2006-11-22 02:25:45 · 14 answers · asked by James T 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Or rather, how has that turned out?
2006-11-22 02:30:42 · update #1
LMFAO! Yes, we can DEFINITELY compare Israel to Iraq...Can't wait to see what our meddling will produce THIS time! OMG I can't believe this question...AWESOME!
2006-11-22 02:31:10 · answer #1 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Even though history has injected the UN as a deal broker in the Arab and Jewish conflict of 1948, there was no cut and run. Three Arab nations attacked Israel in hopes of eliminating the Jewish state once and for all.
As in their previous attempt, the Arabs were unsuccessful. To insure a buffer zone and probably representing what amounts to a political flip off (the finger) Israel decided to keep the Gaza Strip (sounds reasonable to me).
It's been a giant headache for the Arabs ever since. They hate Jew's, and want the strip back.
Equating the current Iraq situation to 1948 doesn't make sense except, if we stay in Iraq, the Arab world will hate us. They hate us already so, cut and run won't make a difference either.
2006-11-22 02:55:28 · answer #2 · answered by ggraves1724 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Listen, we need a exit strategy. We are looking to establish a government that is similiar to our own in process, but take it from a man who had his boots on the ground for a year in Iraq. The Iraqis know nothing of nationalism or self-determination. These are nomadic and slightly archaic people who have yet taken the neccasary steps any civilization takes in order to obtain democracy as a form of governing. They did not earn their independence like the US, France, and to a lesser exstent Britian did. There was no shedding of Despots like in Rome or philosophers like Socrates in Greece.
They did not earn their freedom it was given to them. We did what they couldn't and so we/they have skipped an import step toward liberty.
But us we have to stay in there a little longer. If pulling out actually worked there wouldn't be so many illigitimate children running around.
2006-11-22 02:46:22 · answer #3 · answered by gatewlkr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How is the partitioning of the Western part of TransJordan a "Cut & Run"? Because that is not the definition of 'cut & run'.
Vietnam was C&R, Clinton's Bogus Mogadishu Adventure was a C&R, Reagan's peacekeeping in Lebanon was C&R after the bombing, the UN mission in Afghanistan was C&R after getting bombed, etc.
C&R refers to running away with the job unfinished and the people you're helping are left holding the bag, but without the means to do the job themselves.
Can we at least use the term correctly?
2006-11-22 02:40:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cut and Run is what the republicans want to believe the democrats want.. but it's not. the democrats want either a phased withdrawal so that the Iraqi forces can catch up or to bring in other nations to do the policing, seeing as how it is our presence that is causing a lot of the problems.
2006-11-22 02:34:33 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your premise is wrong. Cut & Run was tried in Vietnam. It should have been doen a lot sooner, to save American lives from being wasted in a futile effort. Now it's time to cut and run from Iraq.
2006-11-22 03:15:21 · answer #6 · answered by kreevich 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Jews that invaded and slaughtered the Palestinians in '48 are still there or have died form old age.
Over 50 years of armed rebellion of the Jews occupation of Palestine and I think it would be safe to say that the Jews will never know peace in occupied Palestine.
They can occupy Palestine for 500 years and it will never make the land Israel.
2006-11-22 02:29:22 · answer #7 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
How does the US's continuing support for Israel equate to "cut and run"?
2006-11-22 02:55:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was also tried in Viet Nam, (after years and years and years of "Stay the Course" which failed,) and how did that turn out. Aren't they an ally now?
And it is not really "Cut & Run". That is a stupid cliche made up by conservatives. It is more, get the **** out of where you are not wanted, not accomplishing anything, and have no purpose.
2006-11-22 02:30:40 · answer #9 · answered by capu 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Partition was a weak-kneed appeasement. A total catastrophy.
I'd say it ended rather well.
I would definitely NOT call it "cut&run."
2006-11-22 03:12:09 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For the Brits? Start of the sun setting on the Empire.
2006-11-22 02:42:52 · answer #11 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋