An US Soldier who fought in Iraq said...?

"Our country and our armed services cannot afford another leader like President Bush who would keep our overstretched military in Iraq for 100 years while ignoring the other threats our country faces both at home and around the world."

Do we really want to ignore bigger threats with John McCain in office?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5joC4L...

bigger threat..... syria..... the next iraq, vietnam, korea

john mccain IS a threat to this country.

We don't necessarily know what McCain will or will not do.

I quite agree and interestingly enough, so do most of the Generals.

They had to search far and wide for Petraeus.

Not that I voted for Hillary, but I found it odd that she has the support of so many Army Generals. Is it because of her position on the Armed Forces Committee? Why is that? I would really like to know.

troops will be in Iraq for @ least 3 more years regardless of what puppet takes office. McCain is just dumb enough to admit it!

Why doesn't America ask the IRAQIS if they want us there?

Let's have a democratic vote in Iraq on that question.

Never happen. America doesn't want to hear the answer.

I LOVE THEM 10 PERCENTERS

the millitary is nt overstretched Bush just sent the reserves people who were told that they would never be deployed or the last to be

Everyone with a brain knows McCain is not a credible Presidential candidate even though he has tons more experience and wisdom than Bush had. For to say that someone would simply be "better than Bush" doesn't even rise to the level of compliment.

I don't necessarily agree with McCain on this - but what makes anyone think that the Democrat (either Clinton or Obama) would actually pay attention to the other threats...

If they don't believe we should be in Iraq, why does anyone believe they'd take action elsewhere?

This U.S. Marine who fought in Iraq says that John McCain is the best candidate to serve as President. He was one of the first to criticize the administration on the handling of the Iraq war. He is the only candidate that has true foreign policy experience. He is the only candidate who will tell you what is could happen even if you might not like it. He is far more knowledgeable on the 'other threats' than the other candidates.

Gripping...... You found one soldier. Well that clears it up for me. My biggest problem is the ten or so soldiers that I know personally, who have served in Iraq, who would state this man is wrong. And speaking on behalf of the socialist party doesn't exactly provide him with any additional credibility. He has a right to his opinion, but I guess I would question him after he had a meeting with McCain. But that is not the intent here.

BTW anyone want to place a bet how long the troops will remain after a socialist/communist is elected?

Poll the military and see who they support. The super majority (not just a plain majority) supported Bush in past elections (why else was Gore so intent on negating absentee ballots - many absentee ballots were filed by the military who were abroad), the trend will not change when faced with 2 candidates who "support the military but not the war.".

A quote from one individual who is one of many to support your argument is foolish. If you believe that, they you should believe Rosie ODonnell when she said that fire does not melt steel, or those who said we never landed on the moon, or that 9/11 was an inside job or that the jews were behind 9/11, etc. Believe in the minority opinion and you'll get nowhere really fast.

my son who severed in Iraq said that we cannot afford another social democrat that will weaken our defenses. but his and the like minded soldiers will never make the press because their views go against the liberal media.

where, who and when did anyone say there would be there 100 years and if so, we got troops in Germany and South Korea and they are a boost to their economics and do not want us to leave.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564...

I wonder how many soldiers they passed up before they got the one who would say what they wanted.

I agree with that soldier.. we should NEVER have entered into a war with Iraq. Have we ever seen the WMDs this administration said we would find.

Deciding which threats to ignore and which to address will be a challenge for any of the candidates that we have. I don't think it matters if we have McCain, Obama, or Clinton.

But the bigger challenge aside form addressing threats is rebuilding the military. It will not come easy and will not come cheap.

Iran could also use its missiles and biological and chemical weapons to strike against other U.S. forces in the region, in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. It could effectively attack regional U.S. friends and allies such as the Emirates, Kuwait, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. It might, for example, call on the Shi'ite majority in Bahrain to rebel and overthrow the Sunni emir, leading to an immediate loss of the base for the U.S. Sixth Fleet. It almost certainly would use Silkworm missiles and suicide boats to close the narrow Straits of Hormuz, cutting off petroleum from the entire Gulf region and driving oil up to $400 per barrel. If it were really lucky, it could sink an American aircraft carrier.

Worldwide, Iran could have Hezbollah terrorist cells believed to be underground in the United States and Europe stage terrorist attacks. It could destabilize all of Asia by assassinating Presidents Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, possibly resulting in an Islamic Republic in Pakistan that would be armed both with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Attacking Iran for the wrong reasons and with the same poor intelligence that produced the Iraq catastrophe would cause American influence and power to collapse throughout the Middle East and central Asia, an extremely high price to pay for ignorance.

The Repubicans will loose in November

Only G-d knows for sure.

You keep learning, asking good questions.

Let me ask you one.

Do we need for the United States to lose this war, and what would that mean? Is it possible to guard liberty and freedom, yet also keep our people and our love safe?