……

And if you can’t see it’s the same as Japan

The people of Japan are not in any simular state of affairs with each other as they are in Iraq. It is in fact clearly not like Japan.

then can you see it’s the same as the troops we have left in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?

Unlike Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the threats to Iraq’s security are mostly internal, not external. Again nothing much at all alike.

Try comparing Iraq with Vietnam. You will do much better that way.

And if you can’t see it’s the same as Japan etc

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM

I do not see what is not there.

It is not at all like Japan. Now it is more than a bit like Vietnam however.

MB4: Interesting choice of words, “just frustrated”. You have a gift for understatment, Entelechy.

The militaries role for the 100 years is after the war is one.

So what are you saying? That the hundred years would start in what? Maybe another hundred years? That would mke it two hundred years then.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding that.

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM

No, I do not believe so.

MB4 is just frustrated by the conservatives’ choice for this year, and as a Vietnam vet, not so crazy about war, but especially nation building. He was for the captures and demise of Saddam, as he posted often enough on that topic. It would be boring if we all agreed, all the time.

It is tough this year, because simply all 3 options are pretty insane ones, and we’re stuck, not only on the Iraq topic.

Alas, some of us can live with it easier than others.

ArmyAunt, thanks for your valiant efforts.

I’m holding out for Barry Goldwater.
Interesting…

gekkobear on April 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM

You seem to have missed the context (but no more so than thinking that McCain is a conservative) a bit.
Interesting…

Sheesh!

There is simply no rational equating of the role of the U.S. Army in Japan, Germany and South Korea with it’s role in Iraq. That is where McCain has gone off the cliff and you can bet that the democrats will adjust fire.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM

One thing I left out, The militaries role for the 100 years is after the war is one.
He is not talking about their role at the present time.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding that.

And Iraq is not Japan, Korea etc. Well not unless the etc means Vietnam.

The hundred years is not the important part. The real issue is McCain’s analogies. There is simply no rational equating of the role of the U.S. Army in Japan, Germany and South Korea with it’s role in Iraq. That is where McCain has gone off the cliff and you can bet that the democrats will adjust fire.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 3:06 PM

The hundred years IS the important part because that is what BHO is lying about.
And if you can’t see it’s the same as Japan etc, then can you see it’s the same as the troops we have left in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?
It is the same, maintaining stability, or at least helping to maintain stability in an otherwise unstable place.
I find it hard to believe you are so obtuse that you cannot see that.

I kind of think you are an Obama guy, but just don’t want to say it.

http://armyaunt.johnmccain.com/

Implausible:

There is simply no rational equating of the role of the U.S. Army in Japan, Germany and South Korea with it’s role in Iraq.

Plausible:

I’m holding out for Barry Goldwater.

Interesting…

He`s a two-faced lair.

Do you want Obama to win?

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 2:53 PM

I’m holding out for Barry Goldwater.

Now you may say that is unrealistic, but no more so than thinking that McCain is a conservative.

We don’t spend that in Japan, Korea etc.

ArmyAunt on April 4, 2008 at 2:38 PM

And Iraq is not Japan, Korea etc. Well not unless the etc means Vietnam.

The hundred years is not the important part. The real issue is McCain’s analogies. There is simply no rational equating of the role of the U.S. Army in Japan, Germany and South Korea with it’s role in Iraq. That is where McCain has gone off the cliff and you can bet that the democrats will adjust fire.

MB4 on April 4, 2008 at 2:48 PM

You didn’t answer the question though.
Do you want Obama to win?

MB4, do you want Obama to win? If you say “yes”, why? If you say “no, I want McCain to lose”, what’s the alternative, in the realistic absence of a viable 3rd party candidate?

Entelechy on April 4, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Entelechy: Your illogical approach to politics does have its advantages on occasion, MB4.
MB4: I prefer to call it inspired.
Entelechy: As you wish.

I’m sure they all have a compendium of such, but these are pretty blatant, and the year is new…

That, coupled with the fact that he’s outright said he won’t attack B. Hussein, spells disater if they are the two that face off.

Darksean on April 4, 2008 at 11:05 AM

He said he wouldn’t attack him personally.
And there is no need to.
His positions are attackable enough and the 527’s will do the personal attacks via Wright.