What McBush means by 100 years in Iraq

[Hugo Chavez]

It means you and your kids and their kids are going to have to pay the price in taxes and lives.  BB, you might think about that some when you bitch about taxes.

[youandme]

Hmmm maybe you missed the thread above this one on Obama's tax plan, looks like we will be paying for all sorts of other things instead. Like giving incentives to people for not working, and having 9 kids.

[Hugo Chavez]

Hmmm maybe you missed the thread above this one on Obama's tax plan, looks like we will be paying for all sorts of other things instead. Like giving incentives to people for not working, and having 9 kids.

you're right, what was I thinking...  The cost of World Domination Games for the next 100 years vs. helping Americans.  Stupid me

[Fury]

It means you and your kids and their kids are going to have to pay the price in taxes and lives.  BB, you might think about that some when you bitch about taxes.

So you're saying that when Obama is President, Bush will still be still be controlling what goes on in Iraq? Man, why even bother running then! 

[Hugo Chavez]

So you're saying that when Obama is President, Bush will still be still be controlling what goes on in Iraq? Man, why even bother running then! 

WHAT? I didn't say that

[youandme]

you're right, what was I thinking...  The cost of World Domination Games for the next 100 years vs. helping Americans.  Stupid me

So Obama offers no change then, right?

[Dos Equis]

It means you and your kids and their kids are going to have to pay the price in taxes and lives.  BB, you might think about that some when you bitch about taxes.

So I'm supposed to stop complaining about taxes because we will likely have a division or less in Iraq for the next hundred years, like Germany and Korea?  To quote that great philosopher, LL Cool J, "I don't think so."   

[Hugo Chavez]

So I'm supposed to stop complaining about taxes because we will likely have a division or less in Iraq for the next hundred years, like Germany and Korea?  To quote that great philosopher, LL Cool J, "I don't think so."   

holy shit, you paint a little picture of it
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home  Sorry bubba, this rule the world crap is going to cost you way more than probably all the social programs combined...  Sorry for the reality check. but if you don't want gov sucking you dry, then you better not vote for endless war with McCain.

[Dos Equis]

holy shit, you paint a little picture of it
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home  Sorry bubba, this rule the world crap is going to cost you way more than probably all the social programs combined...  Sorry for the reality check. but if you don't want gov sucking you dry, then you better not vote for endless war with McCain.

It's not going to be an endless war.  It will be like Germany and Korea, where the major hostilities involving our troops end and we maintain a presence. 

I'll take the war hero over the pencil neck quasi-socialist in November. 

[Hugo Chavez]

It's not going to be an endless war.  It will be like Germany and Korea, where the major hostilities involving our troops end and we maintain a presence. 

I'll take the war hero over the pencil neck quasi-socialist in November. 

really, not an endless war...  So you think they'll actually stop terrorism and have victory   dude, you have to be blind to not see it was designed to be perpetual war.

[Dos Equis]

really, not an endless war...  So you think they'll actually stop terrorism and have victory   dude, you have to be blind to not see it was designed to be perpetual war.

No, we'll never completely stop terrorism.  The suicide nuts will always be there.  Regardless, we've already won.  Saddam and his sons are dead.  The regime has been dismantled.  It's just about transferring control back to Iraq.  We'll get there soon enough. 

No, we're not going to have over 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. 

[Hugo Chavez]

No, we'll never completely stop terrorism.  The suicide nuts will always be there.  Regardless, we've already won.  Saddam and his sons are dead.  The regime has been dismantled.  It's just about transferring control back to Iraq.  We'll get there soon enough. 

No, we're not going to have over 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. 

It's not, nor was it ever pronounced the War on Saddam or The war on Iraq.  Sorry to give you another reality check but Bush has continuously refered to Iraq as the front lines in the WAR ON TERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


War on Terror = Perpetual War... Learn it.

[Dos Equis]

It's not, nor was it ever pronounced the War on Saddam or The war on Iraq.  Sorry to give you another reality check but Bush has continuously refered to Iraq as the front lines in the WAR ON TERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


War on Terror = Perpetual War... Learn it.

Are you saying we will have over 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next 100 years if McCain is elected? 

[Hugo Chavez]

Are you saying we will have over 100,000 troops in Iraq for the next 100 years if McCain is elected? 

nope, my opinion is the shit will hit the fan well before that plan... OHHHHH!!!  I'm on a Rolllllll

[Hugo Chavez]

yes, anyway, these fools including Bush's own words have said it's policy to spread the word.  As was done in Iraq, if Iraq is successful and policy still stands, there will be another front.  Kind of a no brainer there bubba.

[Dos Equis]

nope, my opinion is the shit will hit the fan well before that plan... OHHHHH!!!  I'm on a Rolllllll

 



I'm trying to understand your "100 years in Iraq" contention.  What exactly do you mean?  We'll have over 100,000 troops in Iraq?  Flying sorties?  What? 

[Hugo Chavez]

I'm trying to understand your "100 years in Iraq" contention.  What exactly do you mean?  We'll have over 100,000 troops in Iraq?  Flying sorties?  What? 

why don't you ask McBush what he meant since he's the one who said it   Look budda, you don't seem to want to address a major point:  Bush has always said that Iraq if the FRONT in the WAR ON TERROR...  THE WAR ON TERROR... THE WAR ON TERROR... HELLOOOOOO!!!!!  FRONT FRONT FRONT.... If they would have had success in iraq when the mission accomplished flag was raised, they would have indeed hit Iran or Syria right after.  If the War on Terror and current policy stands, as soon as the """""FRONT""""" in Iraq is won, it's on the the next FRONT to win THE WAR ON TERROR...

Good god man, you all should have these concepts, that have been drilled into us by this neocon administration, down pat.

War on Terror=perpetual war

[Dos Equis]

why don't you ask McBush what he meant since he's the one who said it   Look budda, you don't seem to want to address a major point:  Bush has always said that Iraq if the FRONT in the WAR ON TERROR...  THE WAR ON TERROR... THE WAR ON TERROR... HELLOOOOOO!!!!!  FRONT FRONT FRONT.... If they would have had success in iraq when the mission accomplished flag was raised, they would have indeed hit Iran or Syria right after.  If the War on Terror and current policy stands, as soon as the """""FRONT""""" in Iraq is won, it's on the the next FRONT to win THE WAR ON TERROR...

Good god man, you all should have these concepts, that have been drilled into us by this neocon administration, down pat.

War on Terror=perpetual war

I know what McCain said, which is consistent with what I said.  I'm asking about your contention. 

Here is what McCain said:

McCain explains 100 years in Iraq comment
by Mosheh Oinounou
Rocky River, OH — Continuing to take heat from Democrats for saying last month that “he would be fine” if the U.S. remained in Iraq for 100 years or longer, Sen. John McCain tried again Monday to clarify his statement.

“My friends, the war will be over soon. The war for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it’ll be handled by the Iraqis not by us. And then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis,” McCain told a town hall meeting in the Buckeye State this morning.

His latest remarks come in response to repeated attempts by Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats to argue that McCain supports maintaining troops for a 100 year war in Iraq. Instead, McCain has repeatedly said on the trail during the past few weeks that he is talking about a long-term post-war military presence similar to the ones the U.S. has with South Korea, Japan and Germany–where the U.S. has maintained troops for more than 50 years.

See his 100 years remarks (here)
He also discussed a 1,000-10,000 year commitment in a January CBS News interview (here)
“You might know that we have major base in Kuwait because the first the gulf war, after we won, we had a base arrangement with the Kuwaitis. In Korea we’ve had as you know, ever since the Korean war we’ve had a military presence in South Korea,” McCain said. “So my Democrat friends like to distort that comment, but the fact is that…every single day (the situation) is improving and we take American young men and women out of harms way.”

. . .

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/mccain-explains-100-years-in-iraq-comment/

[Hugo Chavez]

I know what McCain said, which is consistent with what I said.  I'm asking about your contention. 

Here is what McCain said:

McCain explains 100 years in Iraq comment
by Mosheh Oinounou
Rocky River, OH — Continuing to take heat from Democrats for saying last month that “he would be fine” if the U.S. remained in Iraq for 100 years or longer, Sen. John McCain tried again Monday to clarify his statement.

“My friends, the war will be over soon. The war for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it’ll be handled by the Iraqis not by us. And then we decide what kind of security arrangement we want to have with the Iraqis,” McCain told a town hall meeting in the Buckeye State this morning.

His latest remarks come in response to repeated attempts by Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats to argue that McCain supports maintaining troops for a 100 year war in Iraq. Instead, McCain has repeatedly said on the trail during the past few weeks that he is talking about a long-term post-war military presence similar to the ones the U.S. has with South Korea, Japan and Germany–where the U.S. has maintained troops for more than 50 years.

See his 100 years remarks (here)
He also discussed a 1,000-10,000 year commitment in a January CBS News interview (here)
“You might know that we have major base in Kuwait because the first the gulf war, after we won, we had a base arrangement with the Kuwaitis. In Korea we’ve had as you know, ever since the Korean war we’ve had a military presence in South Korea,” McCain said. “So my Democrat friends like to distort that comment, but the fact is that…every single day (the situation) is improving and we take American young men and women out of harms way.”

. . .

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/mccain-explains-100-years-in-iraq-comment/

That all means nothing to me... The guy is going to exuse/lie his way out in an election for sure.  The fact is he's on tape singing war and talking about how he doesn't care how long.  He's got the neocons by his side now.  They came up with this perpetual War and he's with them.  There is no distortion, he doens't care how long it takes in a perpetual war.  I was right about Bush and had the opportunity recently to tell someone from 99 and if McBush gets in I hope we're around long enough that I can do the same with you.  It will be so, if not worse.  I actually suspect way worse regardless of who get's in--but that's a long story.

[youandme]

No matter who gets elected were going to be in Iraq the next 100 years is what I read

[Dos Equis]

No matter who gets elected were going to be in Iraq the next 100 years is what I read

Correct. 

[240 is Back]

McCain explains 100 years in Iraq comment


See, Joelocal does the same thing.  He posts what Rush says he "meant" to say.
You're posting the planned, reviewed, sanitized, PC version that mccain is putting out to diffuse the 100 years comment.  Of course this will be the most non-offensive, 'what people what to hear' version of things.

I put much more credence in what he said off the cuff, as being true.

[Hugo Chavez]

No matter who gets elected were going to be in Iraq the next 100 years is what I read

how do you read that?  It's not what Obama has said.  McBush seems like he's very excited about beign a war president too.  singing bomb bomb bomb iran.  Nope, chances are we'll be oppening up new fronts under McBush.

[Deicide]

Largest structure in the American Empire is nearing completion in Iraq; the embassy the size of the Vatican, costing over $500,000 to erect. We are going to be there until we go broke.

[youandme]

haha 500,000  that may break the bank