Cut and Run
I'm curious. When Americans (and stupid Canadians) accuse peace mongerers of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq (or in the case of stupid Canadians, Afghanistan) what are they talking about, really?
Because if the choice is between "cut and run" or drop the Atomic Bomb somewhere (and c'mon - you have to know by now that there are only two strategies for Americans when it comes to modern warfare - even if you're a stupid Canadian) maybe we should just, every once in a while, drop an Atomic Bomb somewhere.
Handily, too, it could even be a Democrat President who drops the A-Bomb - if precedent is any indication. Just as it was a Republican President who did the old "cut and run", with another Republican President just doing the "cut" without really needing to do the "run". (So, I suppose there might be a third choice - just "cut".)
And maybe, in most cases, or even ALL cases, there isn't really any other way to call it a day than to cut and run - after a while, like (if we opt not to drop the A-Bomb somewhere, I mean). Maybe cutting and running is as good as it gets in modern warfare. You invade, kill some leaders and a bunch of other people, then leave.
I mean, at least you invaded and killed. Message delivered, message received. Perhaps, that's as good as it gets before the going gets tough and the tough had better get going back home so they can do it again the next time there's a shout out for a new world order.
