Why do Repubs think "60 years in Germany" justifies "100 years in Iraq?"?

Question

That is the lamest argument. Comparing the situation in Iraq to our presence in other countries? Is that the best they can do?

Iraq has nothing to do with our presence in Germany.

Answer 1

What "Repubs" are you referring to? This ignorant statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge and judgement. You do not speak for me. Got it?

Answer 2

Hell I'm a Liberal and I know that that is not a lame statement; it's an historically accurate one.. Actually given the fact that the German's are a Protestant country and have a tradition of being a very orderly people who respect the rule of law and the Iraqi's are anything but the comparison may be invalid:We may be in Iraq for more than a hundred years

Answer 3

Iraq has nothing to do with US involvement in Vietnam either, but that doesn't stop opponents from making that comparison.

The point of the comparison to Germany is more about how long a presence will be maintained, not how long fighting rages. Violence has gone way down in Iraq in the last 18 months, and neither has the US military operated in combat in Germany in 60 years.

Answer 4

WOW is research and listening that hard for you? No wonder Obama won. People were to stupid to listen to the whole sentence.



Mc Cain never said to fight a 100 years in Iraq. He said we can be there only if the Iraqi's want us to be there like we are in Germany, Japan etc....



It's called in "Peaceful Times" = when the war is over.





The war is schedule to end in 2011. Did you know that? If you did you wouldn't be posting this out dated, incorrect question.

Answer 5

When are you Obamamaniacs going to realize that the US WILL be keeping 30,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely !

He supports the Bush doctrine, The patriot act, and spying on the American public.

Hell he may end up being the best Republican Democrats ever elected if he can control spending.

Now there is talk of extending the Bush tax cuts till 2010..

Thats gotta frost the *** of the class warfare faction of Obama voters! LOL

Answer 6

I don't.



But what they are saying is Iraq will shift to a base situation as Germany did.



Personally, I think the Germans are pretty capable of their own defense, and do we really need to 'occupy' them any longer?



Bring them all home, and even if we kept them all in the army, just spending their salaries here would be a huge economic stimulus. As it is, our overseas bases are a constant drain of funds from our domestic economy.



I'm not saying we don't need ANY, but we don't need probably 3/4ths of them, at least.

Answer 7

You do realize that we started out in Germany as an occupying force after the war. The REASON for the comparison is because everyone anticipates that our presence will evolve similarly in Iraq over time. Sorry, you don't get that. It makes perfect sense if you can possibly try to look at it objectively.

Answer 8

The fact of the matter is that with our $1 BILLION embassy over there capable of housing 1000 people, we WILL be there for 100 years or more. We have to protect our investment!

Answer 9

That "100 years" statement was taken out of context. McCain never really said that.

Answer 10

Get over it....that 100 year statement was just that....a statement that had no real validity to it other than to make a point. We've been in Germany for 60 years, but if need be, maybe we'll be there another 40, so that would mean 100 years!!!!! That's what McCain meant/said...in other words....we'll stay in Iraq as long as it is necessary. Again, get over it.

Answer 11

If you do not UNDERSTAND the relevance of our presence in Iraq - you are not informed enough for me to waste another brain cell on.

Answer 12

"100 years in Iraq" was taken completely out of context.

The U.S. withdrawal date will be somewhere before 2011.

Your argument holds no merit.

Answer 13

Are you a ******* retard? We will remain there in the SAME CAPCITY as we remain in Germany, Japan, Korea... ect, ect...



Never mind you are a ******* retard, no need for you to TRY and ATTEMPT to read this.



Obama isn't going to leave the country any time soon, so theres a democrat who opposes your point of view..... odd.

Answer 14

I don't know, because nothing logical or sane justifies our presence in Iraq. Each month, we spend 10 billion dollars to maintain our presence there. That money is falling down a black hole, doing nothing for our economy, and is being borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia. Each month we add 10 billion dollars to the National Debt - which will eventually come due and have to be paid - and we are getting absolutely nothing from it.

Answer 15

I would like to know how many of those on YA who rant against IRAq--have ever served their country--been in our military?--or performed any unselfish acts in their lives?



If you have--than you can debate IRAq and our involvement...if you haven't you need to shut your face and stop maligning our troops' service and patriotism.

Answer 16

I'll agree they are separate issues.



I just wish we had done our due diligence as we did in Germany. Carpet bombing is a much more effective method of neutralizing an enemy than door to door searches, and it would save the lives of my fellow citizens.

Answer 17

I agree with what deacon said.

Answer 18

They are just dumb like that.



Like this retard above me.

Answer 19

What ARBOB said...she said it very adequately!!