The point is yes; we will not be leaving Iraq anytime in the near future, no matter what any of the candidates say. The embassy and its size call for a considerable force to defend them and the civilian population will also need protecting. The point I think is we are spending astronomical amounts of money that we can not sustain for much longer without compromising our ability to grow our own country. The mere rational that we would continue combat operation indefinitely is what separates McCain from the other candidate. IT’S TOO EXPENSIVE! I do not want my tax dollars spent there on an imaginary war on terror! Now if they re-title it "The War for oil" Then at least I can understand their reason for being there!

Well with the democrats we might wind up without any presence as a too rapid retreat could cost us the embassy.

That aside they want to hold it.

However you a kidding yourself if you think costs are going to get better with Obama. His plan for aid to Africa costs about as much as, um, 60% of the way I believe. It's in another one of these threads somewhere. And his other campaign promises added together are going to be more expensive than the war.

Ganted maybe you feel better about spending the money on welfare and aid to Africa but don't look for big savings.

And remember as much as his stupid quote is misused around here McCain wants the same outcome as the Democrats. A stable embassy and maybe a little more. And he knows it's in his best political interests to get to that point as soon as he can.

He's just willing to stay a couple more years to actually get it done right instead of running at an arbitrary time.

I think you were responding to me. I don’t think any of them would "Cut and Run" as some have labeled it. There will be adviser's in this matter and I’m sure they will be listened to this time in re-guards of an exit strategy. Bush the first REFUSED to get involved just for this reason; he didn’t see a clean exit strategy and it is the same now. There is no clean way out! But an exit is necessary (Combat troops in country).

So now "bring it on" means come kill my soldiers..nice change of context there at the last second. Let me get a shovel for you. Or do you really believe that stinking pile of BS.
A fool can try to sell a pile of poo but only a bigger fool will ever buy it.


Past that yes indeed he did tell the Nazis,Japs, and Fascists to bring it on in all sorts of ways.....so did almost every notable allied personality you can think of.

Bother yourself to educate yourself..

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Find one instance where Roosevelt would have come out and said Bring em on!! You can't because a leader doesn't do that to his men.

Besides, Bush has apologized for saying it (one of the few times he admitted making a mistake)

BTW, saying we're going to kick your a%( is still better than taunting an enemy who will take you up on an attack.

how is that a lie? and how can mccain downplay our presence in iraq by comparing it to places like japan, and then go and talk about how volatile it is over there, how al qaeda is at work there everyday? mccain is trying to have it both ways - he wants to sugar coat our presence while simultaneously holding on to the fear tactics. not gonna work.

__________________

He's not talking about why we are there now. He is suggesting that it would be wise to maintain a presence there the same way we are still in Japan and Korea long after the wars are over. Obama took the words out of context and changed the meaning entirely.
If you still don't want to admit that Obama is lying. Show me exactly how you interpret McCain's words to mean "mired" in Iraq for 100 years. I don't think you can do it without leaving out a good chunk of what McCain said i.e. taking it out of context.

__________________
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.

stuck.

obama didnt change the meaning. just look at mccains mention of volatile and al qaeda - the context is clear. this is consistent with his explicit opposition to timetables.

__________________

JMS, you simply can't get there without excluding the words "Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed" and "maintain a presence" and you know it.

__________________
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.

no, 12th. mccain is trying to have it both ways. his attempt to desensitize people to the idea of staying in iraq indefinitely backfired, and rightfully so.

and what americans is he talking about? the ones not in iraq? if its the ones in iraq, the rest doesnt really go. how can you be free from injury/harm/death and yet maintain a presence in a volatile part of the world where al qaeda trains, recruits, equips and motivates every single day? it simply does not go.

__________________