# McCain: "It's not important when the troops come home..



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Like the man said&#8230;



> McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal-that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed.
> 
> And once that goal is achieved,
> 
> *we'll stay*.


 

Good god. Keep talking Johnnie.. you are almost making this too easy.

Can someone go find his senility medication? I think he forgot to take it again.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

And youd rather we just pull out and leave it to the lions?

Just askin.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Where does he say that he doesn't care how many get killed.......You make up half the stuff you post on here. Nowhere did he say that. Must be coffee shop talk on the west coast!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

djleye said:


> Where does he say that he doesn't care how many get killed.......You make up half the stuff you post on here. Nowhere did he say that. Must be coffee shop talk on the west coast!!! :eyeroll:


:huh:

I didn't say "he doesn't care how many get killed." Where did I type that?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal


My bad, you said no matter how many get killed to achieve the goal.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

mccain is comitted to finishing the job, the liberals prefer all the soldiers that have died, die in vain, for nothing.......make sense to the senseless.

:beer: No Bama!


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Just a small FYI...

We are STILL in Germany!!!! You think our guys stopped getting killed after Hitler took the cowards way out? When are we going to pull out of Japan? Oh the humanity of these never ending wars...


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Here is a list of countries with US presence. I believe this is a 2003 or 2004 report, not sure. Regular troop strength ranges from a low of 1 in Malawi to a high of 74,796 in Germany.
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D'lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji

Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Since we have marine guards in every embassy.....shouldn't every country be on that list? k:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

What is 1 soldier doing in Malawi? hahaha R&R?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

KEN W said:


> Since we have marine guards in every embassy.....shouldn't every country be on that list? k:


If you want to add the embassies then go ahead. This list does not include the embassies and some of the countries have no marines in them at all. Nice try though but as usual it falls way short. :eyeroll:



> What is 1 soldier doing in Malawi?


Probable protecting the Marine.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

McCain is SPOT ON with that assesment.

It isn't any different than what he has been saying all along.

What is important is setting the stage for Freedom and Democracy to gain a strong foot hold in the region. Afghanistan and Iraq are the first fronts in that effort.

And you can rest assured ... The LAST THING Radical Islam in "The Islamic State of Iran" wants is "Secular" Freedom and Democracy thriving to it's east and to it's west.

The instant Iran sees us as a none threat in either of those countries they will move to establish "The Islamic State of Afghanistan" and "The Islamic State of Iraq." It would then take little time for them to convert their current proxy states into "The Islamic State of Syria" and "The Islamic State of Lebanon." At which point it would quite easy to establish "The Islamic State of Jordan" ... followed very closely (or possibly even preceeded) by "The Islamic State of Palistine" and the innialation if Israel. With that much under their belt taking the remainder of the Persian Gulf would be childs play for them.

That my friends is what we call an "Islamic Empire" which would be controlled by what they call a Caliphite ... and my guess is that would be in Baghdad if not Tehran. Trust me on this one folks, the World can not allow Radical Islam to control the Worlds oil reserves.

Folks that is what they are attempting to create ...

Today we have a foothold in the establishment of Freedom And Democracy under "Secular Rule" which is the best hope we have of tempering the evils of Radical Islamic Theocracy ...

That would be to say ... it is our best hope short of simply attempting to kill as many as possible and demoralize those who remain rendering them helpless and unwilling to desire power, which BTW has been done in the past a couple of times ... remember the Crusades?

Once an Islamic Empire begins to form ... mass killing would likely be the only answer. Freedon and Democracy is a much better resolution ... or so it seems to me.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Ryan...

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN 
'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, 
exiled or Hanged!!!

Enough said!!!!!!!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

fishless said:


> Ryan...
> 
> PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN
> 'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
> ...


Agreed!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Start with Murtha, and I'll buy the rope.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > Since we have marine guards in every embassy.....shouldn't every country be on that list? k:
> ...


Ditto......nice try but as usual it falls way short.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Yep, it falls short of the propaganda bs you constantly try to spoon out. What it does though is show as McCain has been pointing out that we have a military presence in many countries and we will have one in Iraq for a very long time, maybe even a hundred years.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Iraq war could cost taxpayers $2.7 trillion 
In addition to the cost of war, taxpayers pay for rising veteran health care costs, and returning soldiers faced with foreclosure and unemployment.

The cost of war

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As the Iraq war continues with no clear end in sight, the cost to taxpayers may balloon to $2.7 trillion by the time the conflict comes to an end, according to Congressional testimony.

In a hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee Thursday, members of Congress heard testimony about the current costs of the war and the future economic fallout from returning soldiers.

At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. But the battle has been dragging on much longer than most in the government expected, and costs have ballooned to nearly ten times the original estimate.

William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, told members of Congress that the Iraq war has already cost taxpayers $646 billion. That's only accounting for five years, and, with the conflict expected to drag on for another five years, the figure is expected to more than quadruple. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told members of Congress that the war costs taxpayers about $430 million per day, and called out the Bush Administration.

"It is long past time for the administration to come clean and account for the real costs of the war in Iraq," said Schumer. "If they want to disagree with our estimates or with other experts ... fine - they should come and explain why."

The Bush Administration, which was invited to give testimony, declined to participate.

The Pentagon has previously said that the war costs approximately $9.5 billion a month, but some economists say the figure is closer to $25 billion a month when long-term health care for veterans and interest are factored in.

Health care: In testimony before the committee, Dr. Christine Eibner, an Associate Economist with research firm RAND, said advances in armor technology have kept alive many soldiers who would have been killed in prior wars. But that has added to post-war health care costs for veterans, especially for "unseen" wounds like post traumatic stress disorder, major depression and traumatic brain injury.

Two-year post-deployment health care costs for the 1.6 million service members currently in Iraq and Afghanistan could range from $4 billion to $6.2 billion, according to Eibner. For one year of treatment, the costs are substantially lower, ranging from $591 million to $910 million. Eibner admitted that the study did not take into account long term care, and her estimates probably underestimate the total costs.

However, Eibner noted that an increasing number of soldiers are not seeking the care that they need, which affects their ability to get and maintain jobs. And, that, she said, must change.

"Many service members are currently reluctant to seek mental health treatment due to fear of negative career repercussions," said Eibner. "Policies must be changed so that there are no perceived or real adverse career consequences for individuals who seek treatment."

Unemployment: Furthermore, many veterans who recently completed their service are coming back to a difficult job and housing market.

Among veterans who completed their service within the last 1 to 3 years, 18% were unemployed, and 25% earned less than $21,840 a year, according to a recent report commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

"Trying to convince [job interviewers] that my service will translate into skills ... at a bottling factory or a distributing company is almost like you're speaking French to someone who doesn't speak French," said Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America policy associate Tom Tarantino.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer agreed, saying the government does a poor job at readying veterans for post-Army life.

"We haven't figured out how to convert a warrior to a citizen yet," Schweitzer told the committee.

Foreclosure: Many soldiers who come home from active duty are also finding difficulty keeping their homes.

"Military families are already shouldering heavy burdens to care for and support families while their loved ones are serving abroad or recovering at home," said Schumer. "Knowing that so many more are losing their homes to foreclosure is heartbreaking -- and its just plain wrong."

The senator said that Army personnel returning from duty are at a 37% higher risk of foreclosure, because the areas populated by military families have substantially larger foreclosure rates.

"Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan deserve better," testified Tarantino.

Tarantino recommended Congress quickly sign into law an update to the World War II GI Bill, which would help ease the economic hardships returning solders are feeling.

"More than any other single piece of legislation, the GI Bill will make a difference in the economic futures of the troops returning every day from Iraq and Afghanistan," he said.

First Published: June 12, 2008: 12:07 PM EDT


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's unfortunate that we can't tally up the cost of having taken no action. I wonder if America would be willing to pay that price? None of us know what it is, but unchecked on thing is certain 9/11 would have been just the beginning.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> It's unfortunate that we can't tally up the cost of having taken no action. I wonder if America would be willing to pay that price? None of us know what it is, but unchecked on thing is certain 9/11 would have been just the beginning.


Plainsman......I must have missed the reason for invading Iraq.Didn't know that it had anything to do with 9/11.I thought invading Iraq was because Saddamn had those invisible nuclear weapons.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> Yep, it falls short of the propaganda bs you constantly try to spoon out. What it does though is show as McCain has been pointing out that we have a military presence in many countries and we will have one in Iraq for a very long time, maybe even a hundred years.


So you want to get personal huh?Forget it......I'm not going there.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Why is it the far left wing has to always play some kind of card whether it is a race card, religious card, or as now a personal card when they can't support their own rhetoric? Saying what you are putting out is bs is not personal Ken. It's an opinion on what you are saying and I call it bs. You don't have to go anywhere, you're already there when you post what you say. Shouldn't be surprised though. Obama doesn't want anyone to repudiate anything he says either. Must be a Democrat thing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > It's unfortunate that we can't tally up the cost of having taken no action. I wonder if America would be willing to pay that price? None of us know what it is, but unchecked on thing is certain 9/11 would have been just the beginning.
> ...


I think Iraq became part of the strategy. If it was part of the strategy to begin with we may never know, but it is now.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ok,fair enough.The far out on the edge right wing garbage you spout out is total BS in my OPINION.I really don't care if you agree or not.I'm just stating my opinion.I'm not wrong and the BS you pour out certainly isn't always right.Just different.Like I said.I'm done with this.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

KEN W said:


> Ok,fair enough.The far out on the edge right wing garbage you spout out is total BS in my OPINION.I really don't care if you agree or not.I'm just stating my opinion.I'm not wrong and the BS you pour out certainly isn't always right.Just different.Like I said.I'm done with this.


I'm right there with you Ken.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)




----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Here are Keith Olbermann's comments on this...

For all of you that keep spouting "It's all about context" I think you were missing my point. Keith sums it up perfectly.

You might want to watch this... and think about it deeply. You can't spin that logic. And this is exactly how many Americans feel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp ... 3#25130683

I think if you insist on Nobama... I"m going to start calling him...

"McCan't"

As in:

Can't get troops out.
Can't help economy.
Can't get bin Laden.
Can't tell Shi'ite from Sunni.
**Can't change it all.**

McCant convince anyone otherwise.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I think if you insist on Nobama... I"m going to start calling him...
> "McCan't"


That should fit right in with your insulting use of the word "Repugs". Then again using insults is pretty much the norm with the left anyways so no news there.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> > I think if you insist on Nobama... I"m going to start calling him...
> > "McCan't"
> 
> 
> That should fit right in with your insulting use of the word "Repugs". Then again using insults is pretty much the norm with the left anyways so no news there.


Nice selective memory you have...

No mention of me calling D's. Demobrats or Demothugs... can't remember what I called them... but it wasn't any nicer. I think they both are jokes.

The left doesn't need to insult. The R's actions speak for themselves.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> No mention of me calling D's. Demobrats or Demothugs


Really? Like where and when? I think not.



> The left doesn't need to insult


Then why do you constantly do it? If you're not insulting something, you're insulting someone. Especially when someone disagrees with your position. I don't think it is a joke to you at all. I think it is just you. Saw where another moderator is now attempting to link Republicans with Nazis. Kind of ironic that the majority of insults and attacks on this forum come from a couple moderators. If anyone says anything to them then the crying that oh you're just out to get me, and you follow me around taking jabs at me, when I'm such a good old boy that is only here to save the thread from boredom or some such rubbish comes rolling out.

First it was me, then it was hunter9494, and now I see you have added 4CurlRedleg to your list. Your fascination with your own self is truly amazing.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Keith Olbermann is a joke. He is NO-bama's mouthpiece, but that is his choice, along with msnc and totally left wing programs.....not hard to see through it and to be expected.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> > No mention of me calling D's. Demobrats or Demothugs
> 
> 
> Really? Like where and when? I think not.
> ...


I'm tired of the bull**** that passes here as discourse. Period. Trying to insinuate that I am the one insulting others is riduculous.

The joke is that this political forum has been heavily Conservative leaning for a looonnngggg time. Now that myself, Ken, Matt Jones, Big Daddy, have stepped up and started challenging the status quo here, people like you get your feathers in a ruffle.

I do not constantly insult. My recent "insults" are me finally taking a stand to the bull**** that passes here as "fact", especially in regards to Obama.

Disagree with my position all you want I really don't care. If there were impartial observers of the threads here, I'm confident I know which way they'd say who was providing the fair thoughts without partisan rhetoric.

I'm not going to cry that anyone is "out to get me".. I'm a big boy. We just have several posters here that are allowed a wide tolerance on what rubbish they are allowed to spew. I think it is high time some of us call that rubbish into question. Some people deserve to be called out for their attacks. And Yes I am singled out and attacked more than others, as I am a moderator and not conservative. So go ahead and take your swings cwoparson. You are certainly someone who also has a GOD complex it seems at times. The others you have mentioned, we have seen the proof in the pudding. I wasn't the first to single them out. Their actions have spoken volumes for themselves too...


----------



## FowlTalker6 (Jul 21, 2006)

I watched that piece. And there was one important word that was left out of the title of this thread. McCain did NOT say it wasn't important when the troops come home!
He DID say that that wasn't the MOST important thing! And then he went on to explain his views. He made perfect sense and was on top of the game on this one.

I will leave it there....................


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

pot=kettle=ryan......   :lol:


----------

