General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSam Stein Confronts McCain: Does ‘Victory’ in Iraq Mean Endless War?
McCain is one bloviating, condescending POS...
HuffPost Reporter Confronts McCain: Does Victory in Iraq Mean Endless War?
by Andrew Kirell | 9:33 am, June 13th, 2014
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein had a rather testy exchange Friday on MSNBCs Morning Joe.
So Im curious: What is the definition of victory? What is the definition of winning? Does it mean having a residual force basically without end date? Im just a little bit confused. I want to know what victory is to you.
The senator wasted no time snapping back, hammering Stein for his confusion:
I guess I shouldnt myself be confused, because it would be used against me, Stein remarked. He then pressed once more: What is the end date for our forces in Iraq? Is it open-ended? And if thats the case, because we need to have a residual force there to prop up the Iraq government indefinitely, is that how you see it?
In return, McCain cited residual American troops stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Bosnia as having successfully stabilized regions American forces have previously occupied.
Watch the exchange below, via MSNBC (at link)...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/huffpost-reporter-confronts-mccain-does-victory-in-iraq-mean-endless-war/
BeyondGeography
(39,276 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)He would have us in Iran, Syria, Ukraine and Iraq and would be signing the US up in every place in the world. Here is a GOP party who is not taking care of the needs of our veterans but willing to send troops everywhere and claim to support the troops. They vote down assistance to our veterans but think money is not an object to start and maintain wars over the world. They have to stop this crazy stand. Support the veterans and rebuild our nation and if there are two nickels to rub together afterwards then just target practice for possible defense of this nation.
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)And IF we had the conflict won, the current violence shouldn't have happened.
IF we had the conflict won, there is no reason to attack Obama for Iraq.
So McCain needs to STFU and go home.
spanone
(135,627 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)As JFK stood up to the warmongers, I'd ask, on behalf of whom?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/1007
MinM
(2,650 posts)You can't spell McCain without MIC.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)PS: Thanks for the heads-up on McCain's latest grope of death. Guy's like addicted.
MinM
(2,650 posts)The power and influence of the military-industrial complex in promoting serial wars has resulted in extraordinary rates of profit. According to a recent study by Morgan Stanley (cited in Barrons, 6/9/14, p. 19), shares in the major US arms manufacturers have risen 27,699% over the past fifty years versus 6,777% for the broader market. In the past three years alone, Raytheon has returned 124%, Northrup Grumman 114% and Lockheed Martin 149% to their investors...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-soaring-profits-of-the-military-industrial-complex-the-soaring-costs-of-military-casualties/5388393
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Please, if you have a moment, turn that into an OP.
There is no more important message for our democracy.
Thank you for the heads-up, MinM.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)in a home where he can get the help he needs.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,780 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)malaise
(267,791 posts)about this
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/
<snip>
First, the troop withdrawal is required by an agreement which George W. Bush negotiated and entered into with Iraq and which was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament prior to Obamas inauguration. Lets listen to the White House itself today: This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave. . . . an administration official said. As I said, its a good thing that this agreement is being adhered to, and one can reasonably argue that Obamas campaign advocacy for the wars end influenced the making of that agreement, but the Year End 2011 withdrawal date was agreed to by the Bush administration and codified by them in a binding agreement.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)He's said we coulda won it if we hadn't pulled out so soon.
The geezer has never seen an overseas conflict that didn't call for U.S. military intervention and he has never seen a U.S. war that should be ended.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)If that is your definition of a win than you are definitely looking at the short term. You are also ignoring the religious strife that is fueling all of this.
Of course since your rethugs are only interested in the oil your true definition is suppressing the population until we have taken all the oil.