Politics – WASHINGTON -- Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged w
It's a totally baseless analogy and even though not a McCain supporter was taken out of context which the press loves to do with anybody.
I have heard Mccain say a gradual withdrawal is needed which is true. But with the eruption recently of secular violence and statements by Al Sadr prove our presence will never be a "stabilizing" influence.
I am not sure I agree with your assesment of the violence in Iraq. At this point in time I really dont think our leaving Iraq would lower the level of violence. If anything I think things would get worse. The problems in the south IMO would continue without the U.S. presence. We could argue all day about shoulda coulda woulda but that is not my style. We are there and I think we need to finish the job and then remove our troops. Leaving a training force behind could be debated.
Possibly but it's a very complex situation.I'm just basing my "theory" on what history has often proven true.When "tribes" have been going at it for centuries it is very difficult for an outside force to maintain peace.
OOPS- I think I misunderstood your statement but agree the violence will probably continue and I'm not a coulda woulda shoulda person either:)
Yeah a training force could be debated but I'm wonder with reports saying 1/3 of Iraqis army is so and so.But one thing is certain IMO we will leave and we will find out.
> At this point in time I really dont think our leaving Iraq would lower the level of violence. If anything I think things would get worse.
So what you are saying is leaving or staying will have no effect on the level of violence.
If that be the case, we should leave tomorrow since we`re wasting thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars.
Nobody has ever said how they would `finish` the job. There is no plan, and our military deserves better than this.
"....We are there and I think we need ..."
Leaving the legality of this war and US presence besides...
This war however started the whole mess, and the US (politicians) are responsible for disturbing this "horns nest"
It's a"no win" situation for the US:
Leaving Iraq will prob. not end the violence. It might even get worse in the beginning. And we might say it's because of the US.
From US population view (and world),it would be a defeat, AND kind of morality loss: "we leave those guys with a problem we created".
However, staying is not a solution either:
In Iraq it is still a "unifying" factor of the different factions: they fight each other, yes, but are unified in their hate to the US and will continue fighting them. This wil not end as long the troups are there.
So staying means more US body bags (and wounded) and US tax money (not lost to the weapons industrie).
It also unifies the rest of the (arab/muslim) world against the US.
Most Americans who saw the clip knew what he meant, but it is like the "Mission Accomplished". That was about the ship's mission, but it serves Liberals well to misunderstand it. This 100 year thing they think will serve them well too. However, people are paying close attention right now so it won't work. Can't blame them for trying, they don't have much going for them. Sen McCain is their worst nightmare. He will get the Conservative vote, if not the rabid right wing, he attracts Independents, and now has a significant number of Democrat supporters. He is leading Democrats in double digits, and they are not even near done beating each other up.
"Leading the Democrats in double-digits"? Really? Care to back that up?
Of course the Dems will use the '100 years' thing, just as the Reps have been using the Wright nonsense and the Sniper incident. At least the '100 years' has something to do with policy.
Here you go.
That link you posted shows that Tangent001 was right, not wrong tanglang. Its not a double digit lead... And according to most polls, Obama is actually still leading McCain. The site this article was posted on(realclearpolitics) which is a conservative christian website, averages multiple polls, and they also show Obama leading McCain as of right now even...
I must remind Democrats we are still in Germany, and Japan, and the war was over over 60 years ago. Do you think Obama could bring those people home?
We have bases all over the world, many by treaty or mutual benefit. We have only ONE ongoing occupation.
"We have bases all over the world, many by treaty or mutual benefit. We have only ONE ongoing occupation."
You must have missed it when Iraqi officials begged Democrats and the American public not to give up on them and not to withhold funding for our troops. Obviously, it is mutually beneficial for Iraqis to have us in Iraq. We are not an "occupation" force. We only have about 150,000 troops in Iraq. That hardly constitutes an "occupying" force in this modern age of warfare.
You forgot the 150,000 contractors Libsrfunny.. and at 300,000 i would say that is more than enough to be an occupying force in the "Modern age of warfare" as you put it..which requires less, not more troops to do the job due to technological advances since say WW2 occupation by US forces. Which is what i assume you are referring to.
look at japan as an example, in 1945 there were only 350,000 American troops stationed during the occupation. And 40,000 from the other allied nations at their peak (UK,NZ,Indian, and Australian). And that was to occupy a nation of 72 million people(japan in 1945). Which is almost 3 times as many people as Iraq has... So even just our 150,000 actual US soldiers, is more of a occupying force than the occupation of Japan following its surrender... Add in the contractors, and allied forces, and its multiple times more soldier to civilian population than was ever seen during WW2 occupation levels by US forces...
>You must have missed it when Iraqi officials begged Democrats and the American public not to give up on them and not to withhold funding for our troops.
That was zawahiri, who was the head of AQ in iraq at the time he said that. He begged Bush not to let the Dems remove the troops because he cried that he wouldn`t be able to attack Americans if we left Iraq. When Bush gave him his wish, zawahiri invited Bush to join him in the Green Zone for orange juice to celebrate.
Regular Iraqis have wanted us to leave since the first day. None of them wanted us there five years, let alone 100 years.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
sharon404
m3chman
daviant701973
2jojoyo
dokkyou08
slashup67
arun123
RedRiverJ
maneetion
pc25
bugluver
zaph22
JohnnyBull
Varadinum
Gleep
Klarissa
crespi
jimdoze
BoBo in Texas
quackpot
ningyo
Dicax_Maximus
Grancher
ind06
MaryLynn_
kibasilasa
riverdalian
DiffeeOnline
wanderingmind
bubba2
satansatan
libsRfunny
MrsVIP
sunti
MrsHousewife
MrsAnn2008
bizexpert
MaMaBear08
LadyXXX
LadyPanther
LadyMS
JustSayHi
HoneyBear911
djn3nunez3
CactusAnnie
tanglang
BJTJ
70)
But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'"
The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:
-- "He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
-- "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).
-- "He's (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).
-- "What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).
Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us ... that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).
As Lenin is said to have said: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him,"
Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee press release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. ... Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."
The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.
The quote "A lie told often enough..." comes from Goebbels, if my memory serves me correctly. Never seen it attributed to Lenin before.
The Republicans are the experts at sound bites out of context. Democrats have learned from good teachers. But there's one thing that bothers me, and that's what he didn't say. How long would he keep us there if Iraqis continue to fight against us?
Ratskii: Try to Google it. I wasn't sure, but multiple sources indicate that is is a quote of Vladimir Lenin.
Nonetheless, the Dems are trying to use the strategy. I think it will come back & bite them, because of the obvious disparity of common sense. Maybe McCain ought to goad them on to a lying frenzy, since they seem to like that modality.
"We had to run from the sniper fire!" LOL
It is not a concerted effort of Iraqis fighting against us though. -Rev. S
Other lies Hillary told that day.
"It shows that I'm human"
"Sinbad was just being funny"
Hillary is not human and Sinbad has never been funny.
LOL -Rev. S
McCain claims Baghdad is safer than american cities while walking around with a bullet-proof vest and a huge military escort.
McCain doesn`t know the difference between Shiite and Sunni, despite being a fan of the war and planning to continue it as long as 100 years.
McCain claims multiple times that Iran is arming AQ in Iraq despite the fact they are enemies.
McCain seeks out the prejudice, hate-mongering Rev Hagee despite the fact the Obama got so much grief for denouncing and rejecting the prejudice, hate-mongering Rev Wright.
McCain flip-flops almost as often as his memory fails him.
Humph! No comment worthy of this astute reasoning! LOL = ~ p -Rev. S
Facts SG.
Facts are not the same thing as reasoning, but thank you for calling my reasoning astute anyway.
It's niave to think that Iraq can have a peaceful base like our other bases around the world - it would be a magnite for terrorism. In order to maintain a base there we would have to engage in violence.
Again, a republican underestimates the enemy. I think we should stop making that mistake (frankly, it's embarassing)
"Again, a republican underestimates the enemy. I think we should stop making that mistake (frankly, it's embarassing)"
Almost as embarrassing as your spelling. It's spelled "magnet," not "magnite."
Stop embarrassing yourself by sending comments like that.
It only shows how little arguments you have to ad to this forum and has nothing to do with this forum.
You don't know who "sparechange" is.
It might be a simple typing error, or English might simply not be her first language. So give people the benefit of the doubt, and give REAL arguments (pro or con)
McCain DOES seem to lie a lot now. The steady stream of crap is starting to rival Bush's lies...
Cat-
I wouldn't worry about McCain being hammered for 100 years. He probably wouldn't make it through his first term. (He's not looking so good.)
The REPUBLICAN plan is to have his Vice-President then step in and then APPOINT Jeb Bush as Vice President.
NO MORE BUSHES! NO MCCAIN!
Incredulous Crespi! You can't follow simple grammar. the statement, "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.'", is a quote from the article, not from Cat. Let's see if you can figure out what Krauthammer really meant. -Rev. S
Absolutely amazing, Crespi! Suddenly, It's McCain doing the lying, like: "We landed under sniper fire."
The article is about the Dems deliberately lying to try to make McCain look bad. -Rev. S
lmao.
Like suddenly McCain didn`t lie on video multiple times about Iran and AQ link, just like the Bushies lied about Saddam and AQ link.
When are you going to finally wake up and smell the coffee? You`ve been had, fooled, swindled, robbed, and you defend the crooks.
Q. When does a mistaken memory from some obscure moment 15 years ago when no one died take priority over a current lie that could very likely lead to the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands more and trillions more in debt while making our world more dangerous?
A. When the latter lie is by a Republican, and the former mistake by a Democrat.
You hypocrisy is only superseded by your gullibility.
There's one enormous difference in the Iraq situation from most of the other places mentioned where the US has a long-term military presence and that is that the biggest interest that the US has in staying on Iraq is to safeguard the incredibly favourable contracts which they have signed for Iraqi oil resources.
I will also remind you that the defined object of the war was to remove Saddam and to deal with the [non-existent] WMD - not to unleash a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias which would reverberate throughout the entire region, provoking instability and chaos and hatred for America.
Good luck with 100 years in Iraq!
A win for the body-bag manufacturers and no one else.
"A win for the body-bag manufacturers"
Only so long as American fractiousness lends credibility to the notion that body bags can remove us.
What are the precise terms of these "incredibly favorable contracts"? Could it be like "Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there."
Saddam was no longer an option: with WMD, he had to go; without WMD, he'd have been taken out by the Iranians in the south, followed by the Turks in the north on the pretext of stopping Kurdish independence. Imagine the U.S. having to prop up Saddam to "maintain stability".
The 70 year war in Europe and Japan have worked magnificently... as has the 60-year war in Korea. Thank you.
"...Saddam was no longer an option: with WMD, he had to go; without WMD, he'd have been taken out by the Iranians in the south ..."
What arguments are those???
There were no WMD, and we knew that (except the US population, who was deceived by GWB and Co).
So there was no international legal reason to attack.
Concerning the Iranians, who says so? You, or GWB ...?
As far as I remember, it was Irak (with agreement and help from the US and other Arab countries)who attacked Iran.
As for the situation in Europe, Japan and Korea (an unfinished war!), there is no comparison. Those are (were) total different situations.
Traveler you keep rehashing the same old lying argument.
First of all the war was started because of the 18 resolutions that Saddam had defied. Saddam acted like he had nuclear weapons so Iran would build them and he tried to fool us into attacking Iran. We told him that if he defies the resolution to let us look for weapons then we will attack. He defied it and we attacked.
Most Everyone in the whole world thought Saddam had WMD's since he had used them before on the Kurds and wasn't willing to let us investigate.
The Huge lie here is that it is only Bush that thought there were WMD's. Just like the 100 year war lie, you guys keep saying that Bush lied. What about the Clintons? Are they liars too for saying there were WMD's? What about the whole Clinton administration who also Lied about WMD's?
When you are biased as the left is then it's hard not to tell lies. But the truth is the left was on Bush's side before the war.
Yes, you are right, I (we) do keep repeating the same arguments, however, that's how the facts are and were:
During the last UN lead WMD inspections (with Hans Blix, read his book) nothing was found. Even tough, in the beginning there was some opposition from Saddam, he and his officials were eventually cooperative. In his dealings and reporting to the UN, H.Blix said that most of the demands were met. Some documentation was still missing, however, this could simply have been lost because of the Iraq/Arab way of "disorganized" working. When 95% of demands are met (and all seem to indicate that the rest is OK as well) you can either say to the public, "he is still not obeying to the demands" or "most demands are obeyed to and there are only a few small problems still remaining, but they should be solved shortly". The latter is what Blix said to the UN and Rice, but she preferred to say the first to US and world opinion
............. cont. ..........
...... cont ....
Your comment: "..almost everyone in the whole world thought Saddam had WMD's ..".
Actually no, most of the world didn't really believe it at all, as the opposite was becoming more and more evident. Even the speech of Powell to the UN didn't show any real evidence, only very weak "circumstantial" evidence, based on top of it on very biased information while dismissing information indicating there is no problem and thus no reason for war. I did watch the UN meeting.
>First of all the war was started because of the 18 resolutions that Saddam had defied.
Talk about rehashed lies! lmao!
Saddam was the one who let the inspectors in, yer boy Bushy was the one who kicked them out. You gonna attack Dubya for failing to obey the UN resolutions?
How about Israel and its failures to obey UN resolutions?
How about America and its failures to obey UN humanitarian decrees of which we have signed?
Ditto for Bush`s kissing-cousins in Saudi Arabia.
Everyone knew Saddam had no WMD, the inspectors proved that after inspecting 100 sites and finding not a trace. Any expert will tell you that Saddam couldn`t have dreamt of even creating weaponized WMD in a 100 years (oops, sorry, the cons are a little sensitive about `100 years`).
"First of all the war was started because of the 18 resolutions that Saddam had defied"
Wrong, that would be UN Resolutions and it would be up to the UN to do something. Oh yeah they did, they pressed Saddam with SCR 1441 which the US signed onto but then the Bush Administraion renigged on our obligations when it became clear that the inspectors were not going to find any WMD and the UN was not going to pass a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
"Most Everyone in the whole world thought Saddam had WMD's since he had used them before on the Kurds "
Uh huh, and they also knew that he got those WMD he attacked the Kurd and Iranians with because of Ronnie Rayguns Administration.
Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq either, nor did he call for that.
"But the truth is the left was on Bush's side before the war."
Righhhht...Put that right up there with:
Left is Right.
Up is Down.
War is Peace.
"Only so long as American fractiousness lends credibility to the notion that body bags can remove us."
But they do remove us, one at a time.
the soundbite bs attack gig has been used successfully and is still being used successfully (Rev Wright) by the Republicans.
Why would anyone on earth be surprised that the Dems give the Cons a little of their own medicine once in a while?