With John McCain, the highest chance of World War III will be upon us.

"[John McCain] is a genuine war hero who deserves our respect". Those words were spoken by Senator Barack Obama in April of 2008. Keeping true to the idea of having a clean campaign, both candidates are making sure that whatever "arguments or disagreements that they have is purely political". Those again were the words of Barack Obama. I would like to point out that one argument is presupposing the other assuming that if the first one is true, the second one must be true as well. In this case, If John McCain is a warmonger, and then we will have World War III to deal with. One does not necessarily mean that the other will follow, and that is because of what World War really means. Lacking enough space, I will complete that part of my argument in the next post. First, I would like to point out that I am not criticizing my opponent in the least bit of what kind of person he is, however I find his comment horribly inaccurate and is defaming John McCain's good name. McCain who has served in Vietnam valiantly, has explained before that he has been clear about how he feels about war "and [his] experiences with it." With such an outlandish comment, the burden of proof most deservedly falls upon my opponent. I will show that he is misinterpreting the quotes that he uses and that they also are coming from an unreliable source. My opponent has tried to use John McCain's own words against him. The problem with this is where there is a lack of clarity through context, my opponent replaces with false interpretation. President Bush has indeed spoke about us staying in Iraq for 50 more years if needed, and McCain did respond by saying a hundred would be fine with him. Let's examine this further. When George Bush made that comment, he was speaking in the context of how long it would take for the "job to be finished" per say. The job will be finished when we have completed rebuilding the new government of Iraq allowing for peaceful transfers of power and allowing the Shiites and Sunnis to finally work cooperatively in their carelessly drawn borders. When John McCain made that comment about staying for 50 more years, it was in the context that he would be willing to do whatever it would take to complete this mission. He was not saying that he would want to stay in Iraq simply for the sake of fighting. John McCain does not want to fight a war just because it is something to do or something that he even likes to do for that matter. If John McCain were to encourage war during his Presidency, it would be for substantial reasons. Helping rebuild Iraq includes helping them develop into a full sovereign and democratic nation, where they can fight their own battles with their own police forces. Iraq is well on its way of becoming sovereign and Democratic considering that their Constitution, which is based off of ours, the only original Constitution left from a Countries origin, is almost completed. The Iraqi police and military have made great strides in their progress of defending themselves. Since both of those goals are near completion, we wouldn't need to be in Iraq for 50 more years, or 100 for that matter. I would also like to point out that John McCain has been accused of following too closely with President Bush's policies. If that is the case, we can look at the resolution that was signed by President Bush, the first signed timetable for Iraq that states ALL troops will be gone from Iraq by June 30, 2011. If one is going to claim that he is going to be just like President Bush, then with that reasoning we know that McCain is going to end the war before his first term is over. "There are other places in the world where we may have to". Here is another example of a misconstrued quote. John McCain was not subtly hinting at the idea of war, he was stating a fact about the possibility of war. War is always a possibility among nations that are not both Democracies. He was stating that something may or may not happen which would need to involve US intervention, in essence, he is saying that he can't predict the future. John McCain has never made any direct or even indirect comments towards the idea of invasion. Concerning Iran and how he knows how to deal with them my opponent again is assuming that John McCain means invading and going to war. What I want to know is this, for both his "we may have to" and "Iran" comments, where is the proof that he is definitively or even likely talking about an actual invasion of foreign soil where is the evidence that shows my opponent is simply not stating something that he ASSUMES John McCain means. There is none, and the assumptions that my opponent makes is purely that of fabrication and misinterpretation. Looking at the next quote about how "There's going to be more wars", I'm going to ask my opponent to post his source on this so I can glance at the entire article and time of the statement. Concerning his last quote, I believe that is a moot point considering that Russia has indeed pulled all their troops out of Georgia and has formally recognized the two new sovereign nations that have developed within the Georgian region. The next set of arguments that my opponent tries to make is through the single source of a Mr. Lew Rockwell, an article that was written a whole 8 years ago, making it incredibly outdated and irrelevant. But let's forget about the time for a moment and just look at the arguments that Rockwell makes. He talks about how McCain called for "'forceful, coercive action' against North Korea over a couple of 'faulty reports" of North Koreas nuclear capabilities.'" That's very interesting since North Korea has tested their nuclear capabilities before, defying international law. http://news.bbc.co.uk.... North Korea openly admitted to having nuclear weapons and bragged about their testing of them. North Korea was indeed a threat and the international response was through economic sanctions. Most would argue that those are forceful and coercive. Those two words are very broad and do not mean field combat in every situation. In the end North Korea surrendered their ambitions and went along fully with disarmament features. Rockwell's comment about him wanting to have a "...huge increase in bombing" does not show McCain being a warmonger either. First, McCain's was speaking about a nation that we were already at war with. Second, the reason he wanted more bombing was strictly strategic to enhance the United States position during that conflict. Being in one war and making a suggestion about how to improve the military's chance of victory hardly makes someone a war monger. I also don't see how letting China go into the WTO is a problem. Trade helps improve relations with other nations, causing war to be even less likely than it was before. What are probably most insulting are the implications that are being made from his military service. When he was making those aerial bombing runs, he was under direct orders to do so. He enlisted into the military because he believed in the betterment of his country and whatever commands were giving to him, he trusted as well that it was in the United States best interest to follow. Now whether you believe this rationalizes the bombings or not is beside the point. The question isn't how moral was John McCain. The question is whether or not he will lead us to war. Being under direct orders and acting as he was told shows that John McCain would take life when he believes it was necessary. If he is Commander in Chief, he no doubt will understand when our country, if we should need to, will go to war. I have already explained that John McCain won't go to war for no reason and that he isn't heartless so we can be sure that he will not declare any pointless wars that are of no use except for the loss of human life.