|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: Is it possible to characterize incoherent views dishonestly? |
 |
|
I'd say no; the wingnuts say yes:
| Quote: |
The Obama campaign and lefties everywhere are still pushing the story that John McCain said he wanted to keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years or 1000 years or 10,000 years. Despite the fact that major nonpartisan organizations are saying that is a total distortion of the record, the lefties and a bunch of journalists are keeping on. What McCain actually said is, well, hear him in his own words responding to a question about keeping Americans in Iraq for 50 or 100 years:
"We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years, that'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and recruiting and equipping people."
Contrast that with what Barack Obama is accusing McCain of, which is that McCain would be in favor of 100 more years of war.
It shows an utter lack of military knowledge on the part of the Democrats that they would equate a standing military presence in a country with war. If we follow their logic, we must still be at war in Japan and Germany and Korea. |
Well, somebody's logic is certainly bad, but I don't think it's Obama's. Here is McCain on the Charlie Rose Show in November:
| Quote: |
ROSE: Do you think that this � Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?
MCCAIN: I don�t think so.
ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?
MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws. |
So we should stay in Iraq for 100 years, but only if it becomes South Korea, but it won't become South Korea. Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Straight Talk.
Obviously McCain's problem is that he must walk an even narrower tightrope than John Kerry walked in 2004. Many of his core supporters are fully wedded to the Bush Admin frame of Iraq, i.e. we must keep fighting as long as it takes to "win". But judging by opinion polls, many more of them are not wedded to that idea at all, and want (at minimum) some kind of metric for when our troops might be withdrawn without achieving the rather implausible victory conditions of the war supporters. McCain must satisfy both groups, which poses a problem for his rhetoric.
If McCain wants to get this "hundred years" albatross off his neck, he'll need to clarify his position. What are the conditions that would result in a hundred-year American occupation? (OK, if Americans are "not being harmed" -- a pretty high bar, and not one that any realistic observer expects to be jumped in the foreseeable future. What else?) What are the conditions, short of "victory", that would result in a withdrawal of American troops? Until McCain answers these questions, any characterization of his position is dishonest, because there is no position to characterize.
He won't answer them, of course. He simply has too much to lose. And as soon as the media stop letting him get away with it, he'll have another problem: the loss of his blunt, straight-talking image.
Buckle up, conservatives. It's gonna be a long election season. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultimately, it doesn't matter if he thinks America should be in Iraq for 100 years. What matters is whether he thinks America should be in Iraq for the next four, possibly the next eight years.
The answer to that question seems to be 'yes.'
But why McCain should let Obama characterize his position is beyond me. OTOH, Obama should not apologize for taking McCain's quotation and running with it.
Personally, the more I see of McCain the more certain I am he cannot win this fight. Hillary has said Obama can't win the general election. I think that's untrue. I think any Democratic nominee could prevail against McCain. I think John Kerry could beat McCain in this electoral climate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What startles me most is that McCain seems to be the only candidate not to understand that our very presence there, whether peaceful or not, is equated to violence in the minds of far too many Muslims. Even allowing trainers and advisors to stay in Iraq may be too much of a presence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| What startles me most is that McCain seems to be the only candidate not to understand that our very presence there, whether peaceful or not, is equated to violence in the minds of far too many Muslims. Even allowing trainers and advisors to stay in Iraq may be too much of a presence. |
Oh Good Lord, isn't that just absolutely tough luck!
I find all this discourse rather unhelpful and unnecessary. We have an obligation to the world and most importantly the Iraqis to replace the previous and present state of affairs with something superior. We can't change the past. Everyone knows that the moment the Americans leave Iraq, total chaos will inevitably result. The only people that will benefit are the Iranians and other extremists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| We have an obligation to the world and most importantly the Iraqis to replace the previous and present state of affairs with something superior. |
No, we do not have such an obligation, nor would we have the capacity to meet it if we did. The Iraqis are not our wards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| We have an obligation to the world and most importantly the Iraqis to replace the previous and present state of affairs with something superior. |
No, we do not have such an obligation, nor would we have the capacity to meet it if we did. The Iraqis are not our wards. |
Yes you do. You invaded and took it over, now you have an obligation. Can't just cut and run now.
You broke it, you bought it. Tough luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| ...in the minds of far too many Muslims. |
Just how many would that be exactly? And how do you know this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| We have an obligation to the world and most importantly the Iraqis to replace the previous and present state of affairs with something superior. |
No, we do not have such an obligation, nor would we have the capacity to meet it if we did. The Iraqis are not our wards. |
Yes you do. You invaded and took it over, now you have an obligation. Can't just cut and run now.
You broke it, you bought it. Tough luck. |
I agree the US has some obligation, but its not so simple.
The Iraqis also have an obligation to come to some sort of political arrangement with one another. In addition, one could argue that the American obligation is to Iraqis, so Iraqis can release the Americans from their obligation. At what point does Iraqi hatred justify American release and withdrawal?
Like I said, there are lots of implications for what you have said. You're right, America cannot simply do nothing, but there's a solid argument that the US is quickly exhausting its means and may be unable to solve that which Iraqis themselves refuse to solve themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As complicated as the issue is, it seems to be getting less complicated.
The Iraqi people want us out.
The American people want us to get out.
Don't we get out?
We'll have to try and do it as reasonably as possible, but is sticking around going to make things better? At what point do we cut our losses?
It does appear the 'surge' is helping, but we don't have any more troops to send in. Aren't we in rock and hard place make some decisions time? |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
