idea, it’s pretty rich to hear Democrats criticizing him for basically endorsing what Democrats have been doing under two straight administrations and calling for more of it. Sure, GWB started a very ill advised war. That was a very bad thing. But Democrats have started more wars in the last two administrations, bombed more countries, intervened in more places. Is this a good policy or a bad policy? If Democrats’ support for Clinton is any indication, the Democratic base endorses the US policing the world wholeheartedly.
Geez, that first one should come with a warning.
Oh, I’ve just gotta have a cite for this.
And let me be sure I understand your claim. Are you saying that the Democrats, during 16 years under Clinton and Obama, intervened in more places than George W. Bush did in 8 years?
I remember him chuckling, something like: “how’d that song go? Bomb bomb bomb, bombbomb Iran”, and was really pleased to see Obama throw it back at him.
Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Syria, Yemen, just off the top of my head. What’ve you got for GWB?
And do you support such interventions?
Did we stay in any of those places permanently? Start a huge war? Or, were they actual police actions?
So your issue is with tactics, not with intervening around the world?
McCain has not called for occupation of any nations. There’s no particular evidence that he wants anything different than Clinton wants.
No, it is different. He wants to go after large nations with strong militaries and hostile intent. That is not the same as having a squad of Rangers go out and shoot at some tribal warlords.
McCain wants ground troops. Clinton doesn’t. That the actual difference, and it’s a big one.
Now, personally, I’m more non-interventionist then either of those two, but if I have to choose between them, I’ll take Hillary. Not because I like her so much, but because I thinks she’ll do less damage than any of the Republicans.
So the US should only pick on countries that can’t fight back effectively?
McCain wants ground troops in Syria, the generals want ground troops in Syria. You know why? Because air strikes will not defeat ISIS.
Now I realize you’re fairly non-interventionist, but if we are going to fight, should we fight to win or not? And once a war is started(and the ISIS fight is clearly a real war), should we accept defeat as an option?
Then let a coalition of forces, headed by other countries make the attack. The US can lend support. But we do not need to get in the middle of another large war.
Property of Arkham Asylum?
I think that’s a very reasonable position to take. But if we do get involved, the tactics should be dictated by what it takes to succeed, not by political expediency.
The point I was making is that McCain and Clinton differ only on tactics and how many places to intervene. Both are big supporters of violent intervention in other countries. McCain might be “worse” in that he doesn’t want the US to just be a bully, but to actually sacrifice to right wrongs. That would lead to more costly interventions than what the Democrats want. The reason I don’t think McCain deserves a pitting is because the Democrats have a central conceit that makes their policy worse: it assumes that they can control a war and limit its consequences. We’ll do some air strikes and we’ll win! No Americans get hurt! Which is a policy that works until it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t, you have a really huge Iraq-fuckup level problem on your hands. Which we’re seeing with ISIS.
Dude, I don’t know what the fuck point you’re making; that interventions in Haiti, Libya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Syria, and Yemen are worse (by quantity) than Iraq and Afghanistan, that Democrats are as bad as Republicans because they do it more, that McCain is better than Hillary because he wants to do it more, that trying to limit casualties is a bad idea because it only works sometimes, and Democrats are to blame for Iraq.
Did I miss anything?
That we should only intervene in countries that can fight back effectively.
Gotta love the part about how GeeDubya just started that one little war, and everybody is making such a big deal out of it. And this:
Well, yeah! Policing the world just isn’t something to be done in lackadaisical fashion, it requires some real commitment!
As far as not picking fights with somebody militarily weaker, that’s pretty much everybody. Thermonuclear weapons and the means to deliver them is a stick so damn big you don’t have to carry it, everybody knows its there. And we’ve done rather a brisk business in our history, mugging other countries and taking their stuff.
By the by, how’s that Grenada Memorial coming along?
Yeah, the fact that when you fight a war you can’t always control it. And if you do fight a war, you have to win it. McCain understands that. Obama does not. Clinton, who knows?
It’s also interesting that McCain is being slammed for calling for what the generals advise in Syria, while Bush was slammed for not listening to the generals on Iraq. Makes you wonder if Democratic attacks on Republicans are really just opportunistic, not based on any real principles.
I have never wondered if your attacks on Democrats are really just opportunistic, not based on any real principles, for it is self-evident.