McCain predicts Iraq War will end in 2013

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Thump553
So palehorse, what you are saying is that McCain meant to say he intends for the USA to have long term, essentially permanent bases in Iraq? And you and he think that is condusive to either acheiving peace OR stability in the Mideast? What koolaid are you guys drinking?

Permanent occupation of a Mideast country is a surefire way to continue recruitment and development of anti-US terrorists for the foreseeable future.

Has a hostile "permanent" occupation of any country ever worked?
You're living in the biggest "hostile permanent occupation" success story of all time. And best of all, it was achieved my Americans.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,293
1,843
126
The Brits won the Revolution? I wasn't aware of that.

And if you mean the genocide against native Americans, that's hardly the situation we are facing in Iraq. Besides, isn't our (latest) objective to "bring them democracy" not to colonize them?

It is somewhat refreshing to see the GOP and its cohorts remove the mask from the rhetoric, though, even if any true American is totally disgusted by our government's imperial goals.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
1) McCain never said that we'd still be fighting in Iraq for 100 years -- anyone who says he did is entirely full of shit. Those who believe he said that, or meant that, fall into the same category of morons who still believe Obama is a Muslim.

2) Know this: We'll be in Iraq the same length of time regardless of who becomes President in 2008.
1. Totally agree there. This '100 years' comment is being taken out of context and twisted just like Obama's 'bitter' and his wife's 'for the first time' comments. They're just stupid.

2. Disagree. McCain has this win-at-all-costs attitude and IMO that's just not going to happen no matter how long we are there. I think Obama would both start the withdrawal sooner and complete it before McCain simply because I don't think he's got the same end goal in mind.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: palehorse74
1) McCain never said that we'd still be fighting in Iraq for 100 years -- anyone who says he did is entirely full of shit. Those who believe he said that, or meant that, fall into the same category of morons who still believe Obama is a Muslim.

2) Know this: We'll be in Iraq the same length of time regardless of who becomes President in 2008.
1. Totally agree there. This '100 years' comment is being taken out of context and twisted just like Obama's 'bitter' and his wife's 'for the first time' comments. They're just stupid.

2. Disagree. McCain has this win-at-all-costs attitude and IMO that's just not going to happen no matter how long we are there. I think Obama would both start the withdrawal sooner and complete it before McCain simply because I don't think he's got the same end goal in mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I tend to agree with the basics of what Robor said, but I have a somewhat different take.

1. The 100 year comment is only partly taken out of context. The McCain vision is that Iraq will somehow transform itself into something similar to the post WW2 occupations of Germany and Japan. And while we still have a troops presence in these countries, there is no combat and no causalities. And no pain and the troop presence is not forced but voluntary. The point being, McCain has a dream but no plan to get to that totally peaceful occupation point. We have now been in Iraq for five years and are arguable further from that type of transition than when we started five years ago.

2. The palehorse74 delusion is that the taxpayer will continue to fund these kinds of no progress occupations no matter what, is a sick and perverted vision. But its clear to see that palehorse74 does envision making a full 30 year career of bumbling around with a pension and a gold watch at the end of the rainbow. The point being, the GWB plan and the McCain plans seem identical. And both the Obama or Hillary plans will involve diplomacy.
But bottom line, if Iraq and Afghanistan do not show significant progress, and by the elections of 11/2010, a new congress will be made up of those rascals that the taxpayers did not throw out because because that CONGRESS WILL BE MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO WON ELECTION ON THAT PLATFORM OF GETTING OUR TROOPS HOME.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Thump553
The Brits won the Revolution? I wasn't aware of that.

And if you mean the genocide against native Americans, that's hardly the situation we are facing in Iraq. Besides, isn't our (latest) objective to "bring them democracy" not to colonize them?

It is somewhat refreshing to see the GOP and its cohorts remove the mask from the rhetoric, though, even if any true American is totally disgusted by our government's imperial goals.
I was referring to our original aquisition of this land and resources from the native Americans.

Judging by the force size, infrastructure development and permanent installations, it's been clear to me sometime that Iraq is a colony. Can't wait to get there and see it for myself.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
While I tend to agree with the basics of what Robor said, but I have a somewhat different take.

1. The 100 year comment is only partly taken out of context. The McCain vision is that Iraq will somehow transform itself into something similar to the post WW2 occupations of Germany and Japan. And while we still have a troops presence in these countries, there is no combat and no causalities. And no pain and the troop presence is not forced but voluntary. The point being, McCain has a dream but no plan to get to that totally peaceful occupation point. We have now been in Iraq for five years and are arguable further from that type of transition than when we started five years ago.
Yes, that was my point - especially the bolded and underlined parts. McCain wasn't saying he wanted the Iraq war to continue for 100 years but his words have been twisted to mean that. (and I say this as an Obama supporter) I still disagree with the idea. I don't see a totally peaceful Iraq with us there since it's going to be considered an occupation.

Unfortunately it's the MSM promoting these 'snippits' and people with short attention spans buying into it. You know, just read the headline 'McCain 100 Years In Iraq!' or 'Obama Calls Rural Whites Bitter!'. The bad thing is everyone - informed or not - has the same vote in the election process.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
One of the definitions of "delusional" should be - "doing the same thing, over and over and over and expecting different results."

Heh, 2013...I dunno, It is possible the Iraqi government could ask us to leave well before that. It will be interesting if McCain, if elected would grant them the "self determination" that they ask for.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
2. The palehorse74 delusion is that the taxpayer will continue to fund these kinds of no progress occupations no matter what, is a sick and perverted vision. But its clear to see that palehorse74 does envision making a full 30 year career of bumbling around with a pension and a gold watch at the end of the rainbow. The point being, the GWB plan and the McCain plans seem identical. And both the Obama or Hillary plans will involve diplomacy.
But bottom line, if Iraq and Afghanistan do not show significant progress, and by the elections of 11/2010, a new congress will be made up of those rascals that the taxpayers did not throw out because because that CONGRESS WILL BE MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO WON ELECTION ON THAT PLATFORM OF GETTING OUR TROOPS HOME.
Your consistent "delusion" is that we're not already using diplomacy, or that said diplomatic efforts would somehow change dramatically under a Clinton or Obama Presidency.

That said, while I may defend McCain on these points, and a few others, I'm still an Obama supporter... dont forget that.

In terms of military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, I do not believe that either of them will do anything dramatically different than the other.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
One of the definitions of "delusional" should be - "doing the same thing, over and over and over and expecting different results."

Heh, 2013...I dunno, It is possible the Iraqi government could ask us to leave well before that. It will be interesting if McCain, if elected would grant them the "self determination" that they ask for.
And what would he do if that government decided to align and ally themselves with Iran?
 

RebateMonger

Elite Member
Dec 24, 2005
11,588
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
You're living in the biggest "hostile permanent occupation" success story of all time. And best of all, it was achieved my Americans.
I thought that record was reserved for the Russians, who occupied Afghanistan for nine years in an effort to wipe out the "bad Afghanis". The Ruskies had up to 300,000 troops in Afghanistan in the 80s, and STILL lost. Obviously, we need to send more troops.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
One of the definitions of "delusional" should be - "doing the same thing, over and over and over and expecting different results."

Heh, 2013...I dunno, It is possible the Iraqi government could ask us to leave well before that. It will be interesting if McCain, if elected would grant them the "self determination" that they ask for.
And what would he do if that government decided to align and ally themselves with Iran?
Continue "liberating" them?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Now palehorse74 gets to a totally in denial bonkers fiction with---------Your consistent "delusion" is that we're not already using diplomacy, or that said diplomatic efforts would somehow change dramatically under a Clinton or Obama Presidency.

When you have a President and Secretary of State that busily pretend Iran does not exists, by no stretch of any imagination can GWB&co be called diplomatic. Their idea of of diplomacy is my way or the highway.

Even McCain would do better but its not promising when he does not understand Iran and Al Quida are not allies. It goes past mere slips of the tongue when he repeats it three or more times in public.

Diplomacy is finding win wins and that requires something called understanding, and a type of understanding you totally show disdain for in Afghanistan.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now palehorse74 gets to a totally in denial bonkers fiction with---------Your consistent "delusion" is that we're not already using diplomacy, or that said diplomatic efforts would somehow change dramatically under a Clinton or Obama Presidency.

When you have a President and Secretary of State that busily pretend Iran does not exists, by no stretch of any imagination can GWB&co be called diplomatic. Their idea of of diplomacy is my way or the highway.

Even McCain would do better but its not promising when he does not understand Iran and Al Quida are not allies. It goes past mere slips of the tongue when he repeats it three or more times in public.

Diplomacy is finding win wins and that requires something called understanding, and a type of understanding you totally show disdain for in Afghanistan.
If you honestly believe that Bush and Rice "pretend Iran does not exist," then you're fucking retarded. They have been properly utilizing the UN, IAEA, P4/5+1, etc, diplomatic processes ever since the Iran-nuclear crisis began.

What additional methods of diplomacy would you have them use? I want to hear specifics son, not your usual nonsensical bullshit.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now palehorse74 gets to a totally in denial bonkers fiction with---------Your consistent "delusion" is that we're not already using diplomacy, or that said diplomatic efforts would somehow change dramatically under a Clinton or Obama Presidency.

When you have a President and Secretary of State that busily pretend Iran does not exists, by no stretch of any imagination can GWB&co be called diplomatic. Their idea of of diplomacy is my way or the highway.

Even McCain would do better but its not promising when he does not understand Iran and Al Quida are not allies. It goes past mere slips of the tongue when he repeats it three or more times in public.

Diplomacy is finding win wins and that requires something called understanding, and a type of understanding you totally show disdain for in Afghanistan.
If you honestly believe that Bush and Rice "pretend Iran does not exist," then you're fucking retarded. They have been properly utilizing the UN, IAEA, P4/5+1, etc, diplomatic processes ever since the Iran-nuclear crisis began.

What additional methods of diplomacy would you have them use? I want to hear specifics son, not your usual nonsensical bullshit.
To start out with, in 2002 Various Iranian moderates came to GWB with peace initiatives. Cheney kicked them in the teeth and we got Achmadinejad instead. What you cite is an active attempt by GWB&co to totally isolate Iran
and hit them with economic embargoes. And now its not going to fly when GWB bullying now has 40 other nations applying to start up their own nuclear programs.

Its quite clear palehorse74, that your concept of diplomacy is the same as GWB&co's. When in fact, GWB&co and diplomacy are best described as contraction in terms. Jeez, another idiot who comes from the John Bolton school of diplomacy may be the way to describe you.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now palehorse74 gets to a totally in denial bonkers fiction with---------Your consistent "delusion" is that we're not already using diplomacy, or that said diplomatic efforts would somehow change dramatically under a Clinton or Obama Presidency.

When you have a President and Secretary of State that busily pretend Iran does not exists, by no stretch of any imagination can GWB&co be called diplomatic. Their idea of of diplomacy is my way or the highway.

Even McCain would do better but its not promising when he does not understand Iran and Al Quida are not allies. It goes past mere slips of the tongue when he repeats it three or more times in public.

Diplomacy is finding win wins and that requires something called understanding, and a type of understanding you totally show disdain for in Afghanistan.
If you honestly believe that Bush and Rice "pretend Iran does not exist," then you're fucking retarded. They have been properly utilizing the UN, IAEA, P4/5+1, etc, diplomatic processes ever since the Iran-nuclear crisis began.

What additional methods of diplomacy would you have them use? I want to hear specifics son, not your usual nonsensical bullshit.
To start out with, in 2002 Various Iranian moderates came to GWB with peace initiatives. Cheney kicked them in the teeth and we got Achmadinejad instead. What you cite is an active attempt by GWB&co to totally isolate Iran
and hit them with economic embargoes. And now its not going to fly when GWB bullying now has 40 other nations applying to start up their own nuclear programs.

Its quite clear palehorse74, that your concept of diplomacy is the same as GWB&co's. When in fact, GWB&co and diplomacy are best described as contraction in terms. Jeez, another idiot who comes from the John Bolton school of diplomacy may be the way to describe you.
you didn't answer my question.

shocker.

One last time: Concerning Iran, being as specific as possible, what method(s) of diplomacy, or channel(s) of diplomacy, would you like to see the next administration implement or utilize?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
I like how 2013 is after his presidency. i.e. ending it is gonna be hard so I will offload that to someone else
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
It's apparent McSame's new strategy is to lie through his teeth to get votes.

Unfortunately, nobody is listening.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To start out with, in 2002 Various Iranian moderates came to GWB with peace initiatives. Cheney kicked them in the teeth and we got Achmadinejad instead. What you cite is an active attempt by GWB&co to totally isolate Iran
and hit them with economic embargoes. And now its not going to fly when GWB bullying now has 40 other nations applying to start up their own nuclear programs.

Its quite clear palehorse74, that your concept of diplomacy is the same as GWB&co's. When in fact, GWB&co and diplomacy are best described as contraction in terms. Jeez, another idiot who comes from the John Bolton school of diplomacy may be the way to describe you.
you didn't answer my question.

shocker.

One last try: Concerning Iran, being as specific as possible, what method(s) of diplomacy, or channel(s) of diplomacy, would you like to see the next administration implement or utilize?
/crickets... ?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To start out with, in 2002 Various Iranian moderates came to GWB with peace initiatives. Cheney kicked them in the teeth and we got Achmadinejad instead. What you cite is an active attempt by GWB&co to totally isolate Iran
and hit them with economic embargoes. And now its not going to fly when GWB bullying now has 40 other nations applying to start up their own nuclear programs.

Its quite clear palehorse74, that your concept of diplomacy is the same as GWB&co's. When in fact, GWB&co and diplomacy are best described as contraction in terms. Jeez, another idiot who comes from the John Bolton school of diplomacy may be the way to describe you.
you didn't answer my question.

shocker.

One last try: Concerning Iran, being as specific as possible, what method(s) of diplomacy, or channel(s) of diplomacy, would you like to see the next administration implement or utilize?
/crickets... ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry palehorse74, I do have another life and can't always be jonney on the spot 24/7 to respond to your every question. Which is in sharp contrast to your six year and counting failure in Afghanistan which is a 6year x365.25x24x7 ongoing process that has delivered nothing but FAILURE.

And now you are the dumb MF who again asks me to tell you what I would like to see in the way of diplomacy from the next administration?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

After I am long on record to the point of sounding like a broken record on exactly what we need. (1) We need to understand, that in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we are not fighting terrorism, we are fighting the very feudalism we created. (2) In Afghanistan, if we continue to ignore Pakistani interests, we will make zero progress. Something you are in total denial of. (3) We cannot solve Iraq by ignoring Iran or by demonizing Iran and Syria.(4) You have a lot of damn gall of accusing me of not answering your questions when you (A) Call me always clueless and wrong. ( And B) Having the damn gall to say you are right when you have delivered nothing but a SIX YEAR PLUS TOTAL TRACK RECORD OF FAILURE. (C ) And now you want me to yet again type and set forth what I have already typed out in DETAIL countless times.

Sorry palehorse74, you are long past the point of any salvage, please explain to me why I should cast more pearls
when you are a total swine??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Please review my past posts to get your answers, not that you are capable of yet capable of understanding anything but your own futile denial of your own failures. But given this last response, your new denial and accusation is hardly a shocker.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse74
/crickets... ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry palehorse74, I do have another life and can't always be jonney on the spot 24/7 to respond to your every question. Which is in sharp contrast to your six year and counting failure in Afghanistan which is a 6year x365.25x24x7 ongoing process that has delivered nothing but FAILURE.

And now you are the dumb MF who again asks me to tell you what I would like to see in the way of diplomacy from the next administration?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

After I am long on record to the point of sounding like a broken record on exactly what we need. (1) We need to understand, that in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we are not fighting terrorism, we are fighting the very feudalism we created. (2) In Afghanistan, if we continue to ignore Pakistani interests, we will make zero progress. Something you are in total denial of. (3) We cannot solve Iraq by ignoring Iran or by demonizing Iran and Syria.(4) You have a lot of damn gall of accusing me of not answering your questions when you (A) Call me always clueless and wrong. ( And B) Having the damn gall to say you are right when you have delivered nothing but a SIX YEAR PLUS TOTAL TRACK RECORD OF FAILURE. (C ) And now you want me to yet again type and set forth what I have already typed out in DETAIL countless times.

Sorry palehorse74, you are long past the point of any salvage, please explain to me why I should cast more pearls
when you are a total swine??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Please review my past posts to get your answers, not that you are capable of yet capable of understanding anything but your own futile denial of your own failures. But given this last response, your new denial and accusation is hardly a shocker.
LOL.. and you still didn't answer the question. I asked you what new and profound diplomatic methods/channels you could suggest. I asked you for specifics. You failed to produce anything more than another long list of dreams and tangents -- along with plenty of misguided summations of my own personal success rate in Afghanistan. :roll:

But, it does appear that I certainly touched a nerve; so please, take a pill, take a break, go outside.. see the world.. then, after you've done so, come back and share what you've learned.

With all of your wonderful and supposedly enlightened diplomatic ideas, perhaps you should go into the foreign service... the State Dept. is calling your name! Or perhaps the military.. if you think you have what it takes.

Whatever you choose, I'm done with your bullshit.

Good luck son.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
McCain predicts Iraq War will end in 2013

i thought it was supposed to be a hundred year war.

cool, another fucking liar trying to become leader :)
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
It was actually pretty ingenious for McCain to defeat one soundbite with another. Now he can point to this one and say "No, I made it quite clear that I believe we'll only be there about five more years."

Someone in his camp is smarter than your average bear...

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
It was actually pretty ingenious for McCain to defeat one soundbite with another. Now he can point to this one and say "No, I made it quite clear that I believe we'll only be there about five more years."

Someone in his camp is smarter than your average bear...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After hearing GWB repeat the same over optimistic drivel for six years, I think the McCain camp is going to find mixed messages go over like lead balloons with the American people. But its not surprising to see the minority pro war group clutching any hopeful straw.

Bottom line, McCain is betting his entire candidacy on having no set backs in Iraq or Afghanistan before 11/04/2008. The Vietcong historically timed their attacks to American elections and there is no reason to not assume elements of the Iraqi insurgencies and the taliban will not do the same. The Iraqi October election place another joker in that deck kiting the probability that some group will try to tap anti-American sentiment in Iraq to increase their votes in the upcoming Iraqi elections.

With decidedly inadequate occupation troops numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan, that leaves the insurgencies with all the options and the occupiers passively hoping it does not happen.

Another one of those only time will tell questions.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
It was actually pretty ingenious for McCain to defeat one soundbite with another. Now he can point to this one and say "No, I made it quite clear that I believe we'll only be there about five more years."

Someone in his camp is smarter than your average bear...
Someone in his "camp" may be smarter, but him, I dunno...

The man who scorched Mitt Romney and others because they alluded to a "timetable" for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, now siad he knows the war will be "won" in 2013?.

Maybe, he is not like Bush, he's setting "timetables" now

For a "straight-talking maverick", McCain certainly knows how to parse and pander.
 

ChunkiMunki

Senior member
Dec 21, 2001
449
0
0
it only took 15 years to "win" vietnam. We are doing a great job with spreading democracy. Here's the plan, go into a functioning foreign country and destroy it, then spend all your money and borrow trillions more, kill thousands of soldiers and civilians, ask no sacrifice from the US citizens at all, and in a few short decades later, you leave. Awesome! I love it! maybe other countries will follow suit, it's fool-proof.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY