So says a politician named McCain:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said today he believes the Iraq war can be won by 2013, leaving a functioning democracy there and allowing most U.S. troops to come home.
It was the first time the Arizona senator has said when U.S. troops could be withdrawn from Iraq. His speech came as the House of Representatives voted to set a goal of withdrawing all troops by the end of next year and defeated legislation to fund the war.
“It’s not a timetable. It’s victory…”
It’s…MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Most of our troops? Why not all of them all them? If we really do succeed, then there is no need for any of our troops to remain there, right?
We’ve got troops in over 100 different countries throughout the world now. Can we afford to keep do this?
yeah, and then when its time for re-election of course he would say it might take at most 4 more years.
Why is he saluting with his right hand outstretched?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ULyka2Bfp04
Right, just after his re-election in 2012…..
At least someone has proposed a timeline that has a hint of reality.
6, as opposed to declaring a _milestone_ with zero basis in reality?
http://tinyurl.com/5zznhn
Not all of them because he allows for the possibility that we would have a presence there for 100 years, like we have in Japan or Germany, or Korea. We also have kept troops in Bosnia for 15 years and Kosovo for 10.
>>like we have in Japan or Germany, or Korea.
Japan, Germany, and Korea are our friends. They’re not blowing up our kids with IEDs. We’re not at war with them.
Do you detect the subtle difference?
#9
Precisely.
Its like if we kept troops in North Korea or East Germany.
The analogy from #8 is off to say the least.
His analogy would work if he had said Cuba.
Cursor_
This might restart the conversation of how to get done what must be done. And what “done” means to the U.S., Iraq and our standing with the rest of the world. No easy solutions for any of the candidates.
Just “pull out” has about the same chance of stability as “pull out” for birth control. Shouldn’t be in that position, but that approach is going to have serious consequences within a year…
You older guys remember how Nixon won in ’68, right? He had a “secret plan” to win the Vietnam war. Four years later, the disaster was only bigger, but he won a landslide victory against McGovern by labelling hime a “dove”.
Today, the Ameerican public wants one thing in Iraq – a resolution that somehow leaves us looking good. That’s probably impossible; but so is admitting the magnitude of our mistake.
McCain will be hard to beat.
#11 said:
Today, the Ameerican public wants one thing in Iraq – a resolution that somehow leaves us looking good. That’s probably impossible; but so is admitting the magnitude of our mistake.
McCain will be hard to beat.
———-
I say:
Intelligent Americans want out, even knowing we can never “look good” regarding Iraq.
Other Americans want “feel good” results, even knowing they are lies. They will swallow anything. Remember “Mission Accomplished”? What thinking person believed that for one minute?
If we can’t admit our mistakes we are doomed – and not just about Iraq.
But if #11 is correct and McCain wins – G-d help us because we will once again show ourselves to be a nation of ignorant, arrogant fools, who are easily herded like sheep.
The Founding Fathers would cry to see what we have become.
Even the most die hard republicans in this country want us out of Iraq. McBush has already said he could see the US in Iraq for another 100 years, and him saying at least 4 more years of our presence there is exactly what a majority of people don’t want.
The Soviet army withdrew from Afghanistan so they lost.
The American army is still in Afghanistan so we are succeeding.
If we are still succeeding in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2013, and Russia is not, then we are succeeding.
Is there anything else I can help you understand?
Just a reminder that the US has won decisively every single military engagement in Iraq. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
And the casuality figures are lower than ANY OTHER MILITARY CAMPAIGN save one … the first Gulf war.
The Surge is working. Like it or not.
If there will be a new video from Osama bin Laden, then we know the presidental race has begun. Only something big like the US presidential election can rise Osama from dead, and help the republicans stay in the White House.
rofl @ #14 and #15, good stuff
We need out of Iraq. We’ve been there long enough.
A number of soldiers lose their lives each year and it costs a lot of money to stay there, around $200 billion/yr + or -.
The Iraqis will need to sort their own stuff and hopefully when we start withdrawing they’ll take more responsibility for themselves.
But even if not, we need out of there.
#15
Don’t fool yourself. You could say the same thing for the Vietnam war, and you lost that one in the end. Casualty figures are down because, the wounded are getting treated faster and modern critical care has a higher success rate than past wars. You don’t mention the number of wounded which stands at nearly 30 thousand. Which is very high.
By 1968, the public knew Vietnam was a losing game. Public opposition was so strong that Johnson knew he couldn’t win re-election – and his poll numbers were better than Bush’s today.
Nevertheless, the country would go on pouring money and resources into Vietnam, searching madly for some face-saving way out, for another 6 years – while thousands more men lost arms, legs, faces and lives.
“The surge worked” in Vietnam, too, several times in fact. All the big military battles were won. We were always ahead on points. I still remember Robert McNamara standing confidently in front of his easel, pointing to the body count numbers.
# 18 jlm, just historically dull and ignorant.
# 21 jim h, hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately IRAQ is not history in the making it’s just history replayed.
# 13 pagon is right, “But if #11 is correct and McCain wins – G-d help us because we will once again show ourselves to be a nation of ignorant, arrogant fools, who are easily herded like” Mc-sheep.
#9, 10, that’s exactly what McCain meant. He didn’t say we would be at war in Iraq for 100 years.
“Under that scenario, U.S. troops would still be present, but those soldiers would not play a “direct combat role” because Iraqi forces would be capable of providing order.”
Btw, how did that whole fight-to-the-death suicide militant thing to exterminate the world of infidels work out for the Japanese?
RBG
#1 thru #24
Yay a chance to insult the whole thread.
You’re all wrong – dead wrong. Each and everyone of you are blind to what the truth is. Vietnam has nothing to do with this. McCain, Obama, and Hillary (bless her beer drinking, racist base, finger-in-the-wind, dumb ass) have nothing to do with it (other then agreeing to the mission in the beginning, Obama aside).
The mission was topple Saddam, build infrastructure to support the troops, and remain indefinitely.
For those of you who missed it – Here it is in plainer language:
The US is not leaving until the oil is gone.
Mission Accomplished – 1
Petty politicians and their sheep – 0
“The US is not leaving until the oil is gone.”
ding ding ding
btw, did the order of posts change? either I listed the wrong number earlier or something got shuffled before my post went through…
>>The US is not leaving until the oil is gone.
Gosh. I hope all the parents who buried their children returning dead from Iraq think that the current $4.00/gallon-and-rising gas prices are worth their sacrifice.
Speaking of oil, I’ve heard that “speculation” is from 30 to 60% of the cost of oil. I’ve googled this issue and can’t find anything on point. Many cites say speculators drive the cost of oil higher, but no one explains “how.”
Anybody got a website with any explanation of the actual mechanism?
Leaving the political/conspiratorial/economic theories aside, I’ve read McCain’s plans for Iraq, and – not being a McCain supporter – must admit he makes several legitimate points. Assuming for a moment that his underlying premise is true (that we’re moving away from a “hunt and destroy” scenario into a sociocultural war) then his conclusion that the insurgency could be over by 2013 isn’t fallacious or overblown or even political pandering.
The problem of course, is threefold: 1) a large portion of Americans no longer trust what a Republican presidential candidate has to say, particularly one so close to Bush, 2) the American people are suffering from war weariness not seen since Vietnam, and 3) there are so many problems for the economy, pushing a boost of the military budget when the “cheapest” and “preferable” alternative is just to cut and run reads a bit disingenuous.
I really do believe this plan could have worked – five years ago. Now, I don’t think the US, as a whole, has the strength for it.
Isn’t it obvious that any presidential candidate can/will say anything necessary to get into office? Doesn’t mean they have to fulfill their promises. Never has meant that.