McCain: 100 year peace keeping?

[demoisedrawings]

The news that I've seen portrays McCain as having been mislabeled by Obama ads. McCain apparently meant that troops should stay over in Iraq, not in a war capacity but rather in peace activity for many decades. Even this notion can and I'm sure will result in unintended consequences if it hasn't already. If the motivations of bin laden and the Mujahedin say anything; one time allies can get disgruntled towards the US simply for us have a presence as we did on the Arabian peninsula. This doesn't mean that September 11 was right. But as many non interventionists point out the reactions of terrorists are in opposition to our military presence. Does any one country's military have the right or justification to occupy, or just plain reside on another country's soil? Does the constitution give the power to congress to declare war for so called national security, when resources and imperialism enter in on the reasons? These questions have obviously been asked over and over by non interventionists. What is the correct answer? My next post will be asking whether or not the gold standard is really an accurate plan for our economy and asking where the proof is that the Fed prints money out of thin air. Money created out of thin air does explain inflation, but where's the hard evidence? Anyone want to weigh in?

 

[angelatc]

That's pretty much exactly the situation that got us attacked in the first place.

 

[Bruno]

The news that I've seen portrays McCain as having been mislabeled by Obama ads. McCain apparently meant that troops should stay over in Iraq, not in a war capacity but rather in peace activity for many decades. Even this notion can and I'm sure will result in unintended consequences if it hasn't already. If the motivations of bin laden and the Mujahedin say anything; one time allies can get disgruntled towards the US simply for us have a presence as we did on the Arabian peninsula. This doesn't mean that September 11 was right. But as many non interventionists point out the reactions of terrorists are in opposition to our military presence. Does any one country's military have the right or justification to occupy, or just plain reside on another country's soil? Does the constitution give the power to congress to declare war for so called national security, when resources and imperialism enter in on the reasons? These questions have obviously been asked over and over by non interventionists. What is the correct answer? My next post will be asking whether or not the gold standard is really an accurate plan for our economy and asking where the proof is that the Fed prints money out of thin air. Money created out of thin air does explain inflation, but where's the hard evidence? Anyone want to weigh in?

Welcome to the forums.