McCain: “A 100 [years in Iraq]. That’d be fine with me”
By Brian Kelly at Feb 06, 2008 |
|
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
McCain, possibly the future Republican Party nominee says that it would "be fine" with him if the U.S. were to continue to occupy Iraq for 100 years. When interviewed later about the comments, McCain stood firm, saying that he was willing to stay in Iraq however long it took, even "1,000 years", or "1,000,000 years". The Government is right that the United States can "win" in Iraq. But the left must shift the debate. Of course the Government can "win" in Iraq. The question isn't can the United States Government "win". The question is what does "winning" mean.
Does "winning" mean leveling the country to the ground? Killing all its inhabitants? Does "winning" mean 10,000 American troop deaths? Does it mean 20,000 American troop deaths? Does it mean 50,000 American troop deaths? Does "winning" mean breaking more international laws, treaties and conventions? Does "winning" mean making us less respected and trusted in the world? Does "winning" mean no money for healthcare, none for social security, none money for education or jobs or programs of social uplift? Does "winning" in Iraq, means the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast need to lose? Does it mean more people to hating us? Does it mean more Abu Ghraibs and Guantanamo Bays; more Fallujahs and Hadithas; more wiretaps and deportations? Does it mean more fear and hate; more violence and more ignorance?
Yes, the Government can "win" at whatever it wishes - its has the most powerful, expensive military in the history of the world. The question of whether the Government can "win" in Iraq is an absurdity. What we should be asking is "what are we doing to Iraq, to Iraqis, to our soldiers, to our veterans, and to our country?" and, most importantly, "why are we there in the first place?"
These questions all have simple answers. All that requires is that we look at the evidence right in front of our noses. We are occupying Iraq so that United States corporations can control the flow of oil from their oil fields. Plain and simple. While rich men get richer, the rest of us deal with pain, death, and poverty.
John McCain for President?
I think not.



By P, A at Feb 08, 2008 13:44 PM
I like the idea of an article called "If the US Wins; Who Loses in Iraq?" Iraqis, Arabs and other inhabitants of the Middle East that will be occupied by US imperialism. The American people who inheret the debt and other costs of the war. The troops who are mauled and killed occupying the country for tens or hundreds of years, and on and on and on.
Oh, and who wins? The top 1%.
This sounds like a good essay to write, I like it.
Reply this comment
Re: McCain: “A 100 [years in Iraq]. That’d be fine with me”
By Shadwell, Stu at Feb 07, 2008 05:02 AM
So we all want the invasion to end but its going to have to be pushed from the bottom.
Reply this comment
Re: McCain: “A 100 [years in Iraq]. That’d be fine with me”
By Shadwell, Stu at Feb 07, 2008 05:01 AM
A couple of comments. I think when it comes down to it they will win like the Viet Cong won in Vietnam, and I personally think given the narrowing of cantidates on the democrat side that McCain will win in 2008. You never know for certain of course, but it seems like thats what you get for not even allowing a mildly progressive cantidate in the race. That said even that mild cantidate would have probably only brought combat troops home while leaving thousands of others over there in a truly stupid attempt to place the imperialism under the table.
Reply this comment