McCain lashes out at '100 years' in Iraq ads
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 4 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
1
Gov't turns to AKB48 to sell bonds
-
2
Japan declined U.S. offer to station nuclear experts in Kan's office: Edano
-
3
Edano says he didn't deliberately mislead public about extent of nuclear crisis
-
4
Tabloid blasts growing numbers of foreign welfare chiselers
-
5
Lame applicant pool plagues Don Quijote
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
43 Comments
Login to comment
0
Taka313
No Senator, you seem to be sorry OTHER people's campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion. Doesn't seem to bother you until you are on the receiving end.
I wanted to vote for this man 8 years ago. My how times change. Now, whenever I see Sen. McCain, I think of the song, 'Thick-Necked Man' by Crash Test Dummies.
Taka
0
jeancolmar
Well go old More War McCain said it. One hundred years in Iraq. Only its is going to be "peace keeping." BS. Peace keeping means military action and that means fighting the people who want the invaders out of their counry.
McCain also wants a war with Iran.
On top of that, McCain wants to restart the Cold War with Russia. On his agenda is to kick Russia out of G8.
McCain is a Cold War and Bush era fossil. As such, he is an cancer on only on the US but the world as well.
0
rjd_jr
More proof this guy should NOT get elected come November in America.
0
jeancolmar
Sucks. Blew the last sentence, which should read "As such, he is a cancer not only on the US but the world as well."
0
smithinjapan
"“My friends, it’s a direct falsification, and I’m sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion,” McCain said."
Awww.... poor baby. The Republicans have survived on nothing but mud-slinging campaigns for the last few decades, and now that the Democrats have stooped to their level (yes, I'm sorry to say the Dems, in the heated battle between Hillary and Obama have utterly dropped their standards) poor old McCain can't take it.
Yeah, McCain... only peace-keeping... same as it only took 90 days for the Iraq war to be over, eh?
0
redacted
McCain could always have his press aides and a few sympathetic newscasters and talk show hosts insist that he was "taken out of context," but then he'd look like one of the girly-men from Nancy Pelosi and Hillary's gaggle.
0
Betzee
The problem is McCain has no credibility on Iraq. In 2003 he, too, spoke of a quick little war followed by a reconstruction paid for with Iraqi oil revenues. He didn't see the insurgency coming any more than any one in the current administration. And he has yet to lay out a path to victory instead of emphasizing the difficult struggle "but, rest assured, we're succeeding." We're also dropping USD 3 million a week, and if past trends are any predictor, it may yet become more expensive to occupy a country where we are battling the locals (never the case in South Korea).
0
SuperLib
More fearmongering from the Left and foreigners.
0
redacted
We've been in Japan for more than 60 years, will probably be here for another 40 at least.
Where is McCain, if he even said this, being unreasonable?
0
Sarge
redacted - Because apparently, most Iraqis want us out now. Can you believe that?
0
SushiSake3
Betzee - "We're also dropping USD 3 million a week."
Sorry, that's We're also dropping USD 3 BILLION a week."
Sarge - "redacted - Because apparently, most Iraqis want us out now. Can you believe that?"
Yes. Now, why doesn't your government just get out? Heck, you'd almost think they were a dictatorship, or something.
0
SushiSake3
Sarge - "Because apparently, most Iraqis want us out now. Can you believe that?"
After your country has effectively buried their country, why, yes I can.
0
redacted
"Now, why doesn't your government just get out? Heck, you'd almost think they were a dictatorship, or something."
As I stated above the US has been in Japan for 60 years.
Why are you still here, sushi?
You indirectly support the "dictatorship" you allude to.
Why don't you get out?
0
Sarge
Sushi - We haven't buried Iraq, we've liberated it from an evil dictator. Do you deny this?
0
Betzee
How many of those have been spent battling an insurgency? In contrast to Iraq, US troops in Japan are not fighting and dying in battles against the locals which play out in Japanese streets and cities. In the case of South Korea, McCain's example, they confront a standing army of North Korean troops deployed along a clearly defined, internationally recognized boundary. Each side can bring major weapons to bear in the event war breaks out (as it did in the 1950s).
By contrast our opponents in Iraq, which represent a number of causes, are armed with unsophisticated yet deadly weapons (such as IEDs) and have, as we all appreciate by now, the ability to blend into the civilian population. Iraqi insurgents, in short, could be killing US troops for many years. Insurgencies, in contrast to standing armies, operate within shifting rebel zones.
0
Sarge
Hey Taka313, could you provide an example of McCain's campaign stooping to the level of MoveOn.org's 100 years BS? Thanks.
0
RomeoRamenII
Seems like the U.S. Leftists and the American wannabees are misdirecting their anger again. Heh, if they really believed in what they write, instead of posting on a Web site based in Japan that's read by tens, they'd be hopping on planes for baghdad and protesting that government's decision to allow the coalition forces to stay.
RR
0
redacted
"By contrast our opponents in Iraq, which represent a number of causes, are armed with unsophisticated yet deadly weapons (such as IEDs) and have, as we all appreciate by now, the ability to blend into the civilian population. Iraqi insurgents, in short, could be killing US troops for many years. Insurgencies, in contrast to standing armies, operate within shifting rebel zones."
Yes betzee, you're right.
We are fighting a proxy war with Iran, who supplies most of the IEDs and rockets targeting US troops.This is something I read and hear almost daily, but not in the MSM of course. It comes from generals and soldiers on the ground.
Different case with WW2 Japan, an island, carpet-bombed and nuked before surrendering.
0
Sarge
RR - Har!
0
SushiSake3
redacted - your constant references to Japan, US, and various residents' reasons for being in Japan are tiring.
Please try an argument that works and that has some relevance.
0
Betzee
Let's recap way back in 2004, after we had toppled Saddam's regime, and found ourselves battling the pro-Saddam Sunni minority ("dead-enders") as well the followers of the radical anti-American cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr. The next year we were squaring off against Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Abdul Al Zarqawi, in an effort to save the democratically elected Green Zone government, in which Al-Sadr is a major player, from the scourge of the global Islamic terrorist movement created by OBL. In 2006-2007 we were fighting an insurgency composed of many parts, ostensibly in an effort to prevent Iraq from being engulfed in sectarian-driven civil war. And now, to add 2008 to the timeline, we're fighting a proxy war with Iran....
No wonder costs are ever increasing, currently USD 3 billion a week (thanks for the correction, Sushi). Yet we seem no closer to declaring victory....
0
SimondB
Sarge - We haven't buried Iraq, we've liberated it from an evil dictator. Do you deny this?
He-he-he!
And replaced it with a thriving community off like minded people. Where markets are booming, new buildings dot the skyline. Where a vibrant democracy exists, a land where everyone, from the toilet cleaner to the top arms dealer embrace the wonder and glory of democratic procedures. A country at peace withitself, a place where anyone can practise their religious beliefs. Where family mean every thing and Sunnis and Shiites lay together like the tiger and the lamb. A place where it is now banned to name any streets, avenues, bridges, airports or monuments after G W Bush because there are so many people are always turning up at the wrong place at the right time.
0
Helter_Skelter
The fundamental problem here is that these politicians and military strategists are still thinking in terms of a conventional war. This isn't like WWII where the enemy wears uniforms and, when you win, they surrender and sign a peace treaty and everyone lives happily ever after. This is an unconventional war with an uncivilized enemy without any rules. All you can really do is make sure they don't acquire WMD's which can really do some serious harm. Since Iraq never had WMD's, we should have never invaded, let alone occupy the country. We shouldn't be there.
0
SezWho2
Well, I haven't seen an ad that says that John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq. I've seen this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ul9iMgmOw
However, that ad simply says that McCain is willing to up the ante on Bush's 50 year stay. Admittedly, it does show some pretty graphic images of war, but it does not say McCain offers us 100 more years of war. It reminds us of what Iraq is today. So, unless there is another ad, it seems to me that McCain's claim is false.
On the other hand, I don't think there is any doubt that the media has not helped clarify the true content of McCain's remarks. (This may of course be McCain's own doing because he does not offer anything except optimism.) In particular, there has been far too little emphasis on the important stipulation that Americans not be injured or harmed or wounded or killed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRBQxa7uV9Y&NR=1
Even so, at what point would McCain volunteer to bring the troops home while they were still being injured or harmed or wounded or killed? Dimes to donuts, he has no answer for that one.
0
japanyesterday
i think the military already figured out the fact that this is no ordinary war but what they haven't figured out or just being plain ignorant about is that they cannot win such a war. there is no count on the number of insurgents and from what i've read, it does not seem like the numbers are dropping. it only takes one man to roll through at night, set a roadside bomb and head back to sleep. next morning, BOOM-number of soldiers killed in roadside bomb attack. whats next, roll through town and tear the place apart? well, thats what the ground troops wish they could do but the news would end up on an Iraqi version of japantoday and we all know what that would lead to.
the US should leave iraq immediately. No other country in the world is losing sleep over the situation in the middle east. let the savages handle things the way "god" told them to and let the poor american soldiers go back to playing XBOX360 and watching american idol. the US is a so called world power or "sleeping giant" so why not just play the waiting game? let iraq and iran acquire their WMDs and the day they put one to use, the US along with the UN will have every reason to not add iraq or iran to the next year's world map.
0
Madverts
Who cares what McCain sez. Bush Co´s war is about as popular as bush himself; His only purpose is to avert mass-suicide amongst those still loyal to the Bush sect - at least until the GOP has recovered more from the last eight years of reaming that America´s back door has received, which let´s be fair, may take until long after 2012.
0
redacted
May 2, 2008 -
Gallup Daily: McCain Moves to 6-Point Lead Over Obama
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106966/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Point-Lead-Over-Obama.aspx
0
Sarge
SimondB - Yeah, so Iraq's not a paradise yet. Is this America's fault? Hint: No.
redacted - That poll can't be right. Why, I thought the vast majority of Americans are against keeping troops in Iraq even one more day, and that McCain is too old to be president...
0
RomeoRamenII
Mr. McCain said nothing about a 100 year war. But hey, if this lie is all the dems have to go on, boy are they hurting.
Also, wonder why the DNC aren't all over our continued occupation of Japan, Germany and Italy. We are spending billions every year in those countries and we are approaching 75 years in those countries with no end in sight.
RR
0
RomeoRamenII
redacted: Gallup MUST be wrong. Heh ... the non-voting global Leftists that infest JT shriek and stamp their feet that it's barack by a landslide in November.
RR
0
Sarge
RR - The DNC aren't all over our continued occupation ( har! ) of Japan, Germany and Italy because the Japanese, Germans and Italians got with the program years ago. xD
0
Betzee
McCain seems to find himself in these "This is what I really meant" situations a lot:
PHOENIX — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) clarified his comments Friday after suggesting the Iraq war was motivated by U.S. reliance on foreign oil.
His explanation: He was talking about the 1991 Persian Gulf War, not the current conflict.
It was the second time in as many days that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had to clear up his comments. On Thursday, he backed off his assertion that pork-barrel spending led to last year's deadly bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
At issue Friday was a comment at a morning town hall meeting in Denver, when he said his energy policy would eliminate U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and would "prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."
He sought to clarify his comments after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.....
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain3-2008may03,0,4391153,print.story
0
Farmboy
I don't care for McCain, but if you watch the clip, at least the clip in question, he is talking about occupation, not war. His platform is so crazy in so many other respects that I can't understand why anyone wastes time criticizing what he DIDN'T say, and making a false point the center of an ad. There are plenty of true things to criticize.
0
SezWho2
Farmboy,
When I watched the clip it seemed to me that he didn't know what he was talking about. The only thing for sure was that he wasn't for remaining for a 100 years if Americans were still being hurt. He'll be over 170 years old then anyway.
He did talk about the Japan and Korea models, but we don't really "occupy" either of these countries. He may have been talking about "presence", but we've already seen how well that has worked out in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. And he sure didn't talk about how he is going to end the war except perhaps by having a positive outlook.
0
Betzee
In the case of South Korea, a comparison raised by McCain, the US Armed Forces, even when the country was under military dictatorship, did not become involved in national politics and provide assistance in policing the locals. Two military aircraft carriers were sent to Pusan in May 1980 during the Kwangju crackdown. But the purpose was to "discourage" other governments in the neighborhood, especially communist-led ones, from taking advantage of the situation. What happened was something the South Korean government alone had to answer for after political liberalization occurred.
By contrast, despite five years of American-financed and American-led military training programs in post-Saddam Iraq, the Iraqi forces remain unable to maintain order in their own country. As long as the Green Zone Government relies on the US for military support, we are going to take casualties. McCain would do better to address the reasons why the Iraqi forces have been unable to stand up rather than suggesting a positive attitude is sufficient to change the situation.
0
adaydream
Look at what we spent in military expences each year. Do we want to continue the policy of funding everybody else's military costs?
We should have brought our troops from Korea years ago. It may have been smart to be a peacekeeper for a couple of years, but over 50 years is ludicris. How long do we continue paying this?
Taking that into Iraq. I've understood all along that John McCain has been talking about an occuping force, not neccesarily at war, but a presence. Why should the American people be paying for an occuping force to keep the peace in Iraq or anywhere for 100 years?
I advocate that we should be bringing our troops home from Korea, Japan and not establish anymore major occuping force anywhere. We should be spending our tax dollars on us, not another country.
You want tax cuts?? Stop paying to occuping other countries. Then you'll see major tax cuts.
0
RomeoRamenII
"I advocate that we should be bringing our troops home from Korea"
We are still in engaged in a military conflict with that country. Hence, the reason the military cannot be removed from that part of the world.
RR
0
Zaphod
The original "100 years" quote was ambiguous. Since he said that was provided the situation is safe and stable, one can just as well interpret that as policy to not stay there.
Predictably, the political demagogues have only picked up the soundbyte and broadcast it in a misleading context. That people fall for this only reflects on their low reading ability.
0
SezWho2
Zaphod,
You are right about the 100 year quote and I think that fair and honest people on both sides of this issue have said so. Political demagogues, if that is the proper term, exist in both parties and there's plenty of snipping to go around.
I think, however, it is a stretch to interpret McCain's comments as a policy not to stay in Iraq. At what point do you think McCain would bring the troops home when they are still being injured? If you think there is a point, there is no essential difference between McCain and the Democratic candidates except in bluster.
0
zurcronium
McCain is getting dopy in his old age. Do the math and you have 76,000 US soldiers dead in the next 95 years of Iraqi occupation. As long as the GIs are in Iraq they are targets. But its not his kids that are at risk.
Bush to McCain, from denail to senile.
0
Hughgarse
hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaaha. now thats funny.
0
mosc1
The original 100 years flap, occured because of the Ron Paul opposition within the Republican Party. Paul sought to persuade his party of the value of pulling American troops stationed abroad and closing expensive American bases overseas. He made the devestating comment that America suffered from economic insolvency, that it could not afford this far flung empire of having over 170 military bases oversea. McCain justified the Iraqi engagement by comparing it to the on going American involvement with Korea. Paul then brought up, the point that America sent troops to Korea by a UN mandate rather than a Congressional Declaration of War. Iraq, being an American war, which lacks both Congressional and UN declarations permitting the engagement! Paul says the American government must obey the basic Law of the Land ie the Constitution. Both the Republican and Democratic Parties view the Constitution as being no longer applicable in the "modern" world.
0
NeoJamal
The US can avoid staying there for for long if they if the install an "Iraqi Snygman Rhee" who will prima facie have a democratic mandate but could very well acquire dictatorial 'emergency powers' from the national legislature where the effect is perennial. The character of such new dictatorship may be tyrannical just as much as Saddam's regime if not worse. However, such a state will have broad powers to effectively suppress dissenters and more in all, it will be pro-American so the rest of the world won't care. Just look at South Korea's past indigenous pro-American dictatorships whose abuse of its own citizens could be comparable to the deeds of the Japanese occupiers and yet no-one bothered to intervene. It took a good half a century for the Koreans to establish a liberal democracy for themselves without external help. No-one seems to regret the fact that the Koreans weren't 'given' a liberal democracy much earlier like that of the Japanese. There is a distinct irony that derives from the Korean cause of independence to liberate Korea from Japanese tyranny and create an autochtonous government that could secure fundamental human rights and higher living standards for its citizens than what little the Japanese could give. After WWII, Japan quickly established itself as a liberal democracy and a member of the OECD under US patronage while the Koreans indignantly suffered under their own military that does not follow the rule of law. The US did little to enhance the civic Korean morale apart from supporting the dictatorships in hounding suspected communists spies and guarding the border. So has this experience in Korea raised public awareness against the detestable nature of pro-American dictatorships? I'm afraid not. The indifference of the world to South Korea's post-colonial ordeal during the dictatorship and today is a good indication that the US and her allies could install a pro-western dictatorship in Iraq without any public backlash. The interest of the American public in the safety of their soldiers takes no lesser priority to the liberty of the Iraqi people, they would sooner forget that Iraqi liberty was a pre-eminent cause of the invasion than to disarm the threat poised against American interests in the region.
Back to top