 |
The 100 Year Missed Opportunity. |
 |
Sometimes, I really think that the Democratic party are really trying their best to insult my intelligence. The now stupid amount of times that McCain has been misquoted as saying that he wouldn’t mind being at war in Iraq for 100 years can surely mean only one thing. That the Democrats think that the US public are so stupid that they cannot work out the meaning of a quite simple statement.
I read it, saw it on youtube, and have a brain and therefore know that what McCain was saying was that he didn’t think the American public would mind having troops in Iraq if they were not fighting a war, hence the reference to South Korea and Japan. Obviously that statement is the polar opposite of saying that he wouldn’t mind a 100 year war.
But more important that my offense taken at the idiocy of the Democratic response to his statement, is the idiocy of the Democratic response to his statement, on two counts. Firstly, although McCain’s statement did not amount to the declaration of a crusade, it did sound like scarily like an endorsement of colonialism. Something that the Democrats, in their desperation to score cheap political points have almost entirely overlooked. Secondly the fact that the Democrats could seriously think that such transparent twisting of words is acceptable in todays world means that they have failed to grasp the independence of mind afforded to today’s generation by the internet.
To deal with the first point first, one has to ask what the troops would be doing for 100 years in Iraq if they were not fighting. In the example of South Korea that was used by John McCain, American troops were there to discourage an external threat, an invasion from North Korea, but where is that external threat to Iraq?
There isnt one, Iran would not want a repeat of the bloody Iran-Iraq War, and with Iraq now being ruled by fellow Shiites why would they need one. Turkey to the north may make threats to Northern Iraq but surely the US does not need to station an army in Iraq in order to stop the Turks invading. They are a NATO ally.
Is the reason to prop up our political allies? to support one faction over another in the internal politics of Iraq as British and American forces did in Basra last week? Then, they supported Maliki's government troops against Sadr's forces in what is now without a doubt a civil war?
Is the reason to guarantee the world’s supply of oil, of which a large part comes through the straits of Hormuz. This is what Alan Greenspan was referring to when he said that the Iraq war was about oil, not that the US was there to expropriate oil, but to prevent blockages of supply.
Now we are beginning to sound dangerously like colonialism. The Brits who were the most successful colonists of all time, more often than not stationed troops in countries, in order to guarantee supplies of the raw materials required to fuel its rapidly developing home industries and not to fight wars. It ruled countries by backing supportive political factions rather than through overt force as the amount of troops that little Britain could muster was simply never sufficient to rule over the vast areas of land that it nominally controlled. The British Empire was sustained on commerce rather than conquest and politics rather than persecution.
McCain's suggestion, that the US should have troops stationed around the world, that could interveene in internal politics in order to keep our friends in power would make Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson turn in their graves but McCain has been given a free pass on his statement as the Democrats have tried to wring the words out for any sound bite they can.
Now to my second point. We live in a world today where any statement can be instantly checked with a simple google search. In a pre modern communications age, politicians may well have been able to misquote each other endlessly when speaking to their own supporters. Today however politicians have to be more honest than ever. Consistently saying that McCain advocated a 100 year war is pointless if all you need to do to watch the original speech is to log on to youtube. Indeed it is worse than pointless it is damaging as it makes you look stupid or even untrustworthy.
The abuse of McCain’s 100 years, along with Hilary’s fantasy Bosnia trip perhaps shows that the democrats have yet to learn that in today’s world more than ever, you cant get away with making stuff up, especially when it is so easily checked out.
Finally, resorting to such tactics only serves to devalue the whole democratic system, as the public are reinforced with the idea that politicians cannot be trusted, and care more about getting themselves elected than the nation. If the Democrats were to think harder about the ideas that McCain's words represented rather than the opportunity to take cheap shots, it might well end up better for the Democratic Party, and for Democracy.
Do you reccomend that the Democrats take the "high road" and lose another election because alot of the voting public -is-easliy manipulated by sound bytes?
Why are you focusing on this one issue where, in your opinion, the "Democrats" (lumped into one, even though the party is more divided than ever) are treating the public like they lack intellect, when the "Republicans" (specifically Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain, and their underlings) have made a legacy out the tactics that you accuse the Democrats of using?
Yes but the Republicans are much better at using Republican smear tactics than Democrats, and I think this time round people are tired of it.
Well, this tactic is in fact working well for Democrats. The mainstream media repeats it just about every day, and it's wormed its way into pubic consciousness. They are going with what works.
And of course, McCain did in fact say this stuff. This is less of a misquote and more of a taking out of context type thing.
But anyway, there are two issues with your argument. When McCain said the 100 years comment, he was implying 1 of 2 situations. Either he's ok with 100 years in Iraq in a colonial relationship, with all the issues you implied above. However, that's assuming we can get Iraq pacified to a point where that is even realistic. Personally, I doubt it. The other option is Iraq staying at similar levels of violence (broadly speaking) as it is now, with troops dying. McCain has never said he is not ok with 100 years in Iraq in this situation, and that's very troubling.
In my mind, because he has not really set an endgame, the 100 years comment is fair game. If he says he will leave Iraq if violence levels continue as they are, then I'll personally drop it. But until then, you've got the situation we're in now, where our leaders say, "Violence is dropping, the surge is working, we need to stay!" and then they turn around and say, "Violence is rising, Iraq is failing, we need to stay!"
See the problem here?
If [people] were to think harder about the ideas that [our] words represented rather than the opportunity to take cheap shots, it might well end up better for the [country], and for [the world.]
I took a little liberty with the editing, but it's a beautiful sentiment. I sometimes wonder, given society as it stands, if there was ever a time when people who disagreed could enjoy each other's company otherwise. Or even more simply, when they could state their contentions and rebuttals without feeling the need to insult one another.
And now for the sake of being contrary: "the independence of mind afforded to today%u2019s generation by the internet[?]"
Har har! Independence of mind, indeed. P-shaw.
McCain made the mistake of interjecting the concept of the US having a presence in a "very volatile" middle east with evil Al-Qaeda at work "every single day," with his vision of an Iraq free from hostilities like other countries that are nothing like it. You can't reconcile the two. He can't hang on to the fear mongering and desensitize people to the realities on the ground — doesn't work that way.
When Russert compared McCain's position on Somalia to his current position on Iraq, John dismissed it as a poor juxtaposition. Well, Somalia is in close proximity to Iraq and Black Hawk down was linked to Al-Qaeda. Am I to believe it's more apt to compare Iraq to Japan and South Korea, than it is to compare it to Somalia? No.
He can't have it both ways. Sorry, bruh. Ain't gonna fly.