For Dems, Retreat is "Peace"

I was always annoyed at the referenc to America experiencing 20 years of peace during the run up to the election in 2000. What is peace? WHen the rest of the world is ablaze how can we say we are at peace? How can we say we are at peace when there was genocide in Somalia and our troops were dragged through the streets. The leftist view of peace is, if we ignore it, it never happened there fore we don't have to do anything which means we are at peace. There hasn't been peace since man stepped foot on this earth. I don't see humanity ever experiencing the peace that we supposedly want. If we are all forced to convert or die, is that peace? If all the infidels are killed and only true Islamists are left, is that peace?

You are exactly right- "peace" has been dumbed down to describe any situation in which your armies are not fighting, even if it essentially involves surrender or the acceptance of being essentially subjugated.

That's what annoyed me about the above article- I can't stand the way the Libs hide their perfidy behind noble sounding words. If they want to surrender and retreat, let them say so and accept the people's reaction to that.

For those with a limited vocabulary:

Perfidy - Noun, Etymology: Latin perfidia, from perfidus faithless, from per- detrimental to + fides faith

Date: 1592

1 : the quality or state of being faithless or disloyal : treachery
2 : an act or an instance of disloyalty

that the title referred to the best path to peace, as opposed to say, oh I don't know, victory or some synonym thereof?

It seems obvious to me that to their minds (a term I'll apply loosely in this case) peace simply means the absence of combat, specifically combat involving U.S. troops. You are quite right in noting that the ensuing massacre is of no concern, and it will be a bitter irony to watch a slaughter far greater than the current casualty rate unfold during a time of 'peace'. It's almost like it's OK because it's a return to the natural state of the world, one free of U.S. interference. After all, isn't the Times also talking about how the fighting in Iraq is merely the continuation of a 1,000 year old conflict between Suuni and Shia?

I think you cannot seperate anti-Americanism, the U.S. is by definition the problem, from this view. It actually reminds me a bit of Kyoto, the world is ending and it's Bush's fault because the U.S. won't sign up and of course global warming is mostly the U.S.'s fault. But no India, no China, no Russia? No problem. Three magic words that fit all their templates: Blame America First (and usually last).