John McCain: A Hundred Years of War

Libertarian Party activist (and Ron Paul supporter) Rolf Lindgren just went after John McCain on the Populist Party blog:

John McCain has gone on the record, supporting 100 years of war in the Middle East:

McCain: 100 years in Iraq “would be fine with me”

We have already had one Hundred Years’ War, which is one too many for the people of the Occident. Now McCain wants another one.

Always interested in history (he generally prefers Copernicus and Galileo), Lindgren points us to another famous “Hundred Year” war:

  • 1337 Battle of Cadsand

  • 1340 Battle of Sluys

  • 1345 Battle of Auberoche

  • 1346 Battle of Crécy

  • 1346-1347 Siege of Calais

  • 1347-1351 The Black Death

  • 1350es Espagnols sur Mer

  • 1351 Combat of the Thirty

  • 1356 Battle of Poitiers

  • 1364 Battle of Auray

  • 1367 Battle of Nájera (Navarette)

  • 1372 Battle of La Rochelle

  • 1380 Castilian fleet sacks and burns English port towns.

  • 1385 Jean de Vienne, lands an army in Scotland, but is forced to retreat.

  • 1415 Battle of Agincourt

  • 1416 English defeat numerically greater French army at Valmont near Harfleur

  • 1417 Naval victory in the River Seine under Bedford

  • 1418 Siege of Rouen

  • 1419 Battle of La Rochelle

  • 1421 Battle of Bauge

  • 1423 Battle of Cravant

  • 1424 Battle of Vernuil

  • 1426 March 6 French besieging army under Richemont dispersed by a small force under Sir Thomas Rempstone in “The Rout of St James” in Brittany

  • 1429 February Battle of the Herrings

  • 1428-1429 Siege of Orléans

  • 1429 Battle of Patay

  • 1431 Joan of Arc burned at the stake

  • 1435 Battle of Gerbevoy

  • 1439 Following a surprise attack, John Talbot disperses a French army of 6000 under the Constable Richemont at Avranches in Normandy.

  • 1440 John Talbot takes Harfleur

  • 1450 Battle of Formigny

  • 1453 Battle of Castillon

According to Lindgren: “Ron Paul opposes 100 years of war in the Middle East, and had he been alive in 1337, he would have opposed the Hundred Years’ War as well.”

24 Responses to “John McCain: A Hundred Years of War”

  1. James Madison Says:

    George Santayana

    “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

    Wisdom Quotes
    http://www.wisdomqu 002322.html

  2. Richard Says:

    This is pathetic. I don’t like McCain much at all, but I do believe in fairness.
    We still have troops in Germany. We still have troops in Japan. You can refer to both of these recent historical events as paradigms of enormous success. This is what McCain has been talking about. He has said repeatedly, it’s not men on the ground, it’s casualties. He’s intimated that we’ll probably need to maintain a presence in Iraq for some time. To be honest, I’m quite sure he never said anything near, “I want to stay 100 years in Iraq.” In that regard, the article is terribly misleading. Go ahead, keep on making republicans look like warmongers. If you knew your history as well as you pretend, you’d know that success in war takes time. Germany was a success. Japan was a success.

  3. George Santayana Says:


    McCain was indeed advocating another 100 years of war. He answered a question about whether we should stay in Iraq for another 50 years, and he said “make it a hundred”. The person asking the question is clearly referring to the Iraq WAR, not a peaceful Iraq occupation, as such a thing does not exist at this time.

    His back-peddle comparison to South Korea and Japan made no sense, as we are not at war in those places, and have not been since the conclusions of the Korean war and WWII respectively.

  4. Richard Says:

    Are you talking about the most recent GOP debate in Simi Vally?

  5. Richard Says:

    Besides, the SK, Japan argument is my entire point George. McCain articulated this (or attempted to do so) at the Reagan Library debate. He said, “it’s about casualties, not men on the ground.” This statement illustrates what he was trying to express.
    Did you read the Chuck Baldwin article just posted?—I have to say, I don’t like McCain any more than the next thinking-man. It is simply a point of intellectual honesty.

  6. Richard Says:

    I just watched the video clip. You folks have got to be kidding me!
    What he said was absolutely correct! It’s causalities, not presence. He said, “as long as troop aren’t being harmed or injured…” At this statement to his comments at the recent GOP debate.
    We’ve got troop presence all over the world, and it’s not a problem. Look, give McCain this one. He’s right for a change.

  7. George Santayana Says:


    If McCain doesn’t want any of our troops “harmed or injured”, then he is calling for an immediate withdrawal.

    As I said before, McCain’s comments made no sense.

    First, he advocated another 116 years of war, then he advocated immediate withdrawal.

    Doubletalk from a warmonger.

  8. Richard Says:

    Are troops being injured in Germany, Japan, and SK by the hands of organized enemy combatants?
    This is clearly what McCain is talking about … you don’t see this? We will work for peace in Iraq. This will take time, and men and women will likely continue to be harmed I am sure, but it seems to be a developing process. Then, once “peace” is established (if such a thing can be so discretely quantified) we can’t simply withdraw. Like Germany, Japan and other locals of previous conflict, troops must stay for a LONG time. Let it be 50 years, let it be 100 years; the exact duration is irrelevant—it’s about support and presence. This is what McCain is saying, and I think you know it.

  9. George Santayana Says:


    Its interesting that you are named after Richard II, one of the English King’s advocating for the Hundred years’ War occupation in France.

  10. Kyle B Says:

    I agree with Richard on this

  11. George Santayana Says:

    The questioner was referring to the violent occupation of Iraq, not the imaginary peaceful occupation of Iraq.

    “make it a hundred” was McCain’s answer.

    The rest of what McCain said was irrelevant to the question.

  12. Richard Says:

    I wasn’t exactly named after Richard II, but I’m glad you know your history. Incidentally, I was named after my father. So I am a “second.”

  13. George Santayana Says:


    The whole point of this article seems to be that the English spent 116 years in a needless, violent occupation of France, to the benefit of no one, except for the short term for a few victorious kings. None of these wars were declared by parliment.

    Hundred Years’ War’_War

    James Madison’s study of history led to the U.S. Constitution putting the power to declare war in the hands of the congress.

    Also, opposite to what McCain seems to be asserting in the 2nd half of his answer, a peaceful occupation of South Korea and Japan is not a good thing either. Down the road a generation from now, those occupations too, could become violent.

    If we date the beginning of the Iraq war to 2003, then it would have to go to 2119 to equal the Hundred years’ War.

    Five down, 111 to go!

    Even a non-violent

  14. George Santayana Says:

    Even a non-violent … occupation for 50 or 60 years is not a good thing, as McCain asserts in the second half of his answer.

  15. Gene Berkman Says:

    Sen. McCain did say he would not object to having troops in Iraq for 100 years, and mentioned that we still have troops in Germany and Japan.

    So why do we have troops in Japan? The Japanese are on friendly terms with Russia and China, and plenty strong enough to protect themselves from North Korea.

    Why do we have troops in Germany? Germany is the number one trading partner with Russia and most East European states, the Warsaw Pact no longer exists, and it is not clear what we are protecting Germany from.

    It has been years since our troops were an occupying force in Germany and Japan - they have remained as part of the defense of those countries, under treaty. Our troops are an occupying force in Iraq, and answering a question about keeping troops in Iraq now is in the context of a military occupation of that country.

  16. G.E. Says:

    “Germany was a success. Japan was a success.”

    If by “success” you mean turning enemies into client states, wherein U.S. taxpayers pay for their defense so that their citizens can pay for a bloated welfare state.

  17. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Says:

    February 12th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
    “Germany was a success. Japan was a success.”

    If by “success” you mean turning enemies into client states, wherein U.S. taxpayers pay for their defense so that their citizens can pay for a bloated welfare state.”

    GE hit the nail on the head!

  18. Richard Says:

    Wow. It’s like 10 to 1 here.
    By “success” I mean despotic regimes turned into thriving democracies. Now what has happened since then (socialization) is another issue altogether.
    The U.S. maintains presence in Germany and Japan for a number of reasons;
    not the least is to maintain a tactical advantage in key parts of the world. Last time I checked, North Korea wasn’t exactly a utopia—China has it’s own issues too; thus, you see the need for maintaining presence in that part of the world. Japan does not have an active military under article 9 ( if I remember correctly) of their constitution.

    As an aside: Gene, you said that Japan and China are on good terms: I’ve spoken to hundreds of Japanese and almost as many Chinese. If by “good terms” you mean still denying some of the twentieth centuries most horrific crimes, and an almost ubiquitous bilateral racism, then I agree with you.

  19. Dave Williams Says:

    Pre-emptive war w/o Congress approval is unconstitutional. Bush should’ve been impeached. Look at what big government has done to our military, it’s a damn disgrace…troops on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th deployments to the Middle-East. Before the draft they’ll be calling all prior service back to duty, when that well is dry, here comes the draft. Then all hell will break loose here at home.

    We’ve stayed in Japan, Germany and Korea to long. Those country’s and the regions around them should be more than able to defend themselves against attack until the cavalry arrives.

  20. Dave Williams Says:

    I believe that extreme isolationism is not in our best interest or the interest of the free world. I believe our military foot print sould be drastically smaller.

    Low intensity conflicts with pirates/terrorists on foreign soil that has been sanctioned properly is one thing, but pre-emptive warfare in the interest of nation building is another…politically we are in need of massive policy changes, proper oversight and a diplomatic corp of which is second to none to repair the damage that has been inflicted due to the Iraq conflict.

  21. Richard Says:

    It’s easy to throw out complaints. I want to say two things:

    You guys ever played chess? ... Anatoly Karpov’s games in particular demonstrate a strategy known as “positional playing.” I think it applies.

    And, Dave, any war without Congress’ approval is unconstitutional.
    The reality is that it’s not as black and white as you might think. The President may for example engage military action without the sanction of the congress. Bush had one other thing going for him: The approval Congress gave his daddy for Dessert Storm in 1991. As much as you may not like it, these technicalities play a role in American politics.

  22. Phil Sawyer Says:

    “Come Home America.”

    Senator George McGovern - 1972

  23. Dave Williams Says:

    Richard, that action that he took on his own should’ve got him impeached…the sheep continue to be lead to the slaughter.

  24. Dave Williams Says:

    Look what I ran into over @ Glenn Beck today. Check out the featured video of a FOX26 news report here in Houston.

    @ 0:15 sec a photo of BHO is shown right next to Che Guevara on a Cuban flag. The ‘HOPE’, according to BHO, for Communism is not dead.

    I just wish the GOP hadn’t abandoned the last great hope for Freedom…Mitt Romney. After Obama takes over, it could take years for us to recover from his admins policies…decades…if any patriots are still left not jailed or dead for writing posts like this…time to head for the hills and bury the guns and ammo folks while we still have time.

    I’d like to kick down a big thank you shout out to the GOP, John McCain & George Bush for betraying us! Thanks for not following & supporting the Constitution, for pandering to Left Wing radicals and essentially joining them, for pre-emptive warfare that alienated us diplomatically from many nations around the world and which ignited a fire under extremists everywhere, for the illegal immigrant amnesty bill which encouraged countries to fund their terrorists to travel across the pond and work their way to our unsecured border…that should have been locked down post 9/11!! In addition to terrorists, thousands of people just like Guevara, (Marxists, the real ones not like the watered down crap that lives in Hollywierd) were allowed to enter our country to undermine the very thing that makes us Americans…FREEDOM!

    Undermine and destroy America from within has been at the core of Communistic strategic interests for decades…almost a reality now… Hmmm, even if Obama loses to Mac in ‘08 & Mac passes his amnesty bill, 12 to 20 million illegals will be eligible to vote ‘YES’ for Communism in 2012-2016.

    Thanks again GOP.

Leave a Reply