Posted on 03/29/2008 6:37:15 AM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON -- Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."
There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The U.S. (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.
Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Of course, if America would become “energy independent” of the Middle East; we could bring the troops home and tell the camel jockeys to shove their oil up their...
Why must people the calibre of Krauthammer be forced to come out and correct this idiocy? Ever fighting the MSM, YouTube and the dumbed-down electorate.
“Of course, if America would become “energy independent” of the Middle East; we could bring the troops home and tell the camel jockeys to shove their oil up their...”
You’ll need to take that up with the envirowhacko tree-huggers.
The globalists had to make us energy dependent on the middle east to justify our interventionist foreign policy.
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
One teeny problem in the above.
With McInsane as POTUS and with his idea of what "immigration" is - in 50 years, forget 100 - there won't be a "We", "Americans", or "America". "WE" will be another 3rd world territory of Mexico.
[Sorry McCainiacs, with that nut everything DOES go back to his Open NO Border, Amnesty for Felons, Stance.]
Who do you think the "envirowhacko treehuggers" are working for? Remember when Clinton turned Utah's vast coal reserves into wilderness? You think that was the first time enviromentalism was used to protect the so-called "free market?"
“We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so.”
Maybe this McCain analogy isn’t so brilliant after all. Japan was a totally defeated enemy that accepted the US occupation and dramatic reform of their nation into a real democracy. South Korea had been saved from invasion by the North thanks to a US led UN effort.
In neither case did a determined insurgency continue fighting and killing US soldiers for five years after the major wars had ended, five years and still no end in sight. There is yet no sound reason to think Iraq will be able to end the insurgency and factional fighting and proceed along a course to rebuilt and industrialize their nations as Japan and South Korea did. It’s just a hope for now.
Unfortunately, the closest parallel to Iraq is still Vietnam, not Japan or South Korea.
Not yet enough information to be making 100 year predictions, or to commit troops to a long, ‘peaceful’ presence as McCain foresees. The Iraqi government and Iraqi people will have to make this work eventually, and it’s still anyone’s guess whether that will happen.
I'm sorry but that just doesn't fly anymore...
there are maybe 20% of the American electorate who are what we would call “tree-huggers”. It's WAY PAST TIME that the rest of DEMAND that the Congress “get off the dime” and inform John McCain or whoever is the next POTUS that we EXPECT him & Congress to do what needs to be done to allow for more drilling, more refineries and nuclear electrical generating plants to be built and this needs to be done NOW so that we don't have to kiss a bunch of camel jockeys’ asses any longer!
I am sick to death of burying my fellow Marines because a bunch of pantywaist liberals want to save the friggin’ planet while they fly around in their private jets and roll in their limousines!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Our leaders don’t want us to be energ independent. No one, in either party has made any serious attempt to do so.
...and other RINOs who opposed drilling in ANWAR...like Juan MacCain.
if you tell a lie often enough, people accept it as the truth.
???? and if they were, he would leave???? or what ????
A couple of weeks ago, Shillary or Obama said they would pull out immediately. When asked what wouild happen if the country had serious flare-ups, answer, I'd go back in. The Yo-Yo military strategy.
“Our leaders don’t want us to be energ independent?”
Well at this point, it’s irrelevant what our “leaders” want...
Last I checked, we put them in office and we can remove them. LOL
And that is exactly my point, conservatives need to “step up to the plate” and start running for public office; whether it be local, state and/or federal; especially in the state level where we absolutely need a better field of conservative governors to choose from to run for POTUS. And we need to start supporting these folks so that we can begin to turn this mess around. And turn it around NOW!
They don't. Their belief that war is a plague on humanity overrides rational thought and the fruits of war become poison.
They can't concieve of a won war or victory because the war is default defeat. Surrender is a more honorable course than resisting. Preemption is intellectual horror.
“The Yo-Yo military strategy.”
Exactly, that’s why I was against not going into Baghdad and “taking out” Saddam Hussein in 1991.
Like Gen. Patton said, “I hate paying for the same real estate twice.”
If a dem had started a war, 99% of the whining and screaming would not be there.
I remember when a reporter asked Pwoell what was the strategy for engaging the Revolutionary (or was it Republican) Guard. He responded, we're going to cut them off and kill them.
Somewhere after that, the WH spine replaced the miitary backbone.
Thought this might be about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. But it’s not. Substance has been in severe shortage on FR lately.
Please seek help. Many types of paranoia are treatable.
So if you parse this statement, it means that if we keep losing men, Mccain is for a pull out as well as his pal Ted.
...and other RINOs who opposed drilling in ANWAR...like Juan MacCain."
Yep, then we would have plenty of oil with no way to refine it. Yep, that would just be so wonderful! (sarc/off)
In other words you're saying it's best to do nothing to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
And, how long have you been a Saudi agent?
“Well at this point, it’s irrelevant what our “leaders” want...
Last I checked, we put them in office and we can remove them. LOL
And that is exactly my point, conservatives need to “step up to the plate” and start running for public office; whether it be local, state and/or federal; especially in the state level where we absolutely need a better field of conservative governors to choose from to run for POTUS. And we need to start supporting these folks so that we can begin to turn this mess around. And turn it around NOW!”
It will never change. We elected conservatives in 1994 and what has changed? In 2000 we had a Republican congress and President and government is larger, debt is higher, and we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever. I think the whole system needs to collapse like the former Soviet Union did and maybe we can start over and build something worth having.
“The globalists had to make us energy dependent on the middle east to justify our interventionist foreign policy.”
Bingo! 100% Correct.
Since we are more dependent on petroleum from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, explain our lack of modern day interventionism in those cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.