McCain - Troops in Iraq for 100 years is "fine with me"

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
keeping special forces in the ME on a long-term basis for the purposes of intel and taking out targets on a small-scale basis seems reasonable to me.

Obviously it doesn't sound reasonable to them. And it is their land, not ours'.

Semantics. This is the 21st century, ownership is not recognized unless you are a super power. Countries who are considered a threat are not given the privilege to whip out the, "it's out land" card.

The world does not operate under fairness or reason.

Dwelling on unrealistic solutions is not helping anyone.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Chucky, I didnt read your whole post but your first line:

We didn't elect the SA Leadership, they did. There's enough AK-47's there that if the people en masse get fed up, they can take back their country.

First of all the government has the military and has them severely out gunned. Also, do you think with our interests in oil that we would allow an unknown leadership to reign? Not even a chance.

But that's exactly what you are signing up for if RP gets elected.

If the SA people - driven by those that control and influence them - try and overthrow the current SA Leadership, then from what I understand of RP's views, he would be totally hands off on that.

And I don't disagree with that.

However...

...you accept the good with the bad, or the bad with the good. If at that time the new SA Leadership decided no more oil for the US, then RP better have a good F'ing backup plan in place for getting sh1tloads of crude to the US on a sustainable basis.

You can't have it both ways...

Chuck

Yeah, you're right. It won't be easy under a Paul-led country. But I'll take his plan over a never-ending cycle of war any day. I'd rather give up some oil, than see blood spill in our streets. We have some oil of our own anyway, and we should be working on other technologies for energy.

In 1 year RP could be POTUS. If in 1 year and 1 day the people in SA overthrow the current Leadership and cease oil shipments to the US (and don't think another certain ME country wouldn't be salivating to do the same with their "brothers"), then all the "some oil" and "should be workings" isn't going to matter one iota when the US grinds to a very very real halt.

I'd sign up for the relative short term pain of that scenario though if it mean the Saudi's got Leadership that let the common person over there not be influenced by radicals, that got a fair distobution of the oil profits to all, etc. Long term that'd be good for us all...but it's never going to happen...

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Chucky, I didnt read your whole post but your first line:

We didn't elect the SA Leadership, they did. There's enough AK-47's there that if the people en masse get fed up, they can take back their country.

First of all the government has the military and has them severely out gunned. Also, do you think with our interests in oil that we would allow an unknown leadership to reign? Not even a chance.

But that's exactly what you are signing up for if RP gets elected.

If the SA people - driven by those that control and influence them - try and overthrow the current SA Leadership, then from what I understand of RP's views, he would be totally hands off on that.

And I don't disagree with that.

However...

...you accept the good with the bad, or the bad with the good. If at that time the new SA Leadership decided no more oil for the US, then RP better have a good F'ing backup plan in place for getting sh1tloads of crude to the US on a sustainable basis.

You can't have it both ways...

Chuck

Yeah, you're right. It won't be easy under a Paul-led country. But I'll take his plan over a never-ending cycle of war any day. I'd rather give up some oil, than see blood spill in our streets. We have some oil of our own anyway, and we should be working on other technologies for energy.

In 1 year RP could be POTUS. If in 1 year and 1 day the people in SA overthrow the current Leadership and cease oil shipments to the US (and don't think another certain ME country wouldn't be salivating to do the same with their "brothers"), then all the "some oil" and "should be workings" isn't going to matter one iota when the US grinds to a very very real halt.

I'd sign up for the relative short term pain of that scenario though if it mean the Saudi's got Leadership that let the common person over there not be influenced by radicals, that got a fair distobution of the oil profits to all, etc. Long term that'd be good for us all...but it's never going to happen...

Chuck

And you don't think other countries would intervene, would help? You know, other countries that have a financial dependence on our economic strength?

And BTW, this scenario is preposterous. In fact, there are already plans of us leaving SA.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2
And where are you getting this gun to the head view?

What I said was...

and the American people shouldn't have a gun to their heads forcing them to pay for such a ridiculous foreign policy that they don't want.

And I stand by it. Don't believe me? Don't pay your taxes and see what happens.

Sorry, I misread your post...I'll edit my above after posting this.

The American people are obligated to pay for the decisions of their elected Leadership. If they don't like this, then the next time they elect Leaders, then they need to make sure the ones they elect are the ones they want.

You don't want to pay taxes? Fine. Don't use electricity, water, sewer, gas, communications lines, highways, etc.

All of those are in some part subsidized by Federal, State, County, and/or Local governments, which means taxes. Basically to do that you'd be a bum...which means you would be tax exempt...I don't think the tradeoff would be worth it though.

Chuck

Oh come on, that's not what I meant, and you know it. :roll:

I'm happy to pay my share of the taxes needed for those things.

"But when you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell is brother you have to wait."

The Leaders we all elect though act on our behalf. There's not picking and choosing certain Leaders for certain decisions. If you elect a RP, and he massively cuts back the Fed. (which could be viewed as good), then you can't b1tch when your local electric grid that would have been able to be upgraded with Fed. dollar help is now unreliable because your State, County, and/or Local doesn't have the $200M to upgrade it right now.

Everything has potential consequences...

And just to be clear, I'd probably end up voting for RP if he was the Rep. nominee, but it wouldn't be without worry on some of his views...

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2
And where are you getting this gun to the head view?

What I said was...

and the American people shouldn't have a gun to their heads forcing them to pay for such a ridiculous foreign policy that they don't want.

And I stand by it. Don't believe me? Don't pay your taxes and see what happens.

Sorry, I misread your post...I'll edit my above after posting this.

The American people are obligated to pay for the decisions of their elected Leadership. If they don't like this, then the next time they elect Leaders, then they need to make sure the ones they elect are the ones they want.

You don't want to pay taxes? Fine. Don't use electricity, water, sewer, gas, communications lines, highways, etc.

All of those are in some part subsidized by Federal, State, County, and/or Local governments, which means taxes. Basically to do that you'd be a bum...which means you would be tax exempt...I don't think the tradeoff would be worth it though.

Chuck

Oh come on, that's not what I meant, and you know it. :roll:

I'm happy to pay my share of the taxes needed for those things.

"But when you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell is brother you have to wait."

The Leaders we all elect though act on our behalf. There's not picking and choosing certain Leaders for certain decisions. If you elect a RP, and he massively cuts back the Fed. (which could be viewed as good), then you can't b1tch when your local electric grid that would have been able to be upgraded with Fed. dollar help is now unreliable because your State, County, and/or Local doesn't have the $200M to upgrade it right now.

Everything has potential consequences...

And just to be clear, I'd probably end up voting for RP if he was the Rep. nominee, but it wouldn't be without worry on some of his views...

Chuck

That's because you are still under this mindset that thinks we need the federal gov't for everything.

$200M? Pffft, FedEx would cut a check.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Drift3r

No one elected the Saudi regime period. They are a monarchy that put themselves in power and maintain their power through force. Also just because there are plenty of rifles floating around does not mean a civilian force could overthrow a well equipped and properly trained army with the newest high tech military toys which they could use to bomb people into oblivion. This isn't the 1700's and warfare isn't a matter of just picking up a rifle and high jacking a few old school canons anymore.

Nobody "puts" themselves into power without having the backing - or at minimum ambivalence - of a substantial majority of the people. I don't disagree that sending Billions of dollars in military hardware to SA isn't a good idea, but the fact is that if the people wanted to overthrow the current Leadership, they could.

It would be bloody, it would be chaos, but they could do it if they got to that point as a people.

Chuck

The few can very easily control the many with enough guns and well paid secret police along with foreign allies at their side. You don't have to look to hard in history to understand that the average person won't put him/herself in harms way unless he/she is backed into a corner with no way out. If the threat or perceived wrong is not immediate and in his/her face you won't have much in the way of resistance.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: bamacre

And you don't think other countries would intervene, would help? You know, other countries that have a financial dependence on our economic strength?

And BTW, this scenario is preposterous. In fact, there are already plans of us leaving SA.

Other countries? Which ones are those? China, who needs her own oil to sustain her current level of industrialization not to mention growth? Russia, who's been sitting on the sidelines while The Capitalists have been enjoying the spoils of being the lone Superpower? The EU, who can't muster 14 F'ing helicopters for use in Sudan?

Yeah, I'm sure other countries would intervene...they'd intervene on their own behalf.

What's so preposturous about it? It's something that could happen....it just takes a RP as Pres. and SA to reach the melting point internally.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

The few can very easily control the many with enough guns and well paid secret police along with foreign allies at their side. You don't have to look to hard in history to understand that the average guy won't put himself in harms way unless he is backed into a corner with no way out.

I don't disagree with any of that. But when people get poor enough, oppressed enough, and PO'd enough, then anything's possible - that is being virtually backed into a corner with no way out. We're talking the region of the suicide bomber here...it can happen.

Chuck

 

[NoStateofMind]

The possibilities of them cutting off our oil are slim no matter who owns SA. Thats alot of revenue. If for some reason they did, it would first hurt America and then motivate it. Innovation toward a sustainable domestic fuel would commence. So in essence, it really wouldn't be a bad thing, but a motivation. Thats exactly what we should be doing with all those billions in Iraq, researching and creating alternative fuels.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Drift3r

The few can very easily control the many with enough guns and well paid secret police along with foreign allies at their side. You don't have to look to hard in history to understand that the average guy won't put himself in harms way unless he is backed into a corner with no way out.

I don't disagree with any of that. But when people get poor enough, oppressed enough, and PO'd enough, then anything's possible - that is being virtually backed into a corner with no way out. We're talking the region of the suicide bomber here...it can happen.

Chuck

You are right suicide bombers are a sign of hopelessness but the SA government has done a fine job at dealing with those extremist portions that would be a threat to their power. In fact I'd wager the extremist conservative religious minority have a bigger say in Saudi Arabia then the majority of moderate people there.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The possibilities of them cutting off our oil are slim no matter who owns SA. Thats alot of revenue. If for some reason they did, it would first hurt America and then motivate it. Innovation toward a sustainable domestic fuel would commence. So in essence, it really wouldn't be a bad thing, but a motivation. Thats exactly what we should be doing with all those billions in Iraq, researching and creating alternative fuels.

Oh, I never said they'd stop selling their oil...just that they'd cut us off. China, EU, Iran (refined as gas and delivered locally), etc.

You get a people PO'd enough to go through the bloody and arduous task of overthrowing the current SA Leadership, which has been backed by US policy for decades now, they're not going to have lots of heartache saying, F you USA! They'd probably make it a holiday for the day they cut off oil to us (and who could half blame them...)....

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

We don't need to be a tyrant nor a thief to the rest of the world to be a great and wealthy country.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
I'm certainly no scholar on the history of the world, but the way I understand it, the Japanese were similar to the radical Muslims, and that was why the US dropped the bomb there, and then maintained a presence afterwards... in order to support the Japanese as they rebuilt their country.

Isn't this situation similar?

Japan was a single nation. Today's war is against the Supremacists of 1.5 billion people across EVERY nation on the planet. Anyone who thinks it starts and ends in Iraq has to be smoking something AND on some perception that makes them dopey, cause Islam is bigger than Iraq.

As if you had to be told that.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: bamacre
It is this ideology that results with attacks like 9/11, and a continuation of that ideology will only lead to more dead Americans, in and out of uniform.

Ah, yes. Blame America First. :roll:

Why not tell us how you really feel, instead of hiding behind some populous theme or pretending to be sane. You feel that the USA invited, and perhaps even deserved, 9/11. Why not just come out and say it?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: chucky2
In 1 year RP could be POTUS.

...Or perhaps just a footnote in some history book. I think we both know which. :laugh:

It sure would be nice if we could have a discussion around here without RP spam and propaganda.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
It is this ideology that results with attacks like 9/11, and a continuation of that ideology will only lead to more dead Americans, in and out of uniform.

Ah, yes. Blame America First. :roll:

Why not tell us how you really feel, instead of hiding behind some populous theme or pretending to be sane. You feel that the USA invited, and perhaps even deserved, 9/11. Why not just come out and say it?

He's not blaming America, he's blaming Neanderthals like you and those whom you enable.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: bamacre
It is this ideology that results with attacks like 9/11, and a continuation of that ideology will only lead to more dead Americans, in and out of uniform.

Ah, yes. Blame America First. :roll:

Why not tell us how you really feel, instead of hiding behind some populous theme or pretending to be sane. You feel that the USA invited, and perhaps even deserved, 9/11. Why not just come out and say it?

Educating Pabster

 

[Engineer]

I vote we drop McCain into Iraq and let him stay there the rest of his life. I wonder if that would be fine by him also?

 

[theeedude]

100 years of war, sounds like GOP's wet dream. Their military industrial complex supporters must be salivating at the prospect.

 

[palehorse]

I've never heard ANY politician say that we need to maintain a large force in Iraq or Afghanistan - only that we will maintain "a presence" there for the next 50-100 years.

Only the RP fanatics seem to advocate withdrawing our troops from everywhere in the world, so when did the rest of you start protesting our "presence" in Germany, South Korea, or Japan!?

Anyone who believes that we'll ever withdraw from the ME, completely, is smoking some seriously harsh crack or pcp.

How often have I told you clowns that it will be at least 30-50 years?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I've never heard ANY politician say that we need to maintain a large force in Iraq or Afghanistan - only that we will maintain "a presence" there for the next 50-100 years.

Only the RP fanatics seem to advocate withdrawing our troops from everywhere in the world, so when did the rest of you start protesting our "presence" in Germany, South Korea, or Japan!?

Anyone who believes that we'll ever withdraw from the ME, completely, is smoking some seriously harsh crack or pcp.

How often have I told you clowns that it will be at least 30-50 years?

3? Heh heh. ~~Their oil (for export) will likely be gone somewhere in that time frame.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: senseamp
100 years of war, sounds like GOP's wet dream. Their military industrial complex supporters must be salivating at the prospect.

Its also a self fulfilling prophesy. We create political instability and the remedy is to arm unstable nations which then spreads political instability to surrounding nations. Which then gives us the excuse to go into surrounding nations that are being used by the very groups we oppose.

Which also works as well in reverse. If an enemy power tries to take over a weaker nation, we arm their terrorists after first observing the niceties of calling them freedom fighters. And then when the freedom fighters chase out the occupiers, we don't follow up and instead let the whole place descend into anarchy as our former freedom fighters start a civil war over whats left of the place. And finally the most brutal of the remaining thugs turn the place into an hell hole so we get an excuse to come back and liberate the place.

But if the unfortunate nation happens to have oil, there is a crueler game to play. Try one is to always install a corrupt ruler who we will prop up if said ruler will just help us loot the country. Sooner or later their people wise up and give our puppet the old heave ho. At which point we get a new government that hates our guts for some inexplicable reasons. So we demonise the country and diss them as nuts while searching for a neighboring country who will be our counterbalance. And soon we have both nations at war.

Its a great time to be a terrorists and an arms supplier. And lucky for us taxpayers, we get to finance the arms suppliers and do their heavy lifting for them.

And when the arms suppliers finally ride the USA horse until it drops, there may be fresh opportunities to be found in China. Rinse and Repeat, war now, a world at war forever.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I've never heard ANY politician say that we need to maintain a large force in Iraq or Afghanistan - only that we will maintain "a presence" there for the next 50-100 years.

Only the RP fanatics seem to advocate withdrawing our troops from everywhere in the world, so when did the rest of you start protesting our "presence" in Germany, South Korea, or Japan!?

Anyone who believes that we'll ever withdraw from the ME, completely, is smoking some seriously harsh crack or pcp.

How often have I told you clowns that it will be at least 30-50 years?

3? Heh heh. ~~Their oil (for export) will likely be gone somewhere in that time frame.

And nobody will give a rats ass about the middle fucking east then.

 

[nageov3t]

btw, you missed the follow up line... "we've been in Japan for 60 years. that'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

that, of course, based on the assumption that casualties will continue to go down... McCain's been critical of Bush's strategy since the beginning of the war, and I have no doubt that as a former military man himself, he'd have no problem reassessing the situation if the trend were to reverse itself. who knows where we'd be in Iraq if they had followed his advice in the first place and sent an appropriate force to war.

there's a better video that I can't link to at nytimes.com, but http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

apparently he (John McCain) had been having a back-and-forth discussion with the questioner about the war in Iraq for about 10 minutes... I've yet to see any of the other candidates actually address their critics like that.

 

[Lemon law]

What McCain is delusional about is why we need ANY troops in Japan now. But the Japanese are
a homogeneous people and so are the South Koreans. Both nations have strong economic ties with the US. As for North Korea, its a military threat and has been since the Korean war. Our somewhat token force in South Korea would be over run swiftly by a North Korean offensive but its still enough to deter Kim Jong Il who would end up losing as the world response would wipe him out. As for finding any South Koreans to help in a rebellion, anyone
Kim sent would stay in South Korea and say things are mucho better here.

But in Iraq and in South Vietnam, we never helped their economies, and with no resulting economic ties, we just get to be the foreign devils stirring up trouble.

Tell me again Mr. McCain, all about how we won in Vietnam. And all that fun you had sitting in a Pow camp. And how you want more US soldiers to be killed because you think you learned a damn thing.