Reply With Quote
Simple, he wants to maintain this Empire come or no more money....
John McCain: Let’s Stay In Iraq For “100 Years”!
By: Nicole Belle on Friday, January 4th, 2008 at 9:01 AM - PST
At a campaign stop in New Hampshire with booster Holy Joe Lieberman, Republican presidential contender John McCain shows that he has his finger on the pulse of the national mood (2/3 of New Hampshire citizens poll that they want the troops home now) by telling potential voters that he’d like to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
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 Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.
Simple, he wants to maintain this Empire come or no more money....
Having destabilized the M/E, enabled AQI and other terrorists into Iraq, empowered Iran, while exhausting US military and treasury, these militaristic mother ers now say the US must stay there for "US security". GFY, you asshole nutters.
You're dead meat, McCain, at least due to your support of the bogus Iraq war, overriding the majority of the democratically elected Iraqi parliament that has demanded a pullout schedule. Ignoring the Iraqi parliament's democratic wishes will certainly inflame more Iraqis against the US occupation.
Iraq was never about US security, never about spreading freedom and democracy, but only about the oil, for which the US taxpayer pays protection for the oilcos that never give the US taxpayers a break on fuel prices. What a deal.
How many $Ts to stay in Iraq for 100 years?
And how many 100 $Ks is McCain willing to pay out of his pocket to finance the oilco protection racket?
I'm pretty sure you are making a big deal out of nothing....
McCain was talking about maintaining a presence in the region, which would not entail a specific mission of training troops or rebuilding infrastructure. It would be a much smaller force than the one currently in Iraq.
And what McCain said about Japan/S Korea wasn't false. We have permanent bases in and around those areas today. The strategy of maintaining a "ready" force in an area of responsibility is not foreign to this military or to this country. So why should it be any different for Iraq and surrounding areas?
Nice way to stir things up though....
Last edited by AFBlue; 01-04-2008 at 09:43 PM.
I see, so it wasn't really about liberating Iraq so much as it was permanently controlling it?
How does the U.S. Military "control" South Korea while it monitors the North? How does it "control" Japan?
The military presence isn't about "controlling" any independent state or its people, it's about "monitoring" the region.
Again, this is nothing new. The U.S. Military has presence (both permanent and otherwise) all across the globe.
So why should Iraq be any different?
Remember Tony. Most people here have no critical thinking skills.
I like winning though...
It helps when you're right and someone is just making a big deal out of nothing.
I do think, however, that McCain's "matter-of-factness" on this issue and in general, could rub folks the wrong way. What I see as conviction some might see as stubborness.
I guess it all depends on the perspective....except on this, which I'm right about.
It also helps people realize when they're wrong and maybe learn to stop griping about politics in a reactionary way. The le is already stupid in itself, as far as context goes.
I agree with this.I do think, however, that McCain's "matter-of-factness" on this issue and in general, could rub folks the wrong way. What I see as conviction some might see as stubborness.
I think McCain might be guilty of assuming that people (lay people) will just go with what he already sees (given the United States' military history/knowledge.) in saying statements like that. Which has less to do--with those simplistic assertions of more U.S. "imperialism",--and really has more to do with military pragmatism.
Good thing McCain doesn't have a chance in of becoming president.
Kinda of like the confidence of genuine Texan is viewed as arrogance.I like winning though...
It helps when you're right and someone is just making a big deal out of nothing.
I do think, however, that McCain's "matter-of-factness" on this issue and in general, could rub folks the wrong way. What I see as conviction some might see as stubborness.
I guess it all depends on the perspective....except on this, which I'm right about.
Because it's in the Middle East, home of the Muslim religion, a religion that says do not abide occupation by the infidel?How does the U.S. Military "control" South Korea while it monitors the North? How does it "control" Japan?
The military presence isn't about "controlling" any independent state or its people, it's about "monitoring" the region.
[]
Again, this is nothing new. The U.S. Military has presence (both permanent and otherwise) all across the globe.
So why should Iraq be any different?
I agree. I saw the clip and I didn't think it was a big deal. McCain also said that he would only doing it as long as it didn't result in US casualties. Given that condition, what is there to complain about?
It's an unrealistic condition. There will be medium to heavy US casualties as long as we're there.
Yep. the U.S. didn't 'liberate' north Korea or Japan through pro-active war...completely different cir stances....but the U.S. strategery plan has always been a permanent military presence in the region, in this context, McCain's statement isn't surprising at all...
A few months ago no one gave Huckabee a chance in , except for a few choice posters here, of course....
...besides, as we speak, McCain is getting swift-boated by the same guys who swift-boated John Kerry in 2004......http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/
the slimebag bas s never went away, and they'll be telling even more vicious lies in 2008
This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/hayes
Return of the Swift Boaters
by CHRISTOPHER HAYES
[posted online on January 2, 2008]
More than three years after John Kerry's bitter defeat, at the dawn of what looks like a far more promising campaign cycle for the Democrats, the party is still haunted by the specter of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Once upon a time, "Swift boat" denoted an obscure military vessel, but thanks to the activities of this group it has come to represent movement conservatism's penchant for ruthlessly (and effectively) smearing any and all political opponents, from a sitting senator and war hero to an 11-year-old boy with a cranial fracture.
Research by The Nation into Federal Election Commission records of the group's top twenty donors reveals that they've been remarkably active in this cycle, contributing and bundling nearly $200,000 to presidential candidates. This does not bode well. During the last presidential campaign, the wealthy backers of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--now rebranded as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth--didn't do their real dirty work until the general election, where as a tax-exempt 527 group they operated outside the restraints of direct campaign contributions. We may wish we were done with the Swift Boaters, but they aren't done with us.
In 2004 the top twenty donors all gave (with one exception) at least $50,000 to the group. The top three--Houston home builder Bob Perry, Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens and billionaire drugstore impresario and investor Harold Simmons--gave a combined $9.5 million ($4.45 million, $3 million and $2 million, respectively). Calculating the influence of these and the slightly less wealthy Swift Boat donors during this cycle is a touch more complicated than simply adding up their contributions. Each one exerts far more influence as a bundler, given the federal restrictions on individual giving, which limit donors to a maximum of $4,600 per cycle. So The Nation looked not only at the contributions of the donors themselves but also at those of their family members and employees. It's an imperfect method, since some employees are clearly contributing of their own volition (such as one employee of a Simmons company who gave money to Hillary Clinton), but it gives a rough estimate of who's backing whom and to what extent.
The most notable recipient of Swift Boat largesse is John McCain, erstwhile front-runner and Stand Up Guy. When the Swift Boat ads were first unleashed, McCain was alone among his Republican colleagues to condemn them. A fellow Vietnam veteran, a good friend of Kerry's and a former target of smears about his own service, McCain called the ads "dishonest and dishonorable," a "cheap stunt," and he urged Bush to condemn them. But in pursuit of the GOP nomination, McCain ditched the mantle of maverick for that of hack, and his once-floundering, possibly rejuvenated campaign has been aided along the way by $61,650 from Swift Boat donors and their associates. "There is such a thing as dirty money," said Senator Kerry in a statement, after The Nation informed him of McCain's FEC records. "I'm surprised that the John McCain I knew who was smeared in 2000 and thought so-called Swift Boating was wrong in 2004 would feel comfortable taking their money after seeing the way it was used to hurt the veterans I know he loves." (McCain's office did not return calls for comment.)
McCain's Swift Boat bounty is exceeded only by that of Mitt Romney, who has raked in $70,550. Romney's success with Swift Boat donors is significant because he has surpassed even McCain in his demonstrated willingness to do or say anything in pursuit of the presidency and because he has emerged as the GOP establishment's favored candidate. Last year, when McCain held that position, the Arizona senator received significant backing from Swift Boat donors. But many have subsequently switched their allegiance. Pickens, who donated to McCain in June 2006, is now an enthusiastic Giuliani donor and fundraiser (Giuliani ranks third in Swift Boat funding, with $47,950). Perry, who also recorded several donations to McCain's PAC in 2005 and 2006, is now a major donor and fundraiser for Romney. If the list of top Swift Boat donors is expanded to fifty, Romney's fundraising edge is even more pronounced. (Neither Romney nor Giuliani's campaign returned calls for comment.)
Also noticeable among the recipients of Swift Boat largesse is one who received only a single donation: Mike Huckabee. Despite meager fundraising and little national name recognition, the former Arkansas governor has experienced a bubble-like expansion of support and media attention, taking the lead in Iowa and approaching a steady lead in national polls. But the lack of Swift Boat contributions lends credence to the claim that Huckabee is viewed warily by the money men who call the shots in the modern GOP. Despite proposing a radically regressive tax change and taking Grover Norquist's an ax pledge, he's been attacked savagely by the Club for Growth and eviscerated by columnist George Will for "comprehensive apostasy against core Republican beliefs," among them "free trade, low taxes, the essential legitimacy of America's corporate en ies and the market system allocating wealth and opportunity."
This all supports the notion that the people behind the Swift Boat operation are chiefly concerned with the continued upward redistribution of wealth that is, more or less, the contemporary GOP's raison d'être. In 2006 Perry ponied up $5 million to start the Economic Freedom Fund, a 527 group devoted to attacking Democratic in bents, and landed a large donation from prominent Swift Boat donor Carl Lindner. All of which is to say that the Swift Boaters aren't some kind of side show, a coterie of vicious mudslingers operating at the edges of respectability. They are the show. They are modern conservatism's core funders and beneficiaries. With conservatives staring straight into the abyss, their activities in this election cycle could very well make the Swift Boat smears look tame by comparison.
This report was produced with support of The Nation Ins ute Investigative Fund. Additional research was provided by Nicholas Jahr.
We're already in Turkey and Qatar. We might as well be in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And we don't base our military strategy on the beliefs of radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Someone is a fortune teller...
As long as we're making predictions, I might as well throw mine into the hat...
The level of violence has decreased significantly since the troop surge and real progress has been made towards Iraq becoming a viable state.
The violence will continue to diminish and once the "training" mission is deemed complete by military commanders on the ground in Iraq, you will see a massive pullout of troops and a small contingency left behind at a permanent base. The massive pullout of troops will signify that the "occupying" force has left.
Truth is....nobody knows to what extent (time and level of intensity) we'll see the violence trend in the future.
So what's the difference between "controlling" and "monitoring"?
Can you control by monitoring?
Or monitor by controlling?
What action has being going on behalf of bloody foreigners
on VIETNAM soil, since 1975?
Monitoring or controlling?
I agree. Whether or not someone agrees with certain military strategies, it is a strategy that McCain is alluding to...applying that same historical approach to regions we've been looking to neutralize in the past.
Personally, I'm not sure if our approach of old' will apply to the current situation (radical Islamic groups) but I can see McCain making a valid case for those who aren't convinced that 'getting out' is the correct decision.
You can't compare the two costs because one is for a permanent "monitoring" station and the other has a specific mission of squashing escalated sectarian violence and training Iraqi troops.
I would assume the cost of maintaining a "monitoring" force in Iraq would be comparable to those bases in Europe and Asia.
Awesome, how are we going to pay for yet another useless "presence" somewhere else in the world?
Can we please have a section on my paycheck where they take my money that says this amount is for foreign bases? That would be nice.
"Controlling" is actively training Iraqi troops, participating in rebuilding of government structures, and being a part of the Iraqi election process.
"Monitoring" is simply having a presence in the region to rapidly respond to major escalations of violence if necessary.
Right now the military is playing a very active role in Iraq to get the country jumpstarted, which is obviously the source of contention. But the second phase in which we move from a "controlling" to a "monitoring" strategy in Iraq is something I wouldn't doubt most, if not all, candidates assume will take place.
For one more time...McCain didn't say anything new or controversial.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
