Replies

awww, crap ... same old crap ... "This seems to be how America operates."

Vietnam was 25 year ago .. it happened due to Democrat perfidy. They wanted to leave people under COmmunism
more than they wanted to bother with defending our allies.

IN case you havent noticed in the debate this past 6 months, they would rather let people rot under dictators than make America look 'bad' by standing up for our interests and security. They really have gone AWOL on defending America and defending freedom.

Vietnam happened because "Cut and run" is the preferred mode of *some* in America. Same with 'bay of pigs', same with Clinton in Somalia and same with Clinton's 'Desert Fox' where he wounded Saddam (slightly) - violating the dictum to never wound an enemy. (Either kill him or leave him alone).

"It leaves without even looking back."

The critique of US as cut-and-run is
PROOF ONCE AGAIN THAT G W BUSH IS PAYING A PRICE FOR THE ERRORS OF THOSE WHO WENT BEFORE HIM.

(It's a fair critique when you recall how even in Iraq we shafted the Kurds and a few Iraqi generals in 1996 who were ready to topple Saddam, then Clinton admin got cold feet at the last minute ... a "Bay of Pigs" experience indeed; many fighters for freedom were killed, many plotter found by Saddam's forces and executed, and Saddam won the day.)

G W Bush is different, but he will have to prove it!

Sure you can critique us, by America *was* steadfast in standing down the Communist/Soviet threat. You can find remarkable examples, like the Berlin airlift, Korean War, our support of Afghan rebels, our patient and oten frustrating mideast diplomacy, our work in NATO, etc. etc.

If there is a lesson it is that steadfast policies work, and 'cut-n-run' breeds disaster later.

As for Gulf War I, there was the option to take out Saddam... it is hypocritical in the *extreme* for Turkish editors to whine about it going down the way it did, since *they* and the *Saudis* and a bunch of other regional powers DIDNT WANT US TO TAKE SADDAM OUT!!! (If you can find an editorial or govt statement contradicting it, I'm all ears!) Turkey and other nations put pressure on the US *not* to invade Baghdad, so we didnt. There was also pressure *not* to let "anarchy" (ie freedom loving rebellion against saddam) erupt, so we did nothing to stop Saddam slaughtering Kurds and Shiites who rebelled.

So I think the editorial is not honest. It is not true that we left Kurds and Turks to fight amongst themselves (even if a Colonel implied it would be so); we've been there stopping Saddam from killing the Kurds, we have 12 YEARS of no-fly zones. And the whole time, nobody has suggested eith changing Turkey's borders or promoting Kurdish independence. USA is not listening to kurdish separatists ... it's a red herring!!!

US policy has been consistent. The borders will remain the same. See the UN resolutions. The country will be democratic. Anything else is self-serving or biased. Turkey gains with respect for kurdish autonomy and freedom in Iraq - it will mean less border 'problems' and will eliminate terrorist breeding ground.