At issue is McCain's answer, in January, to a question about Bush's theory that troops could be in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain said: """"Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that'd be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."""""""

Only a fucking lying piece of shit from Chicago would call this a call for 100 more years of war.

This is your Great Black Hope.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq;_ylt=AqdBY2qvEsdM.9HK0V5jesBh24cA



-- Modified on 5/2/2008 1:46:50 PM

Why do you think Bambi talks changing Washington without giving specifics? Change is going to Chicago style corrupt and filthy politics.

By the way he was also born because of the Civil Rights March in Selma where his parents met.

It was hilarious to hear Michell talking about Wright's influence on children on CNN interview. Guess, she didn't know that when she sat in the pew with her children.

There is lying and there is bold faced lying. Both are trying to tell the public that they didn't know anything about the Black Liberation Theology, Wright preached and if they didn't then he doesn't have any judgement or the ability to understand. If we elect president, he would sit down with Ahmedinijad of Iran and sell him missiles, because it takes Bambi 20 plus years to ascertain situations and facts.

I'm saving all these redneck rants and I'm planning to post one a day during Obama's presidency. Just want to give you racist turds a fresh meal of humble pie each and every day.

I have a dream!!!!!!! And it will be so fine to watch you crackers choke on it. Bill, you get the first piece!!!! Whitey sho gonna be sorry when Obama be Massa!!!!!!

I don't see any reference to Obama anywhere in your link.  Are you smoking instead of drinking, again?

So you're OK with permanent occupation of the middle east?   You want Iraq to become the 51st state, is that it?   You think that's a good way to spend US $$??  

Assuming of course that McCain can make good on his promise of an end to US casualties.  I'll make a bet on that, if you'd like.

Now that I think about it, the JCS told Truman to stay the fuck out of Korea, and he ignored them.  

So what do we get for 34,000 KIAs and 50 years of guard duty for half the field army?  Hyundais?

George's mess while enduring the constant yapping of BOTH parties.

Frankly, I think Obama has a more coherent idea than Hillary does.  Hillary is as bad about showboating and fearmongering as the Republicans are.

And this "apologizing" shit is total bullshit.  Entirely apart from who might be "to blame" (and we could start with 13th century muslim slavers) it's not like any apology is worth a bucket of horse piss.   I think this is the Democrats' idea of experimenting with learning from the Republicans, sliding out of liability with a press conference.

See, that is the genius of Christianity, their God is a dumb fuck.  Like BenD points out, you can go out and murder women & children in cold blood, repent and you're off the hook.  Do it again and again, and that dumb fuck keeps on letting you off the hook.

Whereas Joe Pesci would have caught your ass first time you raised your hand, and he would have cut it off so you would remember not to raise the other.

we like to think it was for more than Hyundias....

“John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years,” Obama said during a town hall meeting in Lancaster, Pa.

“John McCain is willing to sign up for the prospect of spending as much as $150 billion or more each year for who knows how long,” Obama added, noting that by suggesting that the U.S. keep a long-term presence in Iraq, “that implies that there is some criteria by which we would understand how long it takes. John McCain has not been clear about what exactly leads him to decide it’s time to pull out.”

But the non-partisan group Factcheck.org says Obama’s claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a distortion to the point of “rank falsehood. ”
..............................................

Not the stuff of "new kinda politics", eh bub?
Great way to fight a CI too. Let the locals know you would have never tried to help em in the first place, then bail on em after they took up arms on your side of course they'll understand it wa that Bush dude who started it alL), then, when Al Queda comes back, you RE _INVADE, this time with the FULL support of the locals you abandoned last year....you following this?

great plan, almost as good as bush's

-- Modified on 5/2/2008 6:19:19 PM

my guess is you got AIDS smokin crack the white man sold ya and your banking on FlimFlamma to get you a reperations check.

talldim?

well, "we" also got relative peace among the Koreas and probably hundreds of thousands of lives saved over the years, and protection of part of that population from tyrants in NK, and thus mass starvation on a lesser scale. Or does that not matter because they are only measly Koreans?

"love, honor & obey" etc, and you get into the deal and find out it's not at all what she said it would be?

What if you lose $1,000, and then you spend $2,000, and you find yourself with no idea or plan how much more it's going to cost you to get back the original $1000?

The GOP is always great about the philosophy of reliability, as long as it's SOMEBODY ELSE actually paying for the guarantee.

A very good way to fight a counterinsurgency would be to 1st, be goddamned sure what your objective is going in, and 2nd, have some vague idea of how you are going to acheive it.  Obviously, neither happened here.

Do you REALLY think that this war has any definite end, or that it can be ended soon?  Listen to a few Vietnam vets who have learned to put themselves in the enemies' shoes.   Nobody asked us to go there, we invited ourselves.  And we fucked it up, big time, both in understanding an acheivable objective, and in the actual execution.

I know the Pentagon and State Dept is full of bright people, but nobody listened to them - the Bush administration pushed the flunkies to the front, and that aggravated the situation of having no acheivable goal.  

This is not Korea, where we can acheive conventional containment.  We walked into a 3-way Yugoslavia, and deliberately and knowingly set off a bomb, and now we're asking, "who could know?"  

If *I* saw this coming, I know goddamned well the NSC did.  Cheney is on tape saying he saw it coming.   His excuse that "9/11 changed everything" cannot be taken as meaning that 9/11 changed the laws of physics or economics, ie, what we could acheive.  It has to be taken as meaning that 9/11 changed what the GOP could get away with, because now they could scare the shit out of people.

It's TOTAL BULLSHIT to think that past casualties justify future casualties.  Bush FUCKED UP and CAUSED those casualties because he went to war with as much forethought as he would put into going to a frat party; and NOW the question is, what do we do?  Getting all misty-eyed is the LAST WORST plan.

We have to decide on an acheivable objective, and I really doubt that a bunch of 19 year olds are going to help the Sunnis and Shiites get along.

This is a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war because of FUCKED UP LEADERSHIP.   Bush walked us into an ambush, and he knew this was going to benefit nobody except his cronies.  Cheney knew it.  These people are not as dumb as they sound.

last I looked, we have plenty of problems right here at home.

The world is FULL of tyrants, and we both know that the reason Truman went after this particular crew - AGAINST obvious advice of JCS - was because it was going to hurt his chances of re-election if he was seen as "soft on communism".   Turns out he didn't know when to leave it alone.

Get this:  life is unfair; Americans are not responsible for the whole fucking world; good intentions do not substitute for brains, and protecting ourselves damn well better be out first priority.   We damn well better be able to get ourselves out of whatever we get ourselves into.   Ideological justifications for wars are bullshit.  

And I forgot one more thing - whiny racist victim guilt trip rationalizations are lamest of all.  If you'd ever packed a body bag, I wouldn't have to tell you that.

-- Modified on 5/2/2008 7:47:18 PM

Right or wrong, we entered Iraq. McCain's quote was about keeping troops there if needed to maintain stability (if that might help, and if the day ever came when stability occurs).

Then you brought up Korea and "50 years of guard duty". Whether you think it was right or wrong to get involved in Korea in the first place is irrelevant. So-called "guard duty" began when the armistace was finally signed. At that point US could have cut and run, likely resulting in a new invasion, or kept "guard duty". US kept guard duty, protecting millions from a new invasion. Its worked. And if we need to maintain a presence there, so be it. That's been one of the few US gov't investments that does seem to have paid off so far, unlike the vast majority of other foreign aid which hasn't led to any improvements at all.

If your whole philosophy can be boiled down to the bumpber-sticker mentality of "Get this: life is unfair" than why bitch about this, or anything else for that matter. After all, life is unfair.

And not being "responsible for the whole fucking world" does not equate to isolationism. Just because you can't do everything does not mean you do nothing.

I don't see this as likely to get any better.  

I think we're going to face some level of insurgency indefinitely, because its roots are in Sunni-Shiite conflict, and our own role as officious intermeddlers.  Al Qaeda is merely an opportunist here.

And I think we're going to face perennial Iranian meddling, because they are as interested in this as we would be if China invaded Mexico; and no, we can't take on another war there, we can't handle the ones we have - and no, nuclear zone fires would not kill enough Iranians, only set off the remaining ones on a death mission to kill Americans with no profit to us.

I said this in 2003 - how many generations will it take for us to turn iraqis into Americans at bayonet point?  Because that is the only thing that will make this place stable.

I don't think you understand the cost of lost opportunity here.  If the USA had NOT gone into Korea, what would we have done with those lives and money?

I don't think you understand here.  Wars are not something to pick; they are only to be fought when they are forced on you.  Because as anybody should be able to see, there is no way, by any measure, that war can be regarded as profitable or sensible.

If you think war is about ideals, I suggest you go find one and see for yourself.   I really don't have a lot of sympathy for chickenhawks.

What you have to understand is that soldiers are not cops, and they are not social workers, and the Iraqis are about as happy about us being there as the Vietnamese were, and that is truthfully the closest model there is.   Soldiers can kill people, and break things; but they can't turn Iraqis into Americans, and they aren't going to make the Sunnis want to live with Shiites, or vice versa, and we knew that going in.

At this point, our greatest problem is not in Iraq, but in Washington DC; and that is finding a mostly truthful govt; and there is nothing I would  like to see more than put the entire Bush administration on trial for malfeasance through crimes.  Mismanagement of defense contracts alone should get most of them locked up, and no, I don't trust Immelman McCain to clean house.


Don't give me this sad story about we broke it, we have to fix it.  You don't even have a plan for fixing it, and I'm telling you, it can't be done without killing enough people to scare the others shitless, and I don't think the place it worth that much ammo.

You broke it, I didn't.  I told you so.  What's more, I'm telling you that you AREN'T going to fix it in the lifetime of anybody here now.  You can, however, make it much worse by continuing to DICK AROUND, when we should be purging Capitol Hill.

And don't give me this shit about how you're going to bring liberty to the swarthy peoples of the world by bombing them.  They would rather have their own assholes kill them, trust me.

Iraq is not the Middle East.  It has a definite DMZ and no insurgency and NO RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE.  Vietnam is a closer model where American presence tended to make the locals into VietCong.
The longer we stay there with no long term plan, except to stay there until....until what?  What is the "victory" that Bush keeps saying he wants to achieve.  It is as vague as his plan to begin with.  Remember "Mission Accomplished" Abu Garib, the outlandish looting?  Remember the idea to put a million man army out of work so they could join the insurgency?  Why would anyone keep backing the lack of a plan and keep stirring the pot?
If the tables were turned and Iraqis were occuping our country right now, making all of those mistakes that we have made, you and I every other American patriot would be joining insurgency cells here.

my point was, EVEN IF it was compared to Korea, I question the cost of opportunities lost in Korea.  As Ike said, every round, every rocket is eventually diverted from some other project - and Willie says that it better be worth it, and not some kneejerk bullshit to make a politician look good.

Back in 1970, a reporter asked some soldier about Nixon's face-saving strategy, and he got the classic line - "his face - our ass".

Lyndon Johnson was a lunatic.  One time he got on Air-force one and was waving at the door to the people watching  and as he was waving he was saying:  "I piss on all of ya."

Also, as soon as the the door closed on air force one, he'd take off all of his close and walk around in his underpants.  I don't know the frequency or circumstances but that's what I read.

Nixon was a good president.  God save Richard M. Nixon.  God Save Richard M. Nixon.  He was handed a pile of sh*t from Johnson and got us out of there.

Then Ford tried--begged congress to fund South Vietnam and the congress voted no.  They f**ked South Vietnam.

And that stupid Johnson turned victory into defeat. The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for North Vietnam.  WE REGROUPED AND KICKED THERE BUTTS.  But lunatic Johnson surrendered. He stopped all bombing of North Vietnam because of the Tet offensive.

And one other thing.  That Silver Star Johnson wore from WW2 to his death was one of the most undeserved medals ever given to a US soldier.  Johnson flew one B17 mission and there was not enemy fire from aircraft or from ground anti-aircraft.

My point is that Nixon was a good man and a good president.  by far, not the best and by far, not the worst.

it may not be a call for 100 years of war, as MCCain does include the disclaimer "as long as American are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed..." but ask yourself this :  you've got MCcain, and you've got Lieberman following him around whispering in his ear.  That sounds like a prescription for war with some selected somebodies for the indefinite future.  In pursuit of which US national interests?

GWB's 3rd term?  closer to reality than some of us would like to acknowledge.

started before you were born and it is not going to end till you and I die and become dust.

On more serious side, US has not figured out how to live in a peaceful world. Always seem to need a Bear of some kind. It was Russia, the big bad bear for a long time now it is China, India, Middle East.

It appears from history, US is only capable of prospering while others wallow in poverty.

An equation requiring serious change but OB is not the answer because he doesn't even understand Rural America and I don't expect him to understand the world.

What is needed IMHO is a viable third party and fourth party that will put an end to the Two Party Monopoly. Moreover, 3rd and 4th need to find pragmatic candidates other than nut cases like Ralph Nader.

You are jumping all over the place here, talking about everything except what my reply addressed. You said we had nothing to show for "guard duty" in Korea for 50 years. I was merely explaining that guard duty there has had tremendous returns. I did not say, or even imply, the same would happen in Iraq, or address whether or not going to Korea initially was the right thing to do. And now you bring in Vietnam -- no "guard duty" there so its completely irrelevant to the point at hand. You are the one who initially brought up Korea as if it would somehow prove your point that US should bail on Iraq. I was just pointing out the faulty logic that US has wasted over half a century maintaining troops in Korea with nothing gained. I explained there were large gains achieved by keeping troops there by considering what would have likely occured had they left instead of going on "guard duty".

You have no concept of a sunk cost. Once something has happened, the only relevant question is what is the best to do from this point forward. Not what should we have done or not before that so that the current situation would be different. That doesn't explain what to do given the actual current situation now faced. That's fine for learning from mistakes to not repeat them elsewhere, but does not explain at all what to do now about the current situation. The current situation is what it is. In the case of Korea, the only situation I was addressing, at the time of the armastice (the current situation at the time) there were two option: bail or stay to keep the peace. US chose the latter and I think has a lot more to show for it than "just Hyundais". End of story.

I'll repeat it again for you. I was discussing your comment that US had gained nothing from guard duty in Korea. That's the only thing I was commenting on. Go back and read my original reply. I even tried to make it easy for you by making the title "Re: 50 years of guard duty". I can't make it any simpler for you.

Um....Korea is not the ME. And since US never went on "guard duty" in Vietnam, it is not a closer model.

You are replying to a comment of mine in which I said nothing about Iraq. Its about Korea and whether or not keeping US troops there once stability was reached showed any returns.

Again, I am not stating McCain has a good policy or not. I am not addressing Iraq. Just JackO's comment that "guard duty" in Korea has been a total waste. He's wrong. As usual.

and every time your boys have guessed, they have guessed wrong.   They should have been fired the minute they came up with this harebrained idea.  You are shooting off everybody's dick, and you're too fucking stupid to know it.

what's pissing away half the casualties of vietnam?

My point is that you have to pull your head out of your ass before you can see what's going on.

By your calculation, a "good president" couldn't win in Vietnam.  How come your "good president" can;t win in Iraq?

Because they have their heads up their ass!!  Starting with the fact that they don't know what they want!

If any of you chickenhawks ever pointed a weapon at a man, you might know it doesn't make them happy, and the minute you take your eye off them, they will shoot you in the back.  So your choices are (1) kill them all and get it over with, or (2) don't point the weapon at them to begin with.

so you should be working for McCain as an aerobatic flipflopper.

You're pretty good at twisting facts to suit your worldview.

So how come Iraq is so fucked up?  Is it what you expected, and your boys just plain lied to us?  Or are your boys incompetent?   Either way, you fuckers need firing.  I'd be up for mass indictments while we're at it.

Wow. You're way more fucked up when you're trying to be serious.

why do you hate America?

Here is my first post, in its entirety:
*****************
"well, "we" also got relative peace among the Koreas and probably hundreds of thousands of lives saved over the years, and protection of part of that population from tyrants in NK, and thus mass starvation on a lesser scale. Or does that not matter because they are only measly Koreans?"
****************
You can check back, it has not been modified. So where in there is the word Iraq or McCain?

For the last time, and then you can post whatever crap you want after to try to cover up your own screw-up you cannot admit to, this post is not about Iraq--its about Korea. Korea. Let me spell that for you. K-o-r-e-a. Got it yet?

I don't even know, or care, which "worldview" you think I am imposing here. Or how McCain suddenly became one of my boys. I don't hate the guy the way some do, but he's not on my Christmas card list either.

in the beginning.

It is not about Korea.  It's BK's thread, asswipe.  Do you need us to show you how?

I replied to your comment, not direct to the OP. If you want to claim I tried to hijack, fine, whatever. It was simply a brief reply to a "point" you tried to make that you then went off on never bothering to read properly. Repeatedly.

ask your proctologist to look.

It keeps my buddies at Haliburton fat, rich & happy!