100 years of war!!!! Don't you think that McCain is getting a little too far ahead of himself???

ok well first of all i am NOT for mccain so i am not trying to defend him

the 100 year comment was taken out of context though. but mccain did state that as long as people were not being harmed or injured he would keep soldiers there. so i find that remark 100 times more disturbing than the 100 years of war remark! PEOPLE ARE DYING! open ur eyes mccain!!

so mccain was not suggesting that he could ACTUALLY keep the troops there for 100 years, he was just saying a hyperbole to illustrate that he will keep the troops there until he thinks the mission has been accomplished. and yes i do believe that somebody will end the war before 100 years comes :D

Whether there is war, or no war, he wants to stay in Iraq to keep on occupying it. That is against the Constitution, because the President, regardless of being republican or democrat, should never leave our troops scattered around the globe. We are an empire, notice the other bases in Germany, Korea, Japan, and currently installing more in Afghanistan/Iraq. This man does not deserve the Presdidency, because he has shown himself to be following the same Bush platform. And that will cause more harm to our country then it is now.

i think mccain uttered those words ("100 years") were, for the most part, taken out of context, and his meaning was, in effect, we will stay as long as it takes, mostly to show his (and americas) commitment to the war effort....and yes, i think america would grow weary of constant war (like it has already) and i'm thinking, this is what fueled the "outrage" mccain heard after he said what he said. America, as a whole, is already tired of iraq and this surely has people excited about a change in the country's direction, and many are voting democrat regardless of whether (unmentionable) or (the other unmentionable) gets the nomination.

possibly Germany which has ninety one,000 U.S. troops stationed there even however the chilly war has been over for two decades. Al Qaeda is on the run, Al Sadr's troops are being finished off and the Iraqis are status on their own. There may well be much less troops mandatory in Iraq. Whomever turns into president will see in all danger one hundred,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. those U.S. troops might in fact be a visit twine like what's utilized in South Korea. If the lots bigger Iran assaults Iraq straight away, it may well be if Iran attacked the U.S. straight away. The reaction would desire to be prompt quite than haggled in Congress.

The real point is that McCain is about staying in Iraq as long as it takes, and if he were fortunate enough be in office for 2 terms, it would be constant battle between the president and the democratically controlled congress.

No not really. The US military has been in Korea for over 50 years and counting so why not in Iraq which is much more important than Korea. If the Dems pull them out of Iraq they are only going to have to send them back in a few years later once a massive civil war between Iraqi Sunnis & Shia breaks out.

I think he regrets making that statement. It was a foolish thing for him to say, but at the time he was only thinking about winning the Republican nomination. Defense is all he can really offer as a candidate to the Republicans because they really don't like him. Now that he has the nomination, those words will haunt him big time.

True...but no one wants a 4 year Iraq war...or more wars with other countries

Everyone sane knows the war in Iraq was based on lies. Why compound the issue? It seems he was trying to please the hardcore conservatives. After all, in their eyes he has Bush's so called 'legacy' to live up to. Just as well the majority of the electorate arent hardcore loonies.

Show me ONE place where McCain said "100 year war"...Just one please.

I know how you guys hate the truth, but here are the facts anyway:

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

Questioner: "President Bush is talking about our staying in Iraq for 50 years."

McCain: "Maybe a hundred, we've been in South Korea, We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans...As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me, 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 and equipping and motivating people every single day."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Are we currently AT WAR with South Korea, Japan, Germany, etcetera where we have US troops stationed? Are you people really incapable of understanding how this works? Or is it just easier (maybe more fun) to bash someone based on twisted words and your own ignorance?

And for those of you who say "But they ARE being killed and harmed right now" That's true, but in far less numbers than Americans are being killed in large US cities per the same time frames. Check Chicago, just for one.

AND that doesn't mean it's going to CONTINUE to happen for years and years. We aren't still fighting where our other bases are.