• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

why do democrats keep insisting McCain wants the war in iraq to go on for 100 years?

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


Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
Originally posted by: EXman

This is where harvey starts bleeding kool-aid...

For a guy running on Judgement he sure looks a fool for staying there for 20 years. the damage is done...?
No, it's where EXman joins PJ in trying to divert attention from the topic. Since you need the reminder, the topic is McCain's statement that he's OK with keeping American troops in Iraq for another hundred years. :cookie:


Jul 12, 2001
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: EXman

This is where harvey starts bleeding kool-aid...

For a guy running on Judgement he sure looks a fool for staying there for 20 years. the damage is done...?


Anyone have the brain switched on?
No, it's where EXman joins PJ in trying to divert attention from the topic. Since you need the reminder, the topic is McCain's statement that he's OK with keeping American troops in Iraq for another hundred years. :cookie:
I like the way you edited out the ON TOPIC part of my Post. What's wrong with one hundres years we're 64 years into Germany, Japan and ITALY? I think that turned out ok.

Libbies love free speech as long as they agree with what you are saying. This is common sense stuff here. Wether you like it or not we WILL BE IN IRAQ a Long time those bases are not cheap and they don't fold up when we're done. We will have a base over there. I've heard that from at least Clinton. Obama who knows until recently his foreign relations plan was nothing more than a paragraph. Now it is much bigger but very niaeve.

I'll take Milk with my cookies :p


Aug 5, 2000
we (the allies) defeated japan and germany with true conviction for a just cause, which is totally unlike what bush and cheney is doing in iraq.

we then employed a marvelous well-thought-out rehabilitation and reconstruction plan for the former axis powers (which is totally unlike what bush and cheney did in iraq), and then using hundreds of thousands of occupation troops to guarantee an orderly and productive transition back to prosperity, which bush, cheney, rumsfeld and wolfowitz totally rejected and scoffed at when then army chief of staff shinseki recommended it for iraq.

we then stationed and kept hundreds of thousands of troops in europe and asia during the cold war to keep communism at bay with the full blessings and cooperation of those host nations that we had treaties with, the reasons for which is totally different than for those of bush and cheney's occupation of iraq.

there is no acceptable reason for comparing similarities of the defeat and subsequent occupation and rehabilitation of japan and germany with iraq. if anything, comparing them just shows how on the one hand we did it so right in japan and germany and how bush and cheney is doing it so f'ing wrong in iraq.

edit - syntax


Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Is the video fake? Did the guy not make those comments? Doesn't the church actually sell copies of his sermons?
Did Obama say those words, or did Obama specifically reject them?

As always, you'll pimp any lie, diversion or deception to pimp for those who would further your blood thirsty, war mongering agenda.
Again you respond to my question by attacking me about the war. What does the war have to do with what Rev Wright said?

Obama went to this guys church for 20 years, he can't just stand up and dismiss the past 20 years of his life by saying he doesn't agree with the guy.

When Bush went to Bob Jones University in 2000 the press made a huge deal out of his ONE visit to the school. And now the same people who made such a big deal out of Bush's visit to this school want to look at 20 years of Obama's life and let it pass with a "oh he made a mistake"??

I don't think so.

Obama has been going around claiming that we should ignore his lack of experience and instead vote him based on his 'judgement' Well I think his judgement when it comes to which church to attend raises some serious questions.

Well put. :thumbsup:
You butt holes know nothing about his church except the partisan garbage you've been fed. Why don't you wake up and grow some self respect. You're blown hither and thither by every piece of bullshit that comes along.

Lemon law

Nov 6, 2005
Lets strip off the bullshit and extraneous garbage and get down to the core issue of this thread.

McCain is OK with staying the course in Iraq for another 100 years. But somewhat qualifies that with one caveat, with an if and only if Iraq starts resembling the past occupations of Japan and Germany. And will not cost us billions of dollars per month with a huge monthly death toll to sweeten the deal.

And McCain can point to the historical example of Japan and Germany. They were wise investments and quickly did not costs us bottomless blood and treasure to maintain. And partly due to the wise decisions made by a previous generation of US leaders that are now consumed. So if nothing else, neither McCain or anyone else alive to day can take any credit for their previous wisdom. Or stupidities if one wants to argue that case.

Then one can look at the short term five year history of Iraq and compare it with it with Japan and Germany. And for a vast majority of us, the differences are quite clear. The smartness of our previous leaders were replaced with the dumbest MF's imaginable. And worse yet, we fired or ignored the people with brains like Shinseki, and empowered the brainless. And while our butchers bill in blood is not all that high compared to the 58,000 of Vietnam, the butchers bill for the Iraqis is immense. But in terms of national treasure, the costs is arguably over 2 trillion dollars already. And to make a simplistic argument I don't really believe is valid, the dual acts of the democrats retaking congress in 11/2006 and the firing of Dumsfelds ignited a smarter strategy. And with that smarter strategy, the last nine months has at least reduced the butchers will in terms of blood on all sides. Maybe starting Iraq down the road towards being like the German and Japanese occupations even though the cost in national treasure has not reduced a bit.

But as Einstein pointed out, human stupidity is maybe infinite. And now Malki has taken matters into his own hands and bring Iraq to a brink. And the new Iraq of the past nine months could erase all gains made and go back to looking anything like the occupations of Japan or Germany. Or this stupidity could just be temporary and the new Iraq of lowered violence could resume.

In short we do not know, at this point in time, which way it will go.

So in that sense, we must let FUTURE EVENTS be our arbiter of the McCain contention.

If Iraq can de escalate and resume a period of ever diminishing death tolls, it may be that McCain has made a credible statement. And John McCain may not be totally self deluded.

If Iraq descends into a long period of increasing violence and open civil war, we will know McCain is self deluded and offers nothing to the American people.

Since we will likely know the answer to that question long before the general election, why try to tout anything?


Feb 18, 2004
the blatant dishonesty in the opening of this washington post op-ed today practically left me speechless...

Those who claim that by "a hundred years" McCain was talking about a long-term peacetime deployment like the U.S. military presence in South Korea are being disingenuous or obtuse

I guess now we can change history through sheer force of will? between months on end of pandering for Obama to this newest spout of lying, Eugene Robinson's on his way to joining MoDo.