Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (115644)	9/24/2003 11:08:16 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

We exited with one of the standard exits from a standard war, namely an "armistice". I'm shocked that you're so unaware of such recent history. I'm shocked that you don't understand exactly what an armistice is defined as by Webster's: Armistice (n.) A cessation of arms for a short time, by convention; a temporary suspension of hostilities by agreement; a truce. It DOES NOT signify anything more than a temporary state of peace, a cease-fire, which can be violated by one side or the other at any time. How can there be an EXIT STRATEGY when the state of war has not been permanently resolved by a peace treaty? Futhermore, in the case of Iraq, the state of war with the nation of Iraq, as represented by the Baathist regime, might be over.. But hostilities (war) with remnants of that regime obviously have not ended because they continue to attack us. Furthermore, no official surrender has taken place by any member of the Baathist regime (probably should have been some kind of ceremony, IMO) Finally, Iraq is only a peripheral, but crucial, step in fighting the war against the perpetrators of Islamo-Fascist violence. The state of war I'm discussing only partly involves Iraq. We're in a longer term limited war and Iraq is our new forward operating base of operations for the foreseeable future. And it is a base that exists to maintain pressure upon the Saudi Royals to continue, as well as Syria and Iran. And that war will not be over anytime soon.. It is the war that directly involves the sources of 9/11. And it is a war that Bush would like to fight economically and politically, if possible, rather than militarily. But you'll never understand that... Running out on the Iraqi people right now is like killing the wife-beating husband, knocking up his wife, and then saying "sorry"... Now maybe your conscience can live with that, but mine can't.. And since you've made your "cut and run" position perfectly clear, we obviously have nothing left to discuss since even the democratic "leadership" rejects such a proposition. Thus, your scenario is irrelevant. Hawk