McCain says there's nothing wrong with staying in Iraq for 100 years.

[unrealalex]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain...Iraq_0106.html
Interesting.

But McCain said in a recent New Hampshire debate -- and reasserted as much on Sunday -- that as long as Americans aren't dying, he sees nothing wrong with US troops staying as many as 100 years in Iraq.

What I believe we can achieve is a reduction in casualties to the point where the Iraqis are doing the fighting and dying [and] we're supporting them," McCain said

What do you guys think about this? Is there something wrong with staying in Iraq for decades if there are no US troop casualties? I think there is. It's their country, why should we have permanent bases over there? Would we allow Japan or Turkey to build bases in our homeland? Why should the taxpayers continue paying for troops in Iraq? Furthermore, I think it's kind of hopeful to think that there will be no casualties anytime soon.

Lets hear some opinions.

[Harrod200]

The UN has been in places like Bosnia for years, I fail to see how this would be different to any other peacekeeping operation, aside from how it came about.

[[R-CON]Wolfe]

McCain is trying to achieve two goals with that statement:

1.
He's addressing one of the fundamental rules of war: Never tell your enemy your plans for extraction (i.e. Congress forcing resolutions to leave Iraq by a pre-determined date). Better yet, don't tell your enemy anything at all. Better yet, tell him you're staying for 100 years.

2.
He's addressing the American people's low tolerance for causalities, by assuring them we'll do what it takes to win, just not at the cost of our own soldiers.

In both cases, his statement is not realistic and any half-minded enemy or half-minded ally can see right through it.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Whoa, seems to me he's missed a fundamental point. Much (not all, by a long shot) but a good deal of the insurgency is aimed at persuading the Americans to leave. On the other hand, the Americans are staying because as long as there's an insurgency, they have to stay to sort it out.

Now; say McCain's imagined situation comes true; Americans stay in Iraq but Iraqi forces are the ones doing the fighting and dying... why *should* the Americans stay? There's no reason to - Iraqi forces are 'successfully' fighting the (civil) war on terror in Iraq. By leaving the US troops there, you provide another reason (other than power of the state or religious idealism) for people to fight.

Remove the troops, remove some of the hostile fighters, too.

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Masaq

Whoa, seems to me he's missed a fundamental point. Much (not all, by a long shot) but a good deal of the insurgency is aimed at persuading the Americans to leave. On the other hand, the Americans are staying because as long as there's an insurgency, they have to stay to sort it out.

Now; say McCain's imagined situation comes true; Americans stay in Iraq but Iraqi forces are the ones doing the fighting and dying... why *should* the Americans stay? There's no reason to - Iraqi forces are 'successfully' fighting the (civil) war on terror in Iraq. By leaving the US troops there, you provide another reason (other than power of the state or religious idealism) for people to fight.

Remove the troops, remove some of the hostile fighters, too.

Maybe because their Commander "MacBushis733t" spawned a massive diplomatic bunker right in the middle of the Baghdad map. And as it cost a hell of a lot of tickets to build, they have to keep it afloat for a 100 years to get even
Oh and it wasn't easy to build with only shovels ...

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Ever seen the comedian Robert Newman? He does a brilliant bit about this, it's top notch.

"Ahh, but now there is an American Plan, endorsed by the G8 I might add, to Bring Democracy to the Middle East generally, not just in Iran but in Iraq... where...

The United States is building fourteen permenant US military bases upon Iraqi soil. What's so profound is the corporate news media's collective aquired naiveity; the learnt ability not to see or hear the uncomfortable fact:

That they can be interviewing a four-star US general while he is laying bricks on the very building site of one of these US military bases and still notice nothing wrong.

There's the general going: [Does brick-laying mime] "That's right, soon as the Iraqis' have an election, we're outta here, don't worry about that, just wait for them to vote for us to leave - we're gone."

"They vote to turn this four billion dollar base into a youth club, we'll just swallow that, don't worry about that..." [Continues with brick-laying mine]

I can't help thinking that this bit would work better, if my brick-laying mime looked less like the gayest 17th-century French fop playing a game of gaylord tennis, or "dandy-racketball". [Bricklaying mine turns into very camp tennis mime].

"Have at you sir!"
"No, you!"

The rules of gaylord tennis are that the first one to produce a bead of perspiration looses.

"Lord Foulteroy, your brow perspires methinks!"

"No... it is a sequin from your mother's breast. My point."

"Ah no, for further points are deducted for seeming to care about the result. Scoring is bourgois!"

[Pause]

An American plan, to bring democracy to the Middle East..."

Anyways. *cough* he's a funy guy

[unrealalex]

Originally Posted by Saobh

Maybe because their Commander "MacBushis733t" spawned a massive diplomatic bunker right in the middle of the Baghdad map. And as it cost a hell of a lot of tickets to build, they have to keep it afloat for a 100 years to get even
Oh and it wasn't easy to build with only shovels ...

Yea man shoveling a bunker all by myself on Al Basrah made me want to go Insurgent


Yea I definetly agree that the insurgents are mainly angry because we're occupying their country, and not because we are "more free" as some say. Putting myself in their position, if someone were to occupy America, I sure wouldn't be happy. And right now the state of Iraq is so twisted and slanted that you don't know even know whom to believe anymore. Some say it's terrible everywhere, some say it's getting better, some say it's getting worse... I don't even know who to listen to.

[M1126 Stryker]

Originally Posted by unrealalex

Yea man shoveling a bunker all by myself on Al Basrah made me want to go Insurgent


Yea I definetly agree that the insurgents are mainly angry because we're occupying their country, and not because we are "more free" as some say. Putting myself in their position, if someone were to occupy America, I sure wouldn't be happy. And right now the state of Iraq is so twisted and slanted that you don't know even know whom to believe anymore. Some say it's terrible everywhere, some say it's getting better, some say it's getting worse... I don't even know who to listen to.

Well most of the insurgents are neither of those. Many are members of many different militias fighting hoping to drive us out and gain power, or just trying to prevent the other sect from gaining power. Some are your radical extremists who just hate America and the west and then there may be some that are still loyal to Saddam's old regime.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by Harrod200

The UN has been in places like Bosnia for years, I fail to see how this would be different to any other peacekeeping operation, aside from how it came about.

That is because the UN is a peacekeeping force. The United States military is not.

[Harrod200]

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

That is because the UN is a peacekeeping force. The United States military is not.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the US is a member of the UN. The British Army isn't a peacekeeping force either, but still successfully served such a role, as did the US Army in Kosovo.