In a long election campaign, candidates rarely miss a chance to seize on an opponent's off-the-cuff statements in hopes of taking advantage and winning support. Sometimes the criticism is dead-on accurate. Sometimes, a comment is ripped out of context and distorted unfairly.
On the stump and on the debate stage, Barack Obama has repeatedly hammered Republican John McCain for expressing a desire to keep the war in Iraq going for a century. In February, Obama said: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.” And later: "(McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq.”
Obama said on April 1, his position on Iraq was "very different from saying we're going to have a permanent occupation in Iraq. And it's certainly different from saying that we would have a high level of combat troops inside Iraq for a decade or two decades, or, as John McCain said, perhaps 100 years. I'm just quoting back what he said. Unless you tell me that that's a misquote."
Obama isn't the only Democrat to criticize McCain for his stance on the war. Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has called McCain "a blatant opportunist who...is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years." And Hillary Clinton in February said: "We cannot take four more years of more of the same and if you listen to Sen. McCain, he wants to keep troops in Iraq, he has said, for up to 100 years.”
But McCain and his supporters insist that the Democrats are not quoting McCain fairly. Instead of talking about a 100-year-war or an active century-long occupation, McCain was talking about a security arrangement similar to what the United States has with Germany, Japan and South Korea.
Here is what McCain said at a townhall meeting in New Hampshire on January 3:
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years ...
McCAIN: Make it a hundred.
Q: Is that ...
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: (Something inaudible)
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 Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
In February, McCain elaborated:
And by the way, that reminds me of this hundred year thing. I was asked in a town hall meeting back in Florida, how long would we have a presence in Iraq? My friends, the war will be over soon, the war for all intents and purposes although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years, but it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us, and then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis. ...
And McCain addressed Obama's claim again on April 1:
It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it... (He) either hasn’t read or (doesn’t) understand…the history of this country in warfare, and the way that we secure alliances and secure the peace -- and that’s through military government to government agreements that call for United States presence and mutual defense. Not only in that country itself, but also in the region. Our troops in Japan maintain a military presence in Asia. Our troops in Japan and South Korea maintain stability in Asia. The same thing was true after World War II about our troops in Germany.
Factcheck.org called the Democrats' accusation against McCain "a rank falsehood."
Columbia Journalism Review also debunked the 100-year charge, noting "Obama is seriously misleading voters -- if not outright lying to them -- about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it."
So, McCain called for a 100-year-war/occupation of Iraq... truth or not?













Thoughts
SO
Submitted on September 13th, 2008 by AnonymousHave you ever considered that the military is a huge economic stimulant for our country? Millions of jobs depend on the military. Those that are in the military have a job, contractors, companies that manufacture for the military.
I cannot even begin to stress how much the military is a huge economic stimulus in this country. Times are bad now with unemployment- what do you think military reduction will do? Its not like those that are in the military are RICH. We qualified for WIC for goodness sake...The military is a place for those that have a call to serve this country and are dedicated to do it. They do not deserve to have their jobs taken away.
Military Budget
Submitted on September 13th, 2008 by AnonymousHave you ever considered that the military is a huge economic stimulant for our country? Millions of jobs depend on the military. Those that are in the military have a job, contractors, companies that manufacture for the military- I cannot even begin to stress how much the military is a huge economic stimulus in this country. Times are bad now with unemployment- what do you think military reduction will do?
I suspect Iran is going to
Submitted on May 8th, 2008 by AnonymousI suspect Iran is going to have a complete melt down of their nuclear weapons program and the aggressive action towards the U.S.A. or will significantly reduce the BS its been putting out because that’s exactly what they did the day Ronald Reagan took office and promptly released our people. I remember sitting on an aircraft carrier with a significant number of marines anxiously waiting for Ronnie’s ok to have us introduce ourselves to them. I believe that John Mc Cain is the man that will besides driving the fear of god back into the Iranians will reestablish our Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt foreign policy of do not tread on us or our friends please.
Senator John Mc Cain
Submitted on May 8th, 2008 by AnonymousI believe most Americans know what issues we face as a nation as we try to decide which candidate(s) will best resolve them. We see in John McCain’s life, past and present a devotion to serve his country. Anyone who knows Senator McCain will tell you that he has passion for what he believes in and a constant drive to serve his country to the best of his abilities with sincerity, truthfulness, and dedication.
I remember seeing John on the Forrestall the morning of the flight deck fire, he was really beat up, but after some medical treatment he was transferred to the Enterprize and joined up with an attack squadron and that same day launched off in a A6A attack aircraft to provide close ground air support for our troops in Viet Nam. That same day his aircraft was shot down and he was taken prisoner.
Most Americans are aware of the courageous service John provided as a naval aviator and POW . But few can fully appreciate how bad the egregious hospitality of the Hanoi Hilton really was .His main concerns were for other POWs’ life threatening conditions and how he could help them is spite of the injuries he had received prior to and during his confinement.
Our convictions about John's character were born in the crucible of adversity. We have witnessed his courage, integrity, character and intellect. We know and greatly respect his sense of honor and his tenacity in the face of grave danger and prolonged hardship(s). These qualities, combined with his life experiences, make John ready for the enormous challenges facing the leader of our country. No one -- no one – has a greater knowledge of what war is really like or more qualified to be president, to lead our country and protect our nation. Some pretend to know him or deride his physical short comings but do nor know his physical strengths, his love of country and his commitment to serve it. He has been severely tested, and we have witnessed him under pressure. We trust his judgment and his ability to surround himself with our countries best advisors to lead our country without the BS to lead his beloved country and countrymen.
.We could do a whole lot worse than vote for John Mc Cain as our next president of the United States for every man, woman and child in our country regardless of their political affiliation. In John’s administration there are no Democrats or Republicans only Americans.
God Speed John Mc Cain
American Back Bone
Submitted on May 8th, 2008 by AnonymousI suspect Iran is going to have a complete melt down of their nuclear weapons program and the aggressive action towards the U.S.A. or will significantly reduce the BS its been putting out because that’s exactly what they did the day Ronald Reagan took office and promptly released our people. I remember sitting on an aircraft carrier with a significant number of marines anxiously waiting for Ronnie’s ok to have us introduce ourselves to them. I believe that John Mc Cain is the man that will besides driving the fear of god back into the Iranians will reestablish our Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt foreign policy of do not tread on us or our friends please.
John Mc Cain
Submitted on May 8th, 2008 by AnonymousI suspect Iran is going to have a complete melt down of their nuclear weapons program and the aggressive action towards the U.S.A. or will significantly reduce the BS its been putting out because that’s exactly what they did the day Ronald Reagan took office and promptly released our people. I remember sitting on an aircraft carrier with a significant number of marines anxiously waiting for Ronnie’s ok to have us introduce ourselves to them. I believe that John Mc Cain is the man that will besides driving the fear of god back into the Iranians will reestablish our Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt foreign policy of do not tread on us or our friends please.
Spin talk: He said why not a 100 years.
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousPretty clearly he said .." why not a hundred?" That means a hundred years!
Then the spin begins as he quickly fast talks nonsense and doubletalks about our military being in Korea and elsewhere. Look! The Bush/Cheaney mob lied to America. They then used our military to kill civilians, innocent women and children and guiltless men as well, NOT TO SAY WE LOST OVER 4,OOO OF OUR OWN!. It's not a "PRESENCE" you fool it's an occupation. Would we tolerate such a "PRESENCE" in our America????!!!!
100 years presence I feel
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Mo100 years presence I feel could only benefit both America and Iraq. Presence, not occupation. We came there with the soul purpose of shutting down terrorist groups. Honestly, as of now, I think that we have only succeeded in making these terrorist groups more aggressive. Why should we leave now, when we haven't accomplished what we came there to do in the first place?
A century?
Submitted on April 29th, 2008 by freddymIf any reading-listening particpant of media information and understanding Senator McCains views of "100 years" meaning warfighting is an absurd half-truth . The real question of today is TRUTH.?? And what is it? Emperical-absolute information? Half-truths are Full Lies. Intellect that knowingly uses half-truths become tellers of half-lies.
Modifing, changing, redirecting influencing, rebuilding, etc., any culture - society will require a minimum of 60 years time. This is 3 generations. A well yielded sword may shorten this time frame. 100 years? Maybe close in Iraq. In a culture that has no experience (at least for the last 1200 years) of individual participation - and no opportunity to reward ones self within their village the contribution to that village and its future. Think about the concept of no individual worth and then overcome that concept. It will take a long time. Media is a director of 'drive by information' with repetitive half-truths.
There is a difference
Submitted on April 28th, 2008 by AnonymousThere is a difference between 100 years of occupation/war and 100 years of presence, people should use commonsense. He was obviously talking about our presence in Iraq not of war or occupation...He is not a war monger!
Better there than here...remember 9/11?
Submitted on April 27th, 2008 by Minuteman CADid he mean 100 years? Absolutely. Was he wrong? Absolutely not.
As a former member of the armed forces, I completely understand the personal sacrifice involved in making that committment. I will never speak ill of any persons dedication to this great nation.
That being said, I do not think that we should have entered Iraq. I do agree that it was more stable under Saddam than now. The point is, however, that we are past argueing over whether we should be there or not. Get over it. We are there and committed, for better or worse. WE cannot pull out now. It would do more to destabilize the Arab world than our presence does.
The bottom line is this: 9/11 happened and we have not seen a repeat. Do you ever ask yourselves why? Think of the amount of resources our enemies must now dump into Iraq instead of operations of terror in the U.S. It is right for us to stay, if for no other reason, than to have the fight on their lands instead of ours.
With that said, I feel deeply for the loss of each of my brothers, but we all know that as an all-volunteer force, we took an oath of an enlistment and honor to our country outweighs fear. To all of our heores, thank you.
USAF 1996-2005
Occupation
Submitted on April 22nd, 2008 by AnonymousIf we have troops in the country it is an occupation. Remember that the war was concluded long ago when Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished." It is these kinds of occupations that enrage citizens of other nations enough to blow themselves up. If there were Chinese military bases inside the U.S., how would you feel? If we are to continue our current foreign policy, we need to at the very least, restore our moral superiority in the world. It also doesn't help that most people believe we are after the oil.
Just a few thoughts...
Re: Military budget is plenty huge
Submitted on April 21st, 2008 by JoelLeave aside that we spend more on our military than then rest of the developed world ... combined ... your 3.4 percent number is pretty deceiving.
First of all: It doesn't include the supplemental budgets for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which have been passed separately from the main budget.
Second of all: Oh yeah, we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. I know. I already said this. But that bears repeating.
Third of all: That 3.4 percent of the economy is still 22 percent of the federal budget.
It's possible that this is justifiable. But let us not pretend that we're not spending that much on the military. Because we clearly are.
Military Budget is actually pretty big.
Submitted on April 21st, 2008 by The Big Klosowskihttp://www.warresisters.org/pages/piecha...
Their estimate is:
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
The GAO official estimate is around 20% of the Federal Budget actually goes to Defense.
The reason why the 3.4% official figure is misleading is as follows:
Source: Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_bu...
Military budget is NOT huge
Submitted on April 21st, 2008 by smmackDo you know the percentage spent on department of defense??????? DO YOU??? ONLY 3.4 percent. Stop spewing plain LIES, get your facts. We spend more than eneough for the education and welfare in this country. It is foreign aid and many other welfare gov progrmas which MUST be shut down ASAP!
it is WW3 actually
Submitted on April 21st, 2008 by smmackNo it isnt ww2, it is ww3, and we could say ww4 in some aspects. At any point, this war we are ingaged in of which we IGNORED for well over 20 years, is a war not a "so called war". If we were NOT in Iraq we would still be the targe for these radical islamic thugs to hit. It is high time Americans wake up, wise up and educate themselves on this enemy specifically. It is sad to see such ignorance especially this long after the bombing in Beiruit and the hostage situation.
Sorry but you are wrong
Submitted on April 19th, 2008 by AnonymousJapan did NOT readily agree to meet our demands. That is why we droped the bomb on Hiroshima. That is the only thing that lead to the surrender of Japan.
MILITARY PRESENCE
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by janmbOur country is in a financial mess and its time the USA leaders stop believing we are General Manager of the World.
If our country is down the tubes and that's where we are headed fast and furious then how can we possibly even be a help to anyone else anyway---we are going to be the NEEDY ones.
Our tax dollars are being spent overseas in other countries as well as the billions going to IRAQ.
ASK --did all our military stationed overseas protect us on 911 ? Our own security is working hard to protect us from another attack on our soil and we need to do more than we are doing.
truth or not irrelevant
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by AnonymousThis so called "war on terror" is not WWII with defined armies determined to expand their empires as was Germany and it's allies. Daily, Iraqi's are fed up with our occupation and are joining ranks through militant means with those intent on our removal. As long as there is no army to surrender and an ever expanding insurgency, our presence in Iraq will be one of war and not one of regional security. As long as we're there be it 8 years or 100, our troops will be shot at and mortared; we will respond with air assaults and tank fire. That is not an agreement founded on surrender as with Germany and Japan, that is a war.
Truth or not?
Submitted on April 16th, 2008 by koolmom21Did McCain called for a 100-year-war/occupation of Iraq... truth or not?
The way you worded the question is miss leading.
No- he did not call for the war to last for 100 years. Yes-he said if we have to occupy Iraq for 100 years, then we will.
"President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq . Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same
one his father fought for in WWII. It is not."
Our country had just came out of the depression but we had no choice but to go to war. The people of our nation stood behind our president and congress. This is turning out to be another Vietnam War . People stopped showing their support for this war and our troops. For many years our Vietnam soldiers were not treated like heroes. They were heroes and we should have told them so from the beginning!! It's a shame on our nation.
What happen to patriotic spirit? We can not win a war without it. Our troops are fighting for their life and ours. They see the news and how people are now and it truly depressives them.
I think Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton think that -if we pull our troops and move them to Afghanistan that terrorist will follow over there. What happens if they are wrong??? Do you truly believe that our homeland would be safer???
What will happen to Iraq? They would be taken over by Iran and Iran would become even stronger. If that happens we are in BIG TROUBLE HERE IN OUR OWN LAND! Think about it! If you do not believe me that is your choice but just because you do not believe it does not mean it can't happen! What would have happen if we pulled our troops out of World War 2? We would all be wearing swastikas and be under their rule!
I hate the war also but these people want to kill us. I am a 50 year old women who has learn from our past. SORRY SO LONG!!!
telling the truth but...
Submitted on April 16th, 2008 by AnonymousI agree with McCain's statement that he is not calling for a hundred year war. However, we cannot allow political fear mongering to hold us in check. McCain is still calling for the status quo of maintaining a huge military budget at the expense of all other budgeting issues. Are we truly maintaining our safety when we are not educating children, encouraging innovative business, and investing in digital and physical infrastructure?
speaking of greed ...
Submitted on April 16th, 2008 by John 2000does anyone have google shots of all of the residences of say: Feinstein, Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Gore, Kerry, 'reverend' Wright, etc, etc, ... these people of the people? Have they all requested that they not be available for 'security' concerns.
Look, I despise excessive greed too, but detest hypocrisy more.
And Jesus went into the temple and then got crucified and later sat at the right hand of God. And God said unto him, "Lord, did not thou knowest that greed is my favorite tool, for withouteth it, that planet is a bore"
McCain's 100 year war
Submitted on April 16th, 2008 by AnonymousNo I don't think Senator McCain meant that Americans should stay in Iraq for 100 years but, I think he means to keep troops there for as long as HE thinks it's necessary. I believe the American troops should come home within 2 years, if possible. The troops are EXHAUSTED, their morale is low and with economy as bad as it is because of the money going toward the war and mercenaries, the situation is extremely difficult for their familes and relatives back home. I dont think Senator McCain is in touch with what is happening with the residents of America and his constituency, because he is not living it. He has money for the basics, luxuries, health care, money for his children's college education. Money to buy or finance homes - he's set financially - what does he know or even care about anyone. He association is only with the wealthy. I have NOTHING AGAINST WEALTHY PEOPLE but, GREED is NOT good.
Regard for President
Submitted on April 16th, 2008 by AnonymousI am appalled by the attitude of most people toward our President. We are admonished in sccrpture to pray for our leaders. The President's main duty as the office implies is to protect and defend our country. Pres. Bush has done this to the best of his ability and ias being blamed for the econocy. That is usually done by someone like Greenspan or a person in that position. The gas price in America has risen over a dollar during Pelosi's and democratic control of Congress. Let's not lose sight of God (even though we are known as bitter and "clinging to our religion.
No, you are the ones making
Submitted on April 15th, 2008 by AnonymousNo, you are the ones making a mess of everything. We're just fed up with it, and we're not blind like the Republican 'sheep'.
Republicans
Submitted on April 15th, 2008 by AnonymousI would hope after Bush's eight-year nightmare and the mess we're in now, people have the common sense NOT to vote Rep. this time. Have we learned a lesson American. Way to go putting Bush in there another 4 years, look how much worse off we are.
NOT ??? Are you deaf?
Submitted on April 15th, 2008 by AnonymousWho answered this poll with NOT? Are you deaf, he CLEARLY says "Make it a hundred". Sheep.
Hey you phoney bologna lefties ...
Submitted on April 15th, 2008 by John 2000what are you complaining about? We keep you tied up in Iraq for 100 years, we give you Gitmo, we give you Abu Graib, we give you so much ... and all you can do is complain and spin, spin, spin. We keep you, the real enemy, tied up overseas. Yeah, you know it's true. You are nothing without all these gifts you are handed. You believe everything that the 'reverend' charged from the Trinity pulpit, and more. But, you have to hide behind the black power base of the party you have subverted, because you know you cannot afford to step into the light of day to be recognized. You are the bitterness.
Thoughts
Submitted on April 14th, 2008 by AnonymousI agree. This country has all its problems on G.W. and his lousey administration. Read the first line of the constitution--It says"WE THE PEOPLE' NOT ME THE PRESIDENT. We need to get out now. We are so hated now that every muslim country is out to get us ,thanks to G.W. AND A VOTE FOR MCAIN IS ANOTHER 4 MORE YEARS OF BUSH'S POLICIES !!!!WAKE UP AMERICA. VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!!!
Don't forget
Submitted on April 14th, 2008 by AnonymousDon't forget that the Iraqi People go through a 9/11 sized body count every month or so, all in the name of oil, not freedom. Our brave men and women's lives are wasted. Iraq was not a terrorist state until we got there. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The world is a much more dangerous place because of this war, and the global economy is down the tubes because of it.
"Cut the head off a wolf, and it still has the power to bite your hand off"
if america were old enough
Submitted on April 13th, 2008 by AnonymousThey have repelled all occupations of their homelands with sheer tenacity and a radical belief system for thousands of years.
shouldn't we be a little more sensitive about how we view 'these people's views
thanks for the draft issue
Submitted on April 12th, 2008 by Anonymousi will vote for mccain! knowing that he will draft the likes of george bush and the likes of wolfewitz, scooter and cheney.
no more college deferments, be real men
mccain
Submitted on April 12th, 2008 by Anonymousmccain the vietnamese candidate..........
5 years in vietnamese prision camp, oh what a hero?
mccain chose to drop 500 pound bombs on children and the old.
what a hero?
what 5ft tall?--just like the top gun movie guy.
oh he's 71 years old----what a hero?
8 more for sure under McCain
Submitted on April 12th, 2008 by AnonymousMcCain surely didn't mean to justify an active combat situation for 100 yrs. He is smarter than that. One does have to ask though, would he pull out during his term(s) if a decisive win isn't possible? I think that we can count on at least 4 yrs and 8 if he were reelected. 100 yrs would be "short term" for these people if their history is any indication of the future. They have repelled all occupations of their homelands with sheer tenacity and a radical belief system for thousands of years.
Occupation
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by Hannah MC*۞אּعI ร †
To stay in Iraq as we stayed in Japan would not work. Japan readily agreed to meet our demands, not to mention it was in their best interest to not have an offensive army as that is what allowed their economy to bounce back quickly. With Iraq, we're not on the best ground. People don't want us there, or if they do it's not enough people to justify a peaceful "takeover" like we saw in Japan.
Also, I doubt Iraq would like us to "defend them". If Iraq doesn't like or trust us, then they wouldn't want to give up their rights to an offensive anything for us to come in its place. Likewise, most Americans are sick of Iraq. We don't want to be there, so why would we want to pay how much more in Taxes to "defend" Iraq? If we were to do the same treaty with Iraq that we did with Japan, then we'd be paying to expand our Army to cover their backs as well. The American people hate paying for the war as it is, so why would they want to pay just as much post-war?
To stay in Iraq in the same sense as we stayed in Japan may not be the same as our current standing, but in the eyes of both Iraqies and Americans, it'd be just as bad.
I can't talk about Korea. I'm not well versed on our agreement with South Korea.
It's not just Iraq. Our
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by wishnevskyIt's not just Iraq. Our history after WWII has been a constant stream of trying to clean up other nations colonial messes.
Vietnam, Iraq, the Middle East, Somalia, on and on. I suppose Korea, Cuba and Central America were our messes, but except for Korea, it didn't cost us any lives.
Israel, was set up by Britain in one of it's colonies, to solve a European problem, what to do with the surviving and displaced Jews, and has poisoned our relations with the Arab countries for fifty years, going on forever.
A permanent mess with no way out. The religious wacky right identifies with Israel even thought they hate Jews, leaving us stuck in a quagmire.
Saudi Iraqia?
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by AnonymousWhat type of people we're dealing with?
Do you understand what kind of trouble the British got into when taking over the Middle East and redrawing their own political boundaries for countries while thinking like that? "They all look alike to me?"
Last time I checked we've gone to war with Iraq twice and neither times have they retaliated on our soil.
Do you know where Saudi Arabia is? That is who attacked us my friend. And they are our ally. The truth hurts.
Just A Poor Choice of Words
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by AnonymousFirst off I'm not a McCain supporter, I'm voting for Obama. But I think McCain just had a slip up. He was likely stating that yes we will have some portion of military personnel in Iraq for many decades to come. I don't think he meant we will have the entire 160,000 troops we have now in Iraq for a century. Not even Vietnam or Korea lasted that long and they were considerably worse than Iraq is(except monetarily).
That said. I firmly believe that if John McCain becomes President he will institute a military draft.
Don't leave Iraq
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by AnonymousIf we leave Iraq then all those lives have been wasted. Don't ever forget about 9/11 and about what kind of people we are dealing with. If we pull out, we tell them that if they do anything wrong we blow them off the map. We are a world power and must make this world safer for the future generations. Terrorism will never end. We need to stay there and cut the head off the snake. The only reason these brave men are dying is because of politicians interfering with there duty. Our troops need more firepower and more technology so that they don't have to jump on gernades to save their friends. As for Presidents, our best hope is the Secretary of Defense or Oprah. Now Oprah has done more good than anyone I know and is a lot better then the canidates that we have now.
occupation of Iraq
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousThe argument that we don't want troops in Iraq "if all hell breaks loose" is exactly why we need those troops there. The presence of 35-40 thousand GIs is a warning to anyone that the full might of the USA will be brought to bear on the source of "all hell" breaking loose. krukut
He called for an occupation
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousMcCain seems to have his plans together. He wants to keep a close eye on the state of Iraq, because I'm guessing he doesn't want this war happening again. We have been keeping a close eye on other countries, but we kept troops out. I'd support surveillance from a distance, and reports from their current affair, but we don't need any soldiers to be in there if all hell breaks loose for any reason after this war ends and we pull out.
McCain's comments about
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by the center of reasonMcCain's comments about having a presence in Iraq for the long term strike me as a little naive for a military man. He cites Germany and South Korea and Japan as examples of the U.S. having bases long after hostilities have ceased. The difference is that we won those wars and our enemies were governments who signed peace treaties upon their defeat promising no more hostilities. Who will sign a peace treaty for Iraq? There cannot be an official end to hostilities since no one can speak for the enemy combatents. Under those circumstances a permanent U.S. base would be a constant target thereby creating more danger rather than less.
continued presence in Iraq
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousAs with the other Countries in which we have fought, such as Japan & Germany, we need to also continue to maintain a presence in Iraq. Without doing so..how can we be assured of World Peace!
although McCain did not mean
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by Anonymousalthough McCain did not mean we would be fighting for 100 years, it does not matter because the comment specifically insinuated we would be there as long as we need to and once there is peace we would still have a presence like japan or korea. however, given how incinderary the situation in Iraq is as well as the current global outlook, comparing Iraq to Korea or Japan is the falsehood. The question we need to asks ourselves is if we really need to have a hold in that part of the world. I do not believe so in the slightest. Others do and it is difficult to determine who is right.