The 100 year war lie.

[Charles_Main]

Ravi's analysis: McCain was admitting that if he is elected that we'd still be fighting AQ 100 years from now, therefore it would be okay if we were still occupying Iraq.

Of course that is nothing at all like he said, but keep telling the lie, I am sure it will work. Or more to the point it already has.

By comparing it to Korea and Japan, he was talking about a future where we have some troops, and bases in Iraq. Not where we are occupying Iraq, or fighting anyone. Just like is the case in Korea and Japan, which is what he made a comparison too.

Leave it to a lib to never let the truth get in the way of his wishes.

 

[Reality]

Do you realize how ignorant that statement is? Troops aren't trained to build alternative energy power stations. Let's envision this, a Tank operator building an alternative energy power station.....hmmm...

They are trained to fight and destroy stuff, and rightfully so. Policing isn't what troops are trained for either, but there is plenty of that in Iraq.

 

[Ravi]

It's not a lie. He is basically stating that AQ will not be defeated in the next 100 years. To me that's a horrific vision for a man that is running for POTUS to have; it's weak, it encourages terrorists and it keeps Americans living in fear.

But you can keep right on pretending he never brought AQ up and he expects our presense to be peaceful just like it is in Japan.

 

[Reality]

how long does he support us staying there while servicemen and women ARE being attacked and killed?

I thought maybe this question had been missed since no one has answered, so I figured I'd point it out again. I'm sure it was missed and not blatantly ignored.

 

[Reality]

Does the republican candidate believe in the sovereignty of the Iraqi state or would that 100 year non-violent presence be the decision of the Oval Office?

When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

'As Soon as Possible': Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

 

[Charles_Main]

It's not a lie. He is basically stating that AQ will not be defeated in the next 100 years.

lol, no, basically what he said was we will stay as long as it takes to make sure AQ remains defeated and does not return. Yep, what a horrible vision for a possible president to have indeed.

besides, I made this post because of people who kept taking only one small part of what he said, to imply that McCain would be happy if things stayed as they are now in Iraq for 100 years. Which of course is not the truth, and therefore is a lie when you say it. I am not sure what part of "as long as Americans are not being wounded or killed" you guys fail to grasp.

Why I am I kidding myself, you grasp it just fine, it just does not make as good of ammo if you use all his words.

 

[SingingMongoose]

Does it bother anyone other than me that we seem to be focued on sound bytes?

We all know politicians. Left, right, libertarian, wacko-tax-obsessed-people - we may disagree but don't we all know that sound bytes from politicians are a waste of time to argue about?

I'm not a lefty deflecting this post. Here's my take on it: He's saying we might be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same way that we've been in the other countries he mentioned. He's not saying we'll be at war for a hundred years, obviously.

So what's the point? Does this change anything we know about his and Obama's claimed Iraq War policy, which is that Obama wants to pull out sooner? Even if he had actually said that we're going to be fighting a England-vs.-France-style war of 100 years, what would it mean other than that he's an old man who says silly things? (People like me would argue "that means he's a little too senile to be pres," but again - what does that change?)

Real issues please.

 

[Charles_Main]

Does it bother anyone other than me that we seem to be focued on sound bytes?

Not as much as it bother me when people on either side keep using lies to make gains.

I don't like it when people spread BS lies about Obama, and I don't like it when they spread them about McCain.

 

[Ravi]

lol, no, basically what he said was we will stay as long as it takes to make sure AQ remains defeated and does not return. Yep, what a horrible vision for a possible president to have indeed.

besides, I made this post because of people who kept taking only one small part of what he said, to imply that McCain would be happy if things stayed as they are now in Iraq for 100 years. Which of course is not the truth, and therefore is a lie when you say it. I am not sure what part of "as long as Americans are not being wounded or killed" you guys fail to grasp.

Why I am I kidding myself, you grasp it just fine, it just does not make as good of ammo if you use all his words.

I'm using all his words. You are ignoring the ones he uses that imply we will still be fighting AQ in 100 years.

I actually agreed with your assessment of what he said until you started this thread and got me thinking about it.

 

[Charles_Main]

I'm using all his words. You are ignoring the ones he uses that imply we will still be fighting AQ in 100 years.

I actually agreed with your assessment of what he said until you started this thread and got me thinking about it.

Wrong again my friend you are making assumptions from what he said.

Specifically this line

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.

You are implying by this line that we would be fighting AQ the whole time. Could it be that what he is saying is that by keeping a presence there we would stop AQ from doing these things there with out actually fighting?

I don't know, I don't assume to know what the situation would be, unlike you who assumes we would be fighting the whole time.

We Kept troops in Germany to deter the soviets from Invading, we keep troops in Japan to deter anyone from attacking Japan, we keep troops in Korea in deter the North from Invading again. Why you guys can not see that maybe we would keep troops in Iraq to Deter AQ from ever gaining a foothold there again, or to deter Iran from Invading Iraq for example I can not say.

I could guess that you refuse to allow for that possibility only because it helps your candidate more politically if you don't.

Why else would you keep ignoring this part of his words.

That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.

Which to me makes it rather clear he is envisioning a peace time deployment of troops, not a war.

 

[CharlestonChad]

McCain supports Vietnam 2.0 and clearly has no intention of stopping the fighting. If he didn't want the "100 years" comment to become a major issue, he would have clarified his position a while ago.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

McCain supports Vietnam 2.0 and clearly has no intention of stopping the fighting. If he didn't want the "100 years" comment to become a major issue, he would have clarified his position a while ago.

He has and it has been clarified, hell a 5 year old that knew how to read can tell what he said and the fact you liars are not even very intelligent.

 

[Charles_Main]

McCain supports Vietnam 2.0 and clearly has no intention of stopping the fighting. If he didn't want the "100 years" comment to become a major issue, he would have clarified his position a while ago.

He has clarified it repeatedly, you guys just refuse to hear it.
besides he only needs to clarify it because people keep taking only part of what he said out of context and keep repeating it.

There should have been no need for clarification. To anyone with out a bias reading it, it is clear he was speaking of a peace time deployment of troops when he said 100 years.

or do not get this line at all?

That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.

 

[CharlestonChad]

He has and it has been clarified,

link?

 

[CharlestonChad]

He has clarified it repeatedly, you guys just refuse to hear it.
besides he only needs to clarify it because people keep taking only part of what he said out of context and keep repeating it.

There should have been no need for clarification. To anyone with out a bias reading it, it is clear he was speaking of a peace time deployment of troops when he said 100 years.

or do not get this line at all?

So McCain thinks the middle east will accept our presence for 100 years. That's maybe as crazy as saying we're going to be at war for 100 years.

 

[Charles_Main]

So McCain thinks the middle east will accept our presence for 100 years. That's maybe as crazy as saying we're going to be at war for 100 years.

You could have said the same thing about Japan and Germany during WWII, and look they accepted it. We have had troops in Saudi for years, isn't that part of the Mid east? LOL

However chad I am not trying to convince you of anything. I only had to read 1 of your posts when I joined this board to know where you stand, and that you are an unbending Democrat and Liberal Partisan, and therefore a waste of time to debate with.

 

[mattskramer]

yeah, I mean after all it is not like they killed over 3000 Americans in one day or anything. Oh wait they did.

Iraq had nothing to do with it! It is time to move many of our soldiers from Iraq.

 

[Charles_Main]

Iraq had nothing to do with it! It is time to move many of our soldiers from Iraq.

I didn't say Iraq did bud, I was responding to someone saying we should not fear a bunch of people hiding in Caves in Pakistan.

Specifically this quote

Originally Posted by Kirk
Defend us from what???

Are you afraid of a bunch of guys in a cave in Pakistan with no army, no navy, and no air force?

Do please try and keep up, and not take my words out of context.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong again my friend you are making assumptions from what he said.

Specifically this line



You are implying by this line that we would be fighting AQ the whole time. Could it be that what he is saying is that by keeping a presence there we would stop AQ from doing these things there with out actually fighting?

I don't know, I don't assume to know what the situation would be, unlike you who assumes we would be fighting the whole time.

We Kept troops in Germany to deter the soviets from Invading, we keep troops in Japan to deter anyone from attacking Japan, we keep troops in Korea in deter the North from Invading again. Why you guys can not see that maybe we would keep troops in Iraq to Deter AQ from ever gaining a foothold there again, or to deter Iran from Invading Iraq for example I can not say.

I could guess that you refuse to allow for that possibility only because it helps your candidate more politically if you don't.

Why else would you keep ignoring this part of his words.



Which to me makes it rather clear he is envisioning a peace time deployment of troops, not a war.

My candidate? I think they both suck.

Why is he even thinking AQ will still exist in 100 years and we'll still be worrying about them...it's just another never ending scare tactic. I'm shuddering with fear.

 

[Charles_Main]

My candidate? I think they both suck.

Well At least we agree on that.