Does 100 More Years In Iraq Sound About Right? Well, It Does To McCain...

[Pale Rider]

Does 100 More Years In Iraq Sound About Right? Well, It Does To McCain...



by Cliff Schecter

John McCain, he of the recent electoral "surge" right into fourth place in Iowa, stood next to his goofy alter-ego and fellow star of Cocoon Joe Lieberman in Derry, New Hampshire and declared his intention for us to be in the Greater Mesopotamia area for the next century.

Here would be your transcript. Make sure to catch the video too: http://mccain.bravenewfilms.org/blog/23346-does-100-more-years-in-iraq-sound-about-right-well-it-does-to-mccain

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years -- " (cut off by McCain)

McCain: "Make it a hundred."

Q: "Is that ..." (cut off)

McCain: "We've been in South Korea ... we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ..."

Q: [tries to say something]

McCain: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

http://therealmccain.com/

[JohnDoe]

Pale

And THIS is why I said on that other thread, that i would not vote for him, no matter how much of a compromiser with Democrats he's supposedly been over the decades...

jd

[Pale Rider]

Pale

And THIS is why I said on that other thread, that i would not vote for him, no matter how much of a compromiser with Democrats he's supposedly been over the decades...

jd

I'll tell ya JD, I'd have loved to seen Tancredo do better. The next best man in line, in my opinion, is Duncan Hunter. But I think it's safe to say he's not going to get anywhere either. Now lately I've been doing research on Ron Paul, and the more I get to know about him, the better I like him. Sadly, he probably won't be on the Republican ticker either. But here's what it comes down to for me, I want us out of Iraq too, as do most Americans, both Democrats AND Republicans, so if a candidate doesn't have plans to get us out of there AND take care of the illegal alien problem, I won't vote for them. I don't care if that helps a Democrat get elected or not. I'm going to vote my conscience, and that may mean voting for Ron Paul, however that's to be done.

[darin]

He's right on target to an extent. We're in South Korea for a reason. Perhaps we'll need some presence in Iraq after we kill off enough Terrorists to make the place livable for good decent folk. People are too concerned that he said 'off-the-cuff' "Make it a hundred" - and are parlaying that into "McCain wants us there for 100 years!!"...which isn't what he said.

:)

[Pale Rider]

He's right on target to an extent. We're in South Korea for a reason. Perhaps we'll need some presence in Iraq after we kill off enough Terrorists to make the place livable for good decent folk. People are too concerned that he said 'off-the-cuff' "Make it a hundred" - and are parlaying that into "McCain wants us there for 100 years!!"...which isn't what he said.

:)

Perhaps, "make a hundred" means something different to you than me. I always thought a hundred meant a hundred... :dunno:

[darin]

Perhaps, "make a hundred" means something different to you than me. I always thought a hundred meant a hundred... :dunno:

...but he followed-up, and clarified what he meant. He means He's not opposed to maintaining some measure of Fighting Force in the region.

[Pale Rider]

...but he followed-up, and clarified what he meant. He means He's not opposed to maintaining some measure of Fighting Force in the region.

What if some country were to "maintain a fighting force" in America, would that piss you off?

[darin]

It's happened before. Revolutionary War? :)

[avatar4321]

posted this a while ago. didnt effect New Hampshire, I doubt it will effect anywhere else.

I also understand what he was saying. i dont think he was necessarily wrong. I hope it doesnt last that long though. And its a horrible sound byte. can you imagine that in a commercial Hillary Clinton will run? Do you think she will use it in context?

[Gaffer]

Military bases are kept in countries through treaties with that country. That's how the military presence in iraq and afgan will be continued after the fighting is done. We still have bases in Asia and Europe 60 years after WW2. They are necessary to support actions throughout the world. Since the ME is and will remain a hot spot for the next 50 years or so we need bases there. So saying that we will have troops there for the next hundred years is not unreasonable.

[Pale Rider]

Military bases are kept in countries through treaties with that country. That's how the military presence in iraq and afgan will be continued after the fighting is done. We still have bases in Asia and Europe 60 years after WW2. They are necessary to support actions throughout the world. Since the ME is and will remain a hot spot for the next 50 years or so we need bases there. So saying that we will have troops there for the next hundred years is not unreasonable.

Well... I know many of you believe we "need" to stay in Iraq. But, there are those of us who feel that we weren't there before, and we don't "need" to be there now, and that is the majority.

How many bases does China have around the world? How many does Russia have? How many do we "need?"

Personally, I think we need to take good hard look at where we are all over the world, and where we aren't wanted or "needed," we "need" to get the heck otta there.

It wouldn't hurt for America to get back to it's fight when attacked belief. That is after all the way this country was for centuries. This new go around the world acting like the worlds police, occupying foreign countries and being in the business of nation building is NOT what this country is about. I do believe Ron Paul might be on to something. Our war, war, war attitude just might be bringing "some" of it on ourselves. Problem is we're not getting our nose out long enough to find out. But, we "need" to. This country needs to regain it's stature in the world as a defender, not as an aggressor.

[Immanuel]

Military bases are kept in countries through treaties with that country. That's how the military presence in iraq and afgan will be continued after the fighting is done. We still have bases in Asia and Europe 60 years after WW2. They are necessary to support actions throughout the world. Since the ME is and will remain a hot spot for the next 50 years or so we need bases there. So saying that we will have troops there for the next hundred years is not unreasonable.

I agree with Pale and the fact is that military bases on foreign soil (ie the bases in Germany and throughout Europe) at the request of the foreign government or at least with their blessings via treaty is far different than what we have today in Iraq and more than likely will ever have. We are in a war situation in Iraq and it appears that we will most likely be in such a situation for a very long time.

I don't think people would object to bases with a treaty, but that is not what we have today. What I, and I imagine many others, object to is an endless war on the people of Iraq. I have no problem going to war with terrorists. I simply want to be sure that we do everything in our power to avoid killing and injuring innocents as I am sure all of you feel the same. I just hope those who pull the strings in Washington feel the same way.

Immie

[Gaffer]

Well... I know many of you believe we "need" to stay in Iraq. But, there are those of us who feel that we weren't there before, and we don't "need" to be there now, and that is the majority.

How many bases does China have around the world? How many does Russia have? How many do we "need?"

Personally, I think we need to take good hard look at where we are all over the world, and where we aren't wanted or "needed," we "need" to get the heck otta there.

It wouldn't hurt for America to get back to it's fight when attacked belief. That is after all the way this country was for centuries. This new go around the world acting like the worlds police, occupying foreign countries and being in the business of nation building is NOT what this country is about. I do believe Ron Paul might be on to something. Our war, war, war attitude just might be bringing "some" of it on ourselves. Problem is we're not getting our nose out long enough to find out. But, we "need" to. This country needs to regain it's stature in the world as a defender, not as an aggressor.

Two words, BIG PICTURE. That's what you have to look at when considering the world and how to use strategy.

You want to sit back a wait to be attacked and then respond. That's a Pearl harbor mentality. Sit back, look weak and wait for your enemy to do something to you before taking action.

The bases we have throughout the world are part of our defensive system. It deters attack and allows use to show force where needed and supply our forces in a region. You need a forward supply base for any kind of action whether its defensive or offensive. The countries we have bases are allies of ours. They allow us to operate from their country. It adds to their security.

The russians use to have just as many bases as we did. The fall of the soviet union forced them to withdraw from many of their bases because the host countries were no longer their allies. China has just recently come to global power status and still concentrating on asia.

Do you also advocate pulling all our ships and task forces out of the worlds oceans? Isn't it a shame we have all those sailors stuck on ships for months at a time protecting our shores and keeping the sea lanes open so the world economy doesn't collapse.

We have enemies throughout the world. We need to have points that we can operate from to deal with those enemies if things get to a hot point. It's part of the big picture. iraq and afgan are just small parts of the overall picture.

iran is a major threat to this country and having bases to operate from in the region are very important to us. And sometime soon there is going to be a shooting war with iran. iraq and afgan will provide excellent jumping off points for that war.

You want to put the police force in your house while the neighborhood is being over run by hoodlums.

[5stringJeff]

...but he followed-up, and clarified what he meant. He means He's not opposed to maintaining some measure of Fighting Force in the region.

We've got bases for such a force in other countries already, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

[5stringJeff]

Well... I know many of you believe we "need" to stay in Iraq. But, there are those of us who feel that we weren't there before, and we don't "need" to be there now, and that is the majority.

How many bases does China have around the world? How many does Russia have? How many do we "need?"

Personally, I think we need to take good hard look at where we are all over the world, and where we aren't wanted or "needed," we "need" to get the heck otta there.

It wouldn't hurt for America to get back to it's fight when attacked belief. That is after all the way this country was for centuries. This new go around the world acting like the worlds police, occupying foreign countries and being in the business of nation building is NOT what this country is about. I do believe Ron Paul might be on to something. Our war, war, war attitude just might be bringing "some" of it on ourselves. Problem is we're not getting our nose out long enough to find out. But, we "need" to. This country needs to regain it's stature in the world as a defender, not as an aggressor.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[darin]

We've got bases for such a force in other countries already, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

I'm not arguing we should stay in Iraq. I'm trying to clarify McCain did NOT say he wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years. I'm trying to clarify his point. That's all :)

[5stringJeff]

I'm not arguing we should stay in Iraq. I'm trying to clarify McCain did NOT say he wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 years. I'm trying to clarify his point. That's all :)

:thumb: :beer:

[Gaffer]

We've got bases for such a force in other countries already, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

We have no forces in saudi arabia. kuwait was just a jumping off point. We also have a base in Qatar. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. A single base is subject to attack. Again a reference to Pearl Harbor. The more targets an enemy has the less likely they are to strike. Also the more bases you have the more supplies and equipment you have in the area and the more you can bring in.

We are in a global war, and that war has its roots in the middle east. The islamists want to take over the world. They want to control the oil coming out of the ME. Oil is the life blood of the world economy. Without oil you would have nothing. No car, no electricity, no plastics, not even the computer you use to post here. The war is all about keeping the islamists from controlling that oil. It's not about big oil making a profit. It's about preventing the islamists from plunging the world into chaos through military and economic efforts.

[Pale Rider]

It's happened before. Revolutionary War? :)

That's right... and what happened?


Two words, BIG PICTURE. That's what you have to look at when considering the world and how to use strategy.

You want to sit back a wait to be attacked and then respond. That's a Pearl harbor mentality. Sit back, look weak and wait for your enemy to do something to you before taking action.

The bases we have throughout the world are part of our defensive system. It deters attack and allows use to show force where needed and supply our forces in a region. You need a forward supply base for any kind of action whether its defensive or offensive. The countries we have bases are allies of ours. They allow us to operate from their country. It adds to their security.

The russians use to have just as many bases as we did. The fall of the soviet union forced them to withdraw from many of their bases because the host countries were no longer their allies. China has just recently come to global power status and still concentrating on asia.

Do you also advocate pulling all our ships and task forces out of the worlds oceans? Isn't it a shame we have all those sailors stuck on ships for months at a time protecting our shores and keeping the sea lanes open so the world economy doesn't collapse.

We have enemies throughout the world. We need to have points that we can operate from to deal with those enemies if things get to a hot point. It's part of the big picture. iraq and afgan are just small parts of the overall picture.

iran is a major threat to this country and having bases to operate from in the region are very important to us. And sometime soon there is going to be a shooting war with iran. iraq and afgan will provide excellent jumping off points for that war.

You want to put the police force in your house while the neighborhood is being over run by hoodlums.

Gaf... c'mon bud... I know all about everything you've just said. But please tell me where you got the idea that I think we should "look weak?" Quite on the contrary, in another post here on the board I said we should make it attractive to join the military again, and if it was up to me, we'd DOUBLE the size of our military, including the budget, so that if anyone on earth got the idea they were going to fuck with us, the only thing they'd face is utter destruction.

We don't need to be the bur under the saddle of all these little countries. Global warfare is going to get easier as the years go by. We're going to have pilotless fighter plains, robots, energy beams, smart bullets, you name it. It is NOT going to necessary for us to be spread out all over the world. That is going to be outdated strategy.
We need to regroup and reassess where we are and where we need to be. Let's not appear to be the aggressors, because ya know what, we're not supposed to be.


We have no forces in saudi arabia. kuwait was just a jumping off point. We also have a base in Qatar. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. A single base is subject to attack. Again a reference to Pearl Harbor. The more targets an enemy has the less likely they are to strike. Also the more bases you have the more supplies and equipment you have in the area and the more you can bring in.

We are in a global war, and that war has its roots in the middle east. The islamists want to take over the world. They want to control the oil coming out of the ME. Oil is the life blood of the world economy. Without oil you would have nothing. No car, no electricity, no plastics, not even the computer you use to post here. The war is all about keeping the islamists from controlling that oil. It's not about big oil making a profit. It's about preventing the islamists from plunging the world into chaos through military and economic efforts.

Gee... I said the same thing a couple weeks ago and half the board told me I was out of my mind crazy.

[darin]

That's right... and what happened?


The French were here for awhile until we got settled. Worked out nicely, I'd say.

:)

[Pale Rider]

The French were here for awhile until we got settled. Worked out nicely, I'd say.

:)

You flunked history didn't you? :laugh:

[darin]

You flunked history didn't you? :laugh:

Who helped us fight? How long did they stay?

[Gaffer]

That's right... and what happened?



Gaf... c'mon bud... I know all about everything you've just said. But please tell me where you got the idea that I think we should "look weak?" Quite on the contrary, in another post here on the board I said we should make it attractive to join the military again, and if it was up to me, we'd DOUBLE the size of our military, including the budget, so that if anyone on earth got the idea they were going to fuck with us, the only thing they'd face is utter destruction.

We don't need to be the bur under the saddle of all these little countries. Global warfare is going to get easier as the years go by. We're going to have pilotless fighter plains, robots, energy beams, smart bullets, you name it. It is NOT going to necessary for us to be spread out all over the world. That is going to be outdated strategy.
We need to regroup and reassess where we are and where we need to be. Let's not appear to be the aggressors, because ya know what, we're not supposed to be.



Gee... I said the same thing a couple weeks ago and half the board told me I was out of my mind crazy.

You have been ranting on emotion lately. I just gave you a good nudge to make you sit back evaluate a bit.

We can't blow away the entire middle east, as it would not be practical. So we have to deal with them. We went into iraq to take out saddam, not get the oil there. We took him out to secure the region because of the oil. We are not there and engaged in combat actions for oil but because of oil. If we can't blow them all away we have to change them. That could take generations. Again, its a big picture view. And the whole plan could be ruined by the wrong person taking over the presidency.

We are taking peaceful preemptive action in most of that area. We are building up forces for preemptive strikes or defense as well. I am a strong supporter of preemptive action. We can't do it if we don't have the men and material in place. So the more bases we have the better.

Global warfare may indeed reach the point you say, but its not there now, so we need to use what we have. I agree we need a bigger standing army.

You have been saying we went into iraq for the oil. That is incorrect. We went into iraq to take out saddam because he was a very probable threat and because of the oil.

Bush has pissed me off over the last year. But his ME plans seem to be working. He's staying with his original plan with the usual adjustments for other events. I'm not happy with his being buddies with the saudi's but maybe he has something more going on as we don't get to see the big picture.

[Classact]

To leave Iraq before it can provide its own security will assure $15 gallon of gas. Securing includes being secure from Iran and other neighbors and to do that will take decades.

Want to depend on alternative energy to compete with $15 gallon gas go for it. I don't support Senator McCain but even Senator Clinton will continue prez Bush's Iraq agenda if she becomes prez. Your allowed to change your mind once you are elected and to leave fast is assured political suicide when Iran starts a war and oil stops being exported from the ME.

[Pale Rider]

You have been ranting on emotion lately. I just gave you a good nudge to make you sit back evaluate a bit.

We can't blow away the entire middle east, as it would not be practical. So we have to deal with them. We went into iraq to take out saddam, not get the oil there. We took him out to secure the region because of the oil. We are not there and engaged in combat actions for oil but because of oil. If we can't blow them all away we have to change them. That could take generations. Again, its a big picture view. And the whole plan could be ruined by the wrong person taking over the presidency.

We are taking peaceful preemptive action in most of that area. We are building up forces for preemptive strikes or defense as well. I am a strong supporter of preemptive action. We can't do it if we don't have the men and material in place. So the more bases we have the better.

Global warfare may indeed reach the point you say, but its not there now, so we need to use what we have. I agree we need a bigger standing army.

You have been saying we went into iraq for the oil. That is incorrect. We went into iraq to take out saddam because he was a very probable threat and because of the oil.

Bush has pissed me off over the last year. But his ME plans seem to be working. He's staying with his original plan with the usual adjustments for other events. I'm not happy with his being buddies with the saudi's but maybe he has something more going on as we don't get to see the big picture.

Bush is an oil man. Hell the whole Bush family is in bed with the whole oil cartel. What's bush jr doing right now? Well he's over in Saudi Arabia kissing their ass and licking their boots begging them to sell us cheaper oil. Are the Saudi's our friends? No. But not just no but HELL no, and what is Bush promising them if they'll sell us more cheap oil? Well, he's promising them a couple billion dollars worth of our most sophisticated missiles and weapons. Think the Saudi's will use them? No, course they won't. Think they'll fall into the hands of terrorists, or the very least someone that will turn around and use them on us? Damn straight they will. The war in Iraq has been the biggest foreign fuck up this country has ever been involved in, and bush orchestrated the whole thing, and he's still fucking it up now in Saudi Arabia. His ME policy is crap. The region was no more destabilized before we went into Iraq than it is now, and I don't believe all this gloom and doom predictions of what the middle east will become if we leave. The fighting was going on before we got there, and no matter how long we stay there, 10 years, 100 years, the fighting will still go on. Question is, do we want to be there right in the middle of it? Can we AFFORD to stay there right in the middle of it? Is it truly necessary? I don't think it is. I think if all those rag heads started killing each other by the hundreds of thousands, that would do us more good than us being there in the middle of it getting our asses shot off and blown up. Let them kill each other. They've been doing it for thousands of years, and they'll continue to kill each other for thousands of years to come. We need to separate ourselves from it. We don't need to be there unless we're attacked. Screw the oil. It was cheaper at the pump BEFORE we went in there. I don't buy the price of oil will sky rocket argument.

[manu1959]

What if some country were to "maintain a fighting force" in America, would that piss you off?

we are still in korea, japan and germany.......if the ask as to stay....do you stay or leave....

[Pale Rider]

we are still in korea, japan and germany.......if the ask as to stay....do you stay or leave....

"If the countries you stated asked us to stay, should we stay or leave?" Two things, one, if we're wanted and welcomed by the people as well as the government, and two, if it is strategically beneficial to us, stay. Otherwise no.

I hate to sound like a separatist, but I think what we're doing now is totally on the other side of that spectrum. We're an aggressor, occupier, nation builder, and we're not supposed to be any of those either. So who's right? The separatist or the war monger?

[Gaffer]

"If the countries you stated asked us to stay, should we stay or leave?" Two things, one, if we're wanted and welcomed by the people as well as the government, and two, if it is strategically beneficial to us, stay. Otherwise no.

I hate to sound like a separatist, but I think what we're doing now is totally on the other side of that spectrum. We're an aggressor, occupier, nation builder, and we're not supposed to be any of those either. So who's right? The separatist or the war monger?

We should stay to provide for our own security.

We went to war for the reasons Classact gave earlier. Occupying the county comes with defeating it. Nation building is necessary to have a government favorable to us, which adds to our security.

Sure we can just pull out and let AQ and iran fight over it. Eventually one will win and get the oil and financing they want. Then they set up a base to launch terror attacks throughout the world. Including acquiring WMD's. They cut off oil supply lines and cripple the world economy. There are lots of scenarios, none of them good.

If you think pulling out of the middle east and letting them sit and stew is going to work I have some swamp land to sell you. The goal of AQ and iran is to rebuild the ottoman empire and expand on it.

It's a lot deeper and a lot more complicated then just, we shouldn't be there and need to get out. There are serious consequences to pulling out. Far worse consequences than staying.

We have troops in afgan too. Should we just pull out there and let AQ and the taliban have it back? It's an identical situation minus the oil. The poppy crops will multiply ten fold. Another source of money for them.

[Pale Rider]

We should stay to provide for our own security.

We went to war for the reasons Classact gave earlier. Occupying the county comes with defeating it. Nation building is necessary to have a government favorable to us, which adds to our security.

Sure we can just pull out and let AQ and iran fight over it. Eventually one will win and get the oil and financing they want. Then they set up a base to launch terror attacks throughout the world. Including acquiring WMD's. They cut off oil supply lines and cripple the world economy. There are lots of scenarios, none of them good.

If you think pulling out of the middle east and letting them sit and stew is going to work I have some swamp land to sell you. The goal of AQ and iran is to rebuild the ottoman empire and expand on it.

It's a lot deeper and a lot more complicated then just, we shouldn't be there and need to get out. There are serious consequences to pulling out. Far worse consequences than staying.

We have troops in afgan too. Should we just pull out there and let AQ and the taliban have it back? It's an identical situation minus the oil. The poppy crops will multiply ten fold. Another source of money for them.

Well... we'll have to agree to disagree Bud. I just don't buy it. If it was to turn all that bad after we pull out, with Iraq having a decent hold on it now, then it surely would have been all that bad and then some BEFORE we went in there... but it wasn't.

And another thing, why is it America's job and America's job alone to police the ME? If the world is so dependent on that oil flowing, then why isn't the world more active in helping out? There's just something patently wrong with us being there forever... alone. It's not our job. If other nations around the world rely on that oil also, then let them get their own damn army in there for a change.

[manu1959]

"If the countries you stated asked us to stay, should we stay or leave?" Two things, one, if we're wanted and welcomed by the people as well as the government, and two, if it is strategically beneficial to us, stay. Otherwise no.

I hate to sound like a separatist, but I think what we're doing now is totally on the other side of that spectrum. We're an aggressor, occupier, nation builder, and we're not supposed to be any of those either. So who's right? The separatist or the war monger?

i say if they ask us to stay they should fund it......tell me......some will argue we need to have bases around the world so we can respond quickly.....to what.....respond to what.....come on what is so urgent that we need to be there....with troops ready to go.....hell the number of troops we have in any one location would be overrun so fats it would make your head spin....we don't need to send troops we can send rockets and jets.....someone really needs to rethink this....

[Pale Rider]

i say if they ask us to stay they should fund it....

Excellent point... as I believe Iraq should reimburse us for the war there, right down to the last penny. Us footing the bill as tax payers is another facet of that war that pisses me off. They're taking my money and spending it on that war without my permission, and the amount of money spent is reaching absurd proportions.

[LiberalNation]

Yeah that's gona happen. When you invade a resisting country don't expect your money back from them.

[Pale Rider]

Yeah that's gona happen. When you invade a resisting country don't expect your money back from them.

We've done exactly what we want in every other respect, why don't we just 'take it?'

[LiberalNation]

You seem to think they have a lot of money to take. The whole country prolly isn't worth the trillions we've spent. They have oil, not cash you can just steal, and how would you steal it.

[Pale Rider]

You seem to think they have a lot of money to take. The whole country prolly isn't worth the trillions we've spent. They have oil, not cash you can just steal, and how would you steal it.

They've got the second largest oil fields in the world, and they've got plenty of money, and something else you don't seem to be aware of, that money is being held in 'AMERICAN BANKS.' We sure the hell could take it, because bush just headed off a bill that would have allowed servicemen and families of servicemen to be able to sue Iraq for damages incurred during the execution of the war, which would have dipped into that money. And one more thing, we haven't spent 'trillions' in Iraq. Millions yes, but not trillions, although the cost is approaching one trillion. But who knows what we could ultimately end up spending there, if we were to stay there for the next hundred years like McCain wants.

What's 'prolly?'... :dunno: