[VBNomad]

Did Nixon 'cut & run' in Viet Nam? Did Reagan do it in Lebanon? What about how we left Somalia? The term is used a lot these days. What does it mean to you?

[Fr_Chuck]

The real issue is that our military is not trained to be police officers and you can't fight an enemy that blends in with everyone else, don't wear uniforms and fight much like the US did in the revolutionary war, hit and hide.

But the US has to decide either to change the rules of war that we fight under and actually move in and take over and fight to win, no matter what damage is caused, or we need to get out, playing police just does not work and never has.

[GaryArt]

Amen to Fr Chuck's comment about the difference between military and law enforcement. Probably the single most destructive thing Shrub has done is to substantially damage the morale of our military by forcing men and women who signed up to be soldiers to act as cops, which is a very different thing.

The fact is, almost all Americans support our military, and most Americans support the war... But many of us have grave doubts about this administration's ability to conduct this or any other war. Personally, I have grave concerns about their ability to conduct a sock hop.

I have never questioned anyone right to disagree, believe differently than I do, reach a different conclusion based upon the same set of facts, or even vote for a candidate I personally feel is unqualified by education, experience, background, temperament, or reputation to serve in office.

But I have always been completely baffled by what there is about George W. Bush that inspired any sort of confidence in his ability... What did he ever do that makes people think he is capable? Tremendous business success? Nope. Extensive experience in a given field? Nope. Some act that showed great skill, character, or ability? Uh-uh. So what is it about this guy that makes people think he can do something well, that he has never ever done before?

What is it that people see in this man that could be described as substantive?

[magprob]

There is not one thing that makes G.W. qualified for the job of U.S. president... other than the fact the he and his father are the Illuminati and the real powers that be put him there to be their puppet.
They want a one world government and that is what G.W. is doing for them. The U.S. has already lost it's sovernty and we will be the American Union shortly. Just like the European Union. Instead of Euros we will be spending Ameros from the tip of Canada all the way down to the Yucatan. This way, the ulta rich corporate greed mongers will control everything and be able to move about the entire planet with no restrictions and the ability to rape anything that will make them another Amero buck.

[magprob]

By the way, our soldiers are now cops. This "war" is training for that one important thing that will be greatly needed when the American public finally relaize and wake up to the fact that everything has been stolen from them. One big police force to stop them from rioting in the streets and force feed them their new reality. I am sorry to say, but it is already too late.

[Fr_Chuck]

And I will say that always "cut and run" is not a bad thing. It is a firm business policy. For example I heard ( no firm data) that Hummer is no longer going to offer the larger version after this year. They have decided to take it off the market because of cost and low sales.

I have owed some rentals from hell, and I have sold them and gotten out of that rental market. ( all my section 8 housing)

So running away from a bad decision is not wrong, as long as that choice does not make it worst.

[GaryArt]

The thing about "cut and run" in regards to international affairs is that the next time we tell some country or group to stop doing whatever it is we want them to stop doing, our threats will be seen as empty - It will become accepted as fact that you can defy the United States without compunction, because "after all, the worst that will happen is they will invade for a few months, lose interest, and then leave, so we can do what we want again". Other nations will become more aggressive militarily and economically, if they perceive that we have no "stick-to-it-ness". Which means we'll either continually lose ground, or, when we do decide to make a stand, we will have to go much farther than otherwise have been necessary to prove our point. Better to be firm at first, and discourage future challenges.

Of course, the big problem here (read: Iraq) is that if you are going to be firm, you need to be very sure you have the stomach for what is going to be required. Trying to reform an entire region, a culture, a civilization - especially one with the history of the MidEast and by ourselves - is a very different prospect than evicting one underprepared enemy from a small country, with the world's support.

It's like they say in poker, before you call the first raise, be sure you're going to want to call the next one, or you may be throwing your resources away, because if he raised you once, he's likely to raise you twice... especially if he thinks you'll cave when the pot wagers get bigger.

At the risk of sounding jingoist or worse, I'm not necessarily convinced (yet) that the Bushes are part of a sinister cabal, but I do think that internationalists like them miss the point that while unity and peace are good things, the United States has shown that our way does do more to advance the cause of human dignity and real progress toward improving all peoples situations. If all mankind is one family, then there should be no doubt that we are the father, and ought to always be in the lead. Besides, we're the ones who are going to pay for the party; it's should be our prerogative to select the music.

[VBNomad]

I'm not saying 'cutting and running' is bad either. Clinton got handed a bad situation in Somalia, and took us out of there. It would have been another Iraq. Except with no oil. The powers that control, decided that a festering sore in the Balkans was bad for the long term business in Europe, so we have stuck it out there. Is a festering sore in Iraq bad for business? Certainly not for the oil business. Maybe that's why we're not trying to win. And when we don't try to win, when we pick hopeless allies who will never stand on there own, but pursue a policy of killing American soldiers so one set of stockholders can make a killing, it's definitely time to cut and run.
As far as the hollowness of future american threats go; the threat of messing up a county as badly as we have in Iraq - destroying it's infrastructure, it's economy, and kicking off a bloody civil war - should give pause to any foreign country thinking of tangling with us. Unless we let them get the bomb. In which case we become totally impotent. Maybe that's why we can't stand up to Israel?