You take it out of context by leaving out the part immediately after the "Make it a hundred" where he said, "We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans … As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

Obama said, "Sen. McCain said the other day that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq -- which is reason enough not to give him four years in the White House." Obama's lie is spreading like wildfire.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

I don't understand why republicans can't understand that withdrawing from occupying a country is not retreating from a foe.

What is success in Iraq? The entire point to acheive success is to give Iraq to the Iraqis... They need to be responsible for their own security.. They need to make their own political progress.. They need to stand on their own.

I don't think that there is much disagreement that the end result needs to be an Iraq that is independent. Now I know that there are a lot of right wingers that also think that success is having permanant military bases there for the next 100 years, like McCain does. But real success is an Iraq that is independent.

Now the right wing seems to think the way to do this is to stay there and act as their police force, their security force, the enforcer who attacks anyone who fights the government. And also stay there and get shot at by people who don't want us there... How does this lead to an Iraq that stands on it's own.. This sounds like it just delays success.

To get an Iraq that is successful, then we need to withdraw. There is no way to acheive success without a withdrawl.. As long as we are there, we have not achieved success.

It is basically, withdraw and let Iraq stand on it's own, and we have acheived success. Or stay there, sacrafice more, and delay progress, without acheiving success.

You keep thinking that the republican want to keep 100,000 troops there. They don't. They really really want Iraq to stand on it's own against insurgents.

They would also like a SMALL supportive presence there for air protection, or soem of them might want an operation base against Iran.

Either way the example McCain gives is like Germany. Do we have a major military base there? Yes. Is that a problem? No. That's what they want.

By your definition of "withdraw" the replublicans want the same thing you do.

Democrats, however, want to do a forced, quick withdraw (out in 60 days was the campaign promise). If you do it suddenly, before they're ready you're just throwing the provisional government under a bus. Possibly literally. That's why it would be "a retreat"

You might want to read this article that just came out.
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/131037

Which sites progress in the area.

Two things I think are key to note are.

1. The number of US troops in Iraq is now GOING DOWN.

2. Their defense minister said. "Anyway, the Americans themselves are not willing to abandon Iraq unless they are confident that we are capable. This is an agreement," Mohammed added.

Sadly for him he didn't make an agreement with Obama or Hillary, so I'm not sure if what they plan to do counts as outright betrayal. But either way if they win he's pretty well screwed.

You might want to hear their plans from them.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

Combat troops out in about a year, residual force to remain longer, not unlike the Iraq Study Group proposal.

U.S. foreign policy is not dicated to us by other governments (especially if they are our puppet). Throwing troops at Iraq continues to deter political progress.

Of course, there's no easy solution to this quagmire. Our next President should be one who is most likely to avoid such debacles going forward. McCain doesn't qualify.

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

The 60 day thing turns out to be Hillary.
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/...ion=updatenews

Looks like Obama says "immediately" for when he starts pulling troops.

Granted it takes a while to move that many troops out safely. So it'll probably take both of them most of a year. But the point is the enemy knows what we're doing and what they'll be able to get away with.

I do think that more pressure should be put on the Iraq government. But they can't just snap their fingers and make the magic happen. Even the Democrats admit progress is just being made, they just don't want to credit the surge.

After Bush leaves the White House, he's more than welcome to go over there and uphold his agreements with his own blood as far as I'm concerned.

Still some spin. From your article...

Also,

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/r.../view/?id=2354

__________________
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.

- G.W. Bush, 10/3/2003

You say that you will not leave until you will.

__________________
"Oh bury me, then rise ye up,And break your heavy chains, water with the tyrants' blood, The freedom you have gained." Тарáс Григóрович ШевчéнкоT.Shevchenko- Poet of Ukraine

Geh got quoted while I was editing. THough I do still think Obamas plan looks better.

Really it seems like Obama and McCain want about the same thing to happen. It just that Obama is going to start pulling troops immediatly and get nearly all pulled in a year. Whereas McCain will be paying attention to what the situation on the ground actually is.

Hillary and Obama don't sound like they'd even give them an extra month if they needed it. And once they pull back the insurgents don't have to worry about them coming back and are free to blow up whom they please.

And I could see suporting that if there were zero improvements. If no provinces had been turned over of Iraqi forces or if areas weren't turning. But they are.

All the more reson to vote Democrat for President this time around.

Let them withdraw and we'll sit back and watch what happens in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran over the next four years. They won't be able to blame the Republicans for the mess they created.


My guess? No matter who wins the election, there will be no significant troop withdrawal, regardless of the campaign promises.