|
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 |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
True, however I never said that this was a open-ended indefinite obligation. But the Americans can and should do more, including for a start, to apply pressure on the government to become more representative. Now that there's a relative lull in the violence, they should be able to make some headway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
What McCain did or didn't mean by his comment about 100 years is not really important in terms of the election, in my opinion. People heard it/read the headline and are not necessarily going to hang around for weeks while he clarifies, limits, expounds on the nuances of what he had in mind.
McCain has a tendency to shoot his mouth off sometimes, and it doesn't help that the media likes sound bytes. The majority of the electorate has stopped supporting the war and he gave the Democrats a good wedge issue film clip to use against him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
What McCain did or didn't mean by his comment about 100 years is not really important in terms of the election, in my opinion. People heard it/read the headline and are not necessarily going to hang around for weeks while he clarifies, limits, expounds on the nuances of what he had in mind.
McCain has a tendency to shoot his mouth off sometimes, and it doesn't help that the media likes sound bytes. The majority of the electorate has stopped supporting the war and he gave the Democrats a good wedge issue film clip to use against him. |
The funny thing is that the wingnut hysteria over Obama's "dishonesty" was quickly revealed as a sham:
| Quote: |
| Yesterday on the floor of the senate, Sens. Reid and McConnell tangled on the McCain hundred years comment. Reid simply said "one of the things that will be debated this fall is ... whether our troops need to be in Iraq for another 50 or 100 years. I think that will be a pivotal part of the debate that takes place in the presidential election." Then McConnell jumps to his feet and starts lying through his teeth claiming McCain never said any such thing. Reid didn't say 'war', didn't say anything but what McCain said as clear as day. |
Gee, I guess the phrasing wasn't the important thing after all, huh guys? Or is there some more hysteria on tap to condemn McConnell's dishonesty too? I'm betting no.
McCain wants American troops fighting in Iraq for "as long as it takes" until they stop taking casualties, and then a continuing presence for another hundred years. The American people strongly disagree with this stance and so the GOP is scrambling to obfuscate the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:28 am 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. |
Just that simple, huh? I admit to a perverse admiration for moral analysis shorn of all historical and practical context, but as policy, it sucks. I think the last five years should have proved that conclusively to everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the US can get to the point where the US is not taking deaths why ought the US not be in Iraq?
It makes more sense to have power projection capabilites in the mideast than in Korea which is strategically worthless now.
Or for that matter why not move US forces in the Kurdish areas and then build up Kurdistan into " Israel the sequel" .
McCain supports a long term precence in Iraq, He is not looking for the US to police the nation for 100 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| If the US can get to the point where the US is not taking deaths why ought the US not be in Iraq? |
Do you see that happening any time soon, and if not, how long should we wait for it to happen?
There's also the small matter of whether the Iraqis actually want a permanent US presence.
ABC News Poll, 2/20/08
| Quote: |
22. How long do you think U.S. and other coalition forces should remain in
Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until
the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can
operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave?
----------Remain until-----------
Leave now 38
Security restored 35
Gov't stronger 14
Operate independently 10
Remain/leave eventually 3
Never leave 1 |
Oops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
