Sen. John McCain is Insane

Sen. John McCain

HAS SAID U.S. TROOPS MAY HAVE TO MAINTAIN A PRESCENCE IN IRAQ FOR UP TO 100 YEARS.

a statement that has drawn criticism from Democrats.

For the rest of the story

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080226/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_iraq_dc

To be quite honest just how insane is he? Think of the other major conflicts we have had and won World war 2 Germany and Japan, Korean War, South Korea. Our troops have been in those countries for over 50 years now. You may think he is nuts but history puts alot of weight to his argument.

Difference being, those are bases in countries that are our political ally, not occupying forces in hostile territory.

Fuck that man, how about Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico ?

It is called empire and outposts - Fourteen "enduring bases" in Iraq alone. The U.S. divided the planet into "Unified Combatant Commands" a while back to be able to respond to threats anywhere, at any time, with large numbers and logistically sound force and supply lines.

For the idiot libs in the crowd who think that Obama or Hillary are going to "bring the troops home," do yourself a favor and ask them *how many* and *when*.



It isn't fucking happening kids. Ever. The best you can expect is a gradual drawdown to 100,000. Ten years from now. Pending Iraq stabilizes.

Iraq and Afghanistan are beachheads - They are staging areas - for a much longer, much more protracted war. Read Up.

perhaps, in those situations. however, there weren't international religious mercenaries pouring into Germany, Japan, or South Korea to sew the seeds of chaos and religious fervor against the occupying forces.

and i shouldn't have to remind you how many years it's been since we've put more than a handful of troops (shh!) into Vietnam.

Except the bases in those countries started out as occupying forces in hostile countries. I highly doubt that constant bombing made the Germans and Japanese all warm and fuzzy about us being there.

With all due respect I did say wars that we won.

I purposely left those out too.

To be honest I am simply pointing out why he would say such a thing, not supporting or deriding it.

yes, but this situation is starting to be more akin to Vietnam than it is to any of the three you mentioned.

and while Iraq is its own situation, maintaining an occupation force there is only going to incite continued hostility in the region. there's a reason why the main strategy is (or gets at least lip service) to get Iraq able to take care of itself and get the hell out.

i have severe doubts about the competency of any candidate that believes we will be able to maintain anything more than a minuscule military presence in Iraq. while i do not think him entirely insane for his ideas, i do believe McCain is as misguided and foolish as those who dictated the war in Vietnam.

Thankfully we can look back at history and say that, however it still does not change the fact that the current planners are now planning under the assumption that the exact same things were/are going to happen at the conclusion of all of this. Look at all the talk of being greeted as liberators from Saddam etc etc. It's the same play book as used 50 years ago.

Regardless of that fact, as I said in the reply to O. The planners are not thinking in that fashion, also Vietnam was different in that we were excluded from entering the north sure we could bomb it constantly but we were never able to enter and secure it, we can go anywhere we want in Iraq and altho the insurgents are no less deadly, the fact that they don't have an entire country to sneak back into and rebuild unopposed weighs in the minds of the military planners.

There are Similarities to Vietnam for sure but it's not the same type of war by a long shot. It's an insurgency, north vietnam had an actual military and industrial center to build upon also. When the insurgents have their own planes and tanks it will be different.

Alot of Iraqis are happy that we are there, does that really matter so much?

while i understand the point you're trying to make (where McCain is getting his idea of a prolonged occupation from), my point is that, while it might have historical precedent, it's foolish to think that such a plan or outlook can succeed. most of the problem causers are coming from many of the surrounding countries, not the least of which is Saudi Arabia, and they will continue to come in and cause major problems until we leave or go to their country next.

Thats absolutely true, but sadly thats also not part of the overall strategy if it was we would not be discussing being there for 100 years now would we?

That's not a word. You wouldn't write 'alittle' would you?

how about grammarnazi? is that a word?

*headdesk*

When McCain made that statement he was saying that the US may maintain a presence in Iraq for 100 years, which is a pulling a number out of his ass way of saying " we may be maintaining a permamant based presence in Iraq for the forseeable future" ala Korea, Germany, Japan, Kuwait etc.
It's probably the most overused and misquoted line the Democrats have used in the campaign. They paint a picture of McCain gleefully continuing combat operations into the 22nd century.

Obviously there is a strong debate on whether or not we should negotiate a security agreement with Iraq that entails our keeping permanant bases within Iraq.
I, personally, believe that we should. And I believe that we will, regardless of what promises are made by Obama or Clinton. I think a drawdown of troops is absolutely called for, but I don't think we will leave Iraq entirely for many years. Permanant bases are likely to continue on the edge of Kurdistan, in Al- Anbar, and near the Syrian/ Jordanian border.

the only way i personally believe that there should be bases maintained in Iraq is if Iraq manages to get a stable government that is recognized as legitimate by both the surrounding countries and the people throughout the Middle East and then that government asks the US to either stay or return to the bases it has set up. anything less, i feel, will only serve to continue to ensure that there will be no stability in the area. not only that, but anything less would continue to give numerous Muslim terrorist groups their biggest recruiting tool of all time alongside the continued existence of Israel.

while McCain has tacked on his statement that it would be done "only if American troops are safe," i feel it misguided at best, and foolish to the extreme to think that we're well on our way to a situation where maintaining bases in Iraq will do anything but further destabilize the area.

Did you really have to start a new thread for old news?

Why? And more importantly, really, why?

Without a permanent US military presence, Iraq will become...what?

Try to answer without getting your paranoid panties tied up around your overzealous desire to fortify every possible outpost of the dreaded bogeyman.

Foreign?

I think that was unfair. And therefore counterproductive.

Perhaps, being unfair does not suggest it isn't necessary. I want to make an effort to curb the hastening of another round of tired responses suggesting real weight should be assigned to protecting interests in oil, Israel, or some trumped up model of US- defined model of Middle East peace.

This country (and yours) repeats the same mistakes over and over again, largely on the back of some worst-case scenario fright night story, drummed up by some overzealous paranoid. These delusional threats never materialize, while we spend real money and real lives unnecessarily creating battlegrounds.

Then suddenly in the light of day, when Russia isn't really a threat and the wall comes tumbling down just ahead of their economy, or Cuba doesn't become the foothold of communism in the Western hemisphere, or when we discover there is no yellow cake or nuclear triggers in Iraq, or when biochemical is not pouring through the cracks of our duct-taped windows, everyone gains some newly discovered fondness for pragmatism and suggests; well hell, we fucked it up, I guess we have to stay now and fix it.

I agree with your underlying intention, and I applaud it. I just think it wasn't the right way to do it. I may be wrong, but I think you (and I) need to convince the waverers; not the diehard dickheads, there's no hope of them changing sides, but the people we can actually influence.

Point taken.

I really want to input, but I'm off to watch the Obama/Clinton debate at a local movie theater that also serves beer and good food.

did I mention that I'm voting for Obama?


oy vey! multiplicity of ideas!


be back to this later.