Reply With Quote
This quote was more taken out of context than any other this political season...and that includes the "Obama supports Reagan ideas" claim.
McCain and the Hundred Years' War
John McCain has gone on the record, supporting 100 years of war in the Middle East:
McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me"
http://video. google.com/ videoplay? docid=6077932230 652381401&q=mccain+100+ years+war&total=64&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search &plindex=0
We have already had one Hundred Years' War, which is one too many for the people of the Occident. Now McCain wants another one.
Hundred Years' War
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Hundred_Years' _War
The Hundred Years' War is unique in history, in that everybody was a loser in that war. It is the only war in history where every single person alive at the beginning of the war (1337), was dead by the end of the war (1453).
The Hundred Years' War, like many other government wars, lasted longer than expected. It actually lasted 116 years, about the length of years that the oldest human beings in human history have lived.
This war was so gruesome, that they even continued fighting right on through the Black Death of 1347-1351, a plague which killed more people in Europe than WWII.
This war also produced such atrocities as the burning at the stake in 1431 of a young 19-year old religious girl named Joan of Arc.
It also produced the brutal atrocities of the infamous Battle of Agincourt in 1415.
Below, is a list of major battles fought in the Hundred Years' War. Why Senator McCain would want another one defies imagination:
1337 Battle of Cadsand
1340 Battle of Sluys
1345 Battle of Auberoche
1346 Battle of Crécy
1346–1347 Siege of Calais
1347-1351 The Black Death
1350 Les Espagnols sur Mer English fleet defeats Castilian fleet in a close fight.
1351 Combat of the Thirty
1356 Battle of Poitiers
1364 Battle of Auray
1367 Battle of Nájera (Navarette)
1372 Battle of La Roc e
1380 Castilian fleet sacks and burns English port towns.
1385 Jean de Vienne, lands an army in Scotland, but is forced to retreat.
1415 Battle of Agincourt
1416 English defeat numerically greater French army at Valmont near Harfleur
1417 Naval victory in the River Seine under Bedford
1418 Siege of Rouen
1419 Battle of La Roc e
1421 Battle of Bauge
1423 Battle of Cravant
1424 Battle of Vernuil
1426 March 6 French besieging army under Richemont dispersed by a small force under Sir Thomas Rempstone in "The Rout of St James" in Brittany
1429 February Battle of the Herrings
1428-1429 Siege of Orléans
1429 Battle of Patay
1431 Joan of Arc burned at the stake
1435 Battle of Gerbevoy
1439 Following a surprise attack, John Talbot disperses a French army of 6000 under the Constable Richemont at Avranches in Normandy.
1440 John Talbot takes Harfleur
1450 Battle of Formigny
1453 Battle of Castillon
Ron Paul opposes 100 years of war in the Middle East, and had he been alive in 1337, he would have opposed the Hundred Years' War as well.
George Santayana
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Wisdom Quotes
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002322.html
This quote was more taken out of context than any other this political season...and that includes the "Obama supports Reagan ideas" claim.
Moore-onic statement.
100 year war...
McCain never said that. He said we would be there, (or likely be there?) for 100 years.
We have been in Germany and Japan since the 40's.
We have been in Korea since the 50's.
Why not Iraq as long, or longer. We will likely be in Germany and Japan for more than 100 years too. Are we at war there?
ing moore-ons.
More than likely we will have some sort of presence in Iraq for a very long time to come, it is going to be a breeding ground for Muslim extremists, if you think things are bad now just imagine us leaving all at once without monitoring Iraq. We cannot simply pull out and hope things will be all right, that is not the way its going to go down.
Why the are you so afraid of terrorists?
You know those bas s have been around for A LOT longer than 2001, right?
They were hijacking planes and killing civilians in the 60s and 70s, but because they flew into the WTC, you cowards go running to Uncle Sam to protect you?
WTF?!
Did you leave your balls in your purse, or what?
google is your friend
linkHere’s the exchange, with a voter given the nickname of Ernest Hemingway by Mr. McCain because of his likeness to the author. We’ll refer to him as E.H. for the purposes of shorthand in the dialogue below:
E.H.: I want to say at the outset I’m not going to be voting for you. I’m going to be voting in the Democratic primary in order to defeat the senator from new york, who I refer to as a Joe Lieberman Democrat.
I have listened to Hillary Clinton say probably a hundred times that she will end the war and I’ve heard you say we can’t leave Iraq. In both cases I think the devil’s in the details. I looked at your Web site; I read everything on your web site today and I couldn’t find any answers to my questions.
What I would like to know is, I’ve heard you say a million times all the reasons why we can’t leave Iraq. But I’ve never heard you say what it is you hope to accomplish in Iraq and how long it’s going to take.
Mr. McCain: Yes, sir, and thank you for coming tonight and thank you for your frankness and candor. … This is the classic counterinsurgency we’re engaged in right now. This is not a new strategy, General Petraeus has updated it, but the fact is it’s a classic counterinsurgency.
And you have to get areas under a secure environment and that secure environment then allows the economic political and social process to move forward. … In case you missed it, on New Year’s Eve, people were out in the streets in Baghdad by the thousands for the first time in years.
That’s because we provided them with a safe and secure environment. Is it totally safe? No. I talked earlier about the suicide bombs and the continued threats.
And then what happens is American troops withdraw and they withdraw to bases and then they eventually withdraw, or we reach an arrangement like we have in South Korea, with Japan. We still have troops in Bosnia.
But the fact is it’s American casualties that the American people care about and those casualties are on the way down rather dramatically.
And the option, and I’ll say this again because you’ve got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I’d look you in the eye and tell you Al Queda would have said we beat the United States of America. If we’d gone along with Harry Reid and said the war was lost to Al Queda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East, and I am convinced of that and so is General Petraeus as well as others.
So I can tell you that it’s going to be long and hard and tough.
I can tell you the option of defeat is incredible and horrendous. And I can tell you and look you in the eye and tell you that this strategy is succeeding.
And what we care about is not American presence, we care about American casualties and those casualties I believe will be dramatically and continue to be reduced.
Please follow up.
E.H.: I do not believe that one U.S. soldier being killed almost every day is success. There were three U.S. soldiers killed today. I want to know how long are we going to be there? Are you are you …
Mr. McCain: How long do you want us to be in South Korea? How long do you want to be in Bosnia?
E.H. There’s no fighting going on in South Korea. Let’s not talk about South Korea. Let’s come back to Iraq.
Mr. McCain: Thank you sir, and I can look you in the eye and tell you that those casualties tragically continue as I made very clear in my opening remarks. But they are much less and we will eventually eliminate them.
And again the option of setting a date for withdrawal is a date for surrender and we would then have many more casualties and many more American sacrifice, if we withdraw with setting a date for surrender.
Now you and I have an honest open disagreement, but I can tell you six months ago that people like you who believe like you said the surge would never succeed. And it is succeeding. And I’ve been there and I have seen it with my very own eyes.
E.H.: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years –-
Mr. McCain: Maybe a hundred.
We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.
That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.
Not that I'm much of a fan of McCain or of the US continuing to provide for the defense of nations which are more than capable of doing it on their own, but clearly McCain's quote has been taken out of its original context.
If you oppose a presence in Iraq, then say so... but don't insult people's intelligence with such transparent attempts to mislead as bending McCain's statement to imply a "hundred years war." That makes you a liar.
I still dont understand this obssession with AQ/Terrorism.
Just baffles my mind...
Think about it. It is not an obsession. It is a fact. When
it was "over there" it was a distant thing. When it hit us
here in the U.S. it came home in spades. Or is several
thousands lives not enough to become concerned about
AQ/Terrorism?
In Galileo's reality, McCain actually did call for 100 years of total war in Iraq. Immediately thereafter, he announced that he is 100% Jewish, and then drank a golden goblet full of Iraqi childrens' blood. Also, McCain can shoot lightning out of his fingers.
Yes, sadly terrorism has been a reality in our culture for many years. There are several instances of terrorism abroad (USS Cole, Kobar Towers, etc.), but 9/11 was different....an attack on US soil resulting in massive casualties.
If you think that this country WOULDN'T be responsive to the greatest act of terror on this country's soil, then you're clearly misguided.
Unfortunately, there are factions of a benign religion that pervert its meaning and use it as a reason to seek out and destroy Western civilization. Rather than being reactive to a group so set on our destruction, there are some that feel we need to go on the offensive.
By and large, the world supported the US when it went on the offensive against al-Queda and took down the Taliban in Afghanistan.
No. I could make a long, compelling argument against our current "response" to terrorism (as if they deserve a response, but whatever).
Sum it up like this...
Im a white suburbanite. Detroit is the second most segregated city in the country (Chicago being #1). In certain areas, crime is off the charts. You want to get mugged/killed? Walk down that street, right there.
Anyway, lets use some analogies...
I was robbed by a black man while walking thru my neighborhood.
Up until now, "they" did that sort of thing "down there", but now its here in my backyard.
My response to this problem is two fold..
1) Set up an early warning system in my neighborhood when any black people are 'heard' saying they 'might' rob someone again here.
2) Establish a Surburban Presence in the heart of Detroit to dissuade this sort of attack again.
Sounds stupid doesnt it? Yeah, I thought so too.
No ing radically religious wad with laundry wrapped around his head is going to dictate how and where I go. They have their place, I have mine.
YOU see the problem as means to justify your ends (war in the Middle East).
I see it as a wake-up call to domestic protocol. The problem isnt Islamic radicals, although they dont help, the problem is how to prevent it from happening again. Simple.
1) Increased Security at airport. Not done yet.....coincidence?
2) Increased reponse to hijacked planes going toward "high yield" targets. According to some, the Air Force was running a training mission on 9/11 for exactly what happened that day. Hijacked planes going to high yield targets. Prior to 9/11, the AF's response time to such activity was something under 4 mins. That particular day it flat-out never happened due to...well, whatever, not important.
Here is what should have been the reponse to 9/11.
NEW POLICY: All hijacked planes that enter air space that contains high yield targets will be shot down.
Increased intelligence monitoring on all known and perceived terrorist organizations.
Once identified, political (sanctions to out and out no trade agreements) and military pressure of host countries (you do it, or we do, with or without your consent.....resist our forces and you'll be treated as an enemy combatant) to eradicate its vermin. If they cant do it, we will, swiftly and harshly.
No occupation. No rebuilding. No king-making. No overthrows or any other deviation thereof.
Bing. Bong. Done.
So, are you trying to say Iraq has something to do with terrorism?
Last time I checked, those dudes were from Saudi Arabia, but lets not muddy the waters with facts, we're at war now.....
How ing convenient for the people that support such things that negatively speaking on such matters labels you as not supporting the troops.
The logical fallacy continues. Doesnt change the fact that I still think youre a ing coward for fearing something youve never even seen.
Net result of what we have done?
No attacks on U.S. soil in over 6 years (and counting).
That is your gauge of success?
What happens when (inevitably) something like it happens again?
Youre going to blame the DHS? The President? The airlines?
You do realize that will just empower the government more, right?
I mean, youre already crying about your security, what happens next time? Limited movement between states? Racial profiling?
Where the does it end? At what point in our puny little existence are we going to say "Enough is enough, I can live with the inherent danger of crossing the street on my own."?
When do the fear-mongers get their balls back?
Maybe a better way to think about it is that a significant portion of this nation's military budget, which costs somewhere on the order of one trillion dollars per year, is devoted to dealing with a threat which consists of 20 guys armed with box cutters.
I never said anything about the pre-emptive takedown of a fascist dictator, who supposedly threatened the safety of the United States. I agree with you that it was totally unrelated to the war on al-Queda and radical Islamism.So, are you trying to say Iraq has something to do with terrorism?
Last time I checked, those dudes were from Saudi Arabia, but lets not muddy the waters with facts, we're at war now.....
How ing convenient for the people that support such things that negatively speaking on such matters labels you as not supporting the troops.
The logical fallacy continues. Doesnt change the fact that I still think youre a ing coward for fearing something youve never even seen.
Iraq was not and is not about terrorism.
And to suggest that we "haven't seen" terrorism at work, how do you explain 9/11? That was terrorism front-and-center. Most of us may not have been near those towers or known someone who died, but it was an affirmation that we could be attacked on our soil....that exposed a vulnerability that many of us didn't think we had.
As a rough comparison....
We had been lightly engaged in WWII for some time before Dec 7, 1941, but it was that day "that lived in infamy" and pushed us fully into the conflict. Similarly, we had been dealing with terrorism and radical Islamist groups like al-Queda with minimal effort and success, but when those towers fell, it pushed us into a full-scale offensive.
So we got off track....yes that was a mistake. But, that doesn't change the fact that al-Queda and radical Islamist terror tactics still exist and need to be dealt with strongly.
Don't confuse concern and worry with fear. They can be
two very different things.
And being fearful is not necessarily a bad thing. Being
foolish trumps it anytime.
That statement makes no sense....
A portion of the military budget is based on a conflict in Iraq that has nothing to do with 20 guys with box cutters. It has to do with training Iraqi soldiers and securing Iraqi borders.
And a significant portion of the military budget is being used for procurement of advanced systems to deal with future threats, whether they be terrorists or aggressive nation-states.
Basically, a of alot more than 20 guys with box cutters are driving our military budget.
Did not the US invade Iraq because of said threat?
Is not the "War on Terror" the preeminent threat to the nation?
And a significant portion of the military budget is being used for procurement of advanced systems to deal with future threats, whether they be terrorists or aggressive nation-states.
Basically, a of alot more than 20 guys with box cutters are driving our military budget.
What are these "future threats"? Threats we don't even know about? Great. We're blowing our wad (roughly one third of the federal budget or close to 10% of the US GDP) to combat a fiction.
"exposed a vulnerability that many of us didn't think we had."
And after 7 years of dubya and head and Repugs tearing away at the Cons ution and other laws and rights, we all have many more personal vulnerabilities.
OBL hit the WTC once, but the Repugs carried forward OBL's work and have hit, and are still hitting, the USA many times in many areas, turning the USA into a fascist state, its ins utions habitually, daily crushing individuals, aka "We The People", policed by secret shoot-to-kill private contractors. In WWII, these contractors would have been called "good Germans", doing whatever bidding of der fadderland dreamed up. Why not have them wear black or brown shirts like the progenitors?
OBL must laugh all day at how his absolutely brilliant WTC master-stroke has been multiplied many times over by dubya and head.
No. The US invaded Iraq because it was convinced that the fascist dictator had the intent and means to be an imminent threat to our national security.
Obviously that threat was overstated and the Bush administration used the not-so-distant memory of 9/11 to play up the threat, but the answer to your question is no.
You miss the intent of what I was saying....
If the preeminent threat was the Chinese, we would be building up our forces. If the preeminent threat was a fascist dictator, we would be building up our forces. If the preeminent threat....well you get the idea.
As long as there is a legitimate threat to our national security, we will need to maintain our military supremacy and spend to keep our arsenal technologically superior.
Hopefully that illustrates my point better.
link
So the preeminent threat is China which currently holds roughly $1 trillion in US government debt.You miss the intent of what I was saying....
If the preeminent threat was the Chinese, we would be building up our forces. If the preeminent threat was a fascist dictator, we would be building up our forces. If the preeminent threat....well you get the idea.
As long as there is a legitimate threat to our national security, we will need to maintain our military supremacy and spend to keep our arsenal technologically superior.
Hopefully that illustrates my point better.
We spend more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined and yet 'threats' remain? Damn we suck.
How much was the US expending on defense in 1938?
HC,
To the first point, I clearly stated that Bush played up 9/11. I acknowledge that at one point he made a direct, unsubstantiated claim that Saddam supported al-Queda. That's nothing new....
But the key phrase you missed, the one you didn't highlight, is the one that will forever be tied to this war; Weapons of Mass Destruction.
It was the fear and supposed evidence of these WMDs that spurred people to rally behind the cause. Though again, I will and have admitted that the supposed link to terrorism and 9/11 played a part.
Okay....I guess you didn't get that point.
I wasn't specifically calling out China as another threat. I was saying that as long as their is a threat, be it a nation-state or a perverted ideology, there will be the need for a strong military.
And yes, threats remain. We are the world's preeminent superpower and with that comes the notion of social responsibility, to correct wrongdoings in the world because we can and should. Throw in the primal instinct to bring down the "top guy", and the US ends up with many more enemies than any other country.
And I don't know about your last question, but I think you might tell me. What percentage of our GDP was the military in 1938?
I think the biggest thing that concerns me is the volume of terror only a few people caused on Sept 11th. It's pretty scary if you think about it. Imgainge if we were to turn our backs and run away from Iraq and Afghanistan, think about the potential of what could be done when the Radical Islam movement really takes off and is allowed to spread like a virus through the middle east. We obviously cannot understimate and ignore those " s" with "box cutters" and diapers wrapped around their heads.
The U.S. obviously has no interest in adreesing the issue of the WHY are they out to get us. Why do they hate us so? So the alternative is spending trillions and trillions of dollars and using our military might to keep them in check. If we continue to ignore their issues with us and get to the root of their hatred then this vicious circle will just keep going and going long past the time we are all dead and gone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
