OPEN THREAD
By: Pam On: Nov/20/06 - 74 Comments
What did I miss? I look forward to hearing!
What did I miss? I look forward to hearing!
RobertWell this news certainly calls for huge bonuses for the management! Afer all, they are politically-connected...
BonBonMy thoughts and prayers to the victims as well. God Bless them. You have a point Fred. Everything is so pc...
Frugal Café Blog ZoneDemocrats Can’t Accept American Don’t Want Their Health Care Crap Sandwich Right Voices: VIDEO:...
Fred Dawesthis is what happens when you have a PC Army how sad but will become normal place in the coming years of...
Fred DawesLooks like the real civil war is about to start 12 to 20 killed at ft.hood and the FBI Said its not mulsims...
Former Army OfficerGee let’s use some common sense here (A rarity in DC I’m sure.) If you’re a top...
Former Army OfficerSince San Fran Nan closed the press conference, who did someone from the opposition get in with a...
Former Army OfficerThere won’t be any working poor to live off of if this and the crap and tax bill passes. The...
Former Army OfficerBush may have pushed for laws to allow them to come here, BUT this guy came during the CLINTON...
Former Army OfficerNow if the fact that the voters in Maine are actually somewhat conservative would soak in to their...
RobertHa ha ha! WHAT a pathetic douchebag! He just makes up his own criteria, which by definition then makes his...
PamDid you say spin Robert? Look for my Next post..he can spin!
RobertWell maybe Olbermann is cloistered away preparing a magnificent way to spin all of this into a crowning victory...
PamIn order to soak the rich properly and by properly, I mean soak them so everything is paid for, the tax rate would...
PamI believe the network news applied the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy on this story
libbie basherBeing that this filthy bag of dog sh#t is a Muslim, and not a Christian, will anyone be surprised if...
Fred DawesThe end of a nation has come the end of freedom and laws and the ideals of duty not just to a nation state...
Fred DawesIf you go back to 2004 bush helped to get laws that would allow millions of muslims to come here. Thank you...
Fred DawesOne word, Yes!
RobertIf this is so wonderful and necessary, and Pelosi and other demagogues want so much to tax the rich, I hereby...
November 20, 2006 - 03:01 PM on November 20th, 2006
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone and especially to our young men and women overseas who won’t get to be home with their families. We love ya. God Bless.
November 20, 2006 - 03:37 PM on November 20th, 2006
Thanks BonBon. You too.
It’s my favorite American holiday.
November 20, 2006 - 05:02 PM on November 20th, 2006
#1: Hear, hear!!! We wouldn’t be having Thanksgivings if it wasn’t for those who serve their Country!
November 20, 2006 - 05:50 PM on November 20th, 2006
nor for those who founded it…
November 20, 2006 - 06:29 PM on November 20th, 2006
Or for those determined Conservatives who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.
November 20, 2006 - 06:48 PM on November 20th, 2006
Amen to that Robert!!:razz:
November 20, 2006 - 07:20 PM on November 20th, 2006
“Or for those determined Conservatives, who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.â€
How about those determined Conservatives that are working against the ignorant right wing ideology that does that same?
November 20, 2006 - 07:21 PM on November 20th, 2006
“How about those determined Conservatives that are working against the ignorant right wing ideology that does that same?”
An excellent point Zelda, but how about those folks that fight against both?
November 20, 2006 - 07:23 PM on November 20th, 2006
One of my biggest problems with Iraq is that it increases the likelihood of failure in Afghanistan.
November 20, 2006 - 07:27 PM on November 20th, 2006
I have concerns about the Democrats in the House of Representatives. I have a very low opinion of what they are going to do for the next 2 years. However; I think it’s probably less costly to me and America than what the Republicans would have done…
November 20, 2006 - 07:30 PM on November 20th, 2006
“how about those folks that fight against both?â€
The fight will never end. However, we should be grateful that we live in American where we can voice our opinion.
That is one issue where President Bush “gets itâ€. Did you hear his speech from Indonesia? He gets it that free speech is important. (I had additional comments, but I self-edited)
November 20, 2006 - 07:53 PM on November 20th, 2006
(I had additional comments, but I self-edited) Is that anything like self medicating?:razz:
November 20, 2006 - 08:02 PM on November 20th, 2006
I suppose it’s kind of like the exact opposite. I love the crack pipe. It helps me forget the 9 screaming crack babies that the Government has left me with…
November 20, 2006 - 09:06 PM on November 20th, 2006
Or for those determined Conservatives who are tirelessly, selflessly fighting against the undercurrent of Leftist ideology that threatens to destroy what the Founders created and what has been paid for in blood.
It’s the moderates and liberals in our midst who won’t lead us into WW III Robert.
We need be equally mindful of zealot Rightist ideology for anything in extremist form (as the attacks on the World Trade Center and this endless War on Iraq will attest) may prove our undoing.
Here, again, is to wishing everyone a good holiday without making the thread specific solely to those with whom you share a political stance.:wink:
November 21, 2006 - 07:33 AM on November 21st, 2006
16- and even with a 14% increase, it didn’t meet Fox’s rerun numbers:lol::lol:
November 21, 2006 - 07:43 AM on November 21st, 2006
shitto, Sounds like your sister is sane. What happened? You didn’t throw her on her head when she was an infant or such?
Note ot Eben and shitto, we are in WW3. Pretending it ain’t so, or not acknowledging it won’t make it go away. This wasn’t Bush’s fault, but the Islamofascists that have been attacking us since the 80s and before. You, and other, Defeatocrats may want to act like Clinton and put self gratification before your duty to your country, but not me.
November 21, 2006 - 11:02 AM on November 21st, 2006
It’s the moderates and liberals in our midst who won’t lead us into WW III Robert.
No, they’ll lead us into defeat. That is the problem…
November 21, 2006 - 01:01 PM on November 21st, 2006
Careful there shiloh…Peejz doesn’t have to put up with that if she doesn’t want to…
November 21, 2006 - 01:08 PM on November 21st, 2006
Shitto, you don’t know Jack, you mentally ill misbegotten waste. You don’t even know what truth is. Truth to Power is nothing more than lipping off and demanding immunity from any retribution.
Here’s truth to power: Democrats, you are F’ing liars. You aren’t honest and doesn’t appear you ever want to be honest.
The examples are endless, starting with shitto and ending up with the impeached liar with his hand in Monica’s panties.
November 21, 2006 - 02:03 PM on November 21st, 2006
Shitto, stop creating strawmen. You don’t do it very well. The only FAILURE is YOU! You are an all around failure. You aren’t even man enough to admit it and to change. All you know is to play the juvenile jerk, and to arrogantly assume you’ve won some point when all you accomplished is to diminish yourself and destroy what little credibility you had.
You are the knee-jerk automation.
November 21, 2006 - 03:25 PM on November 21st, 2006
Zealot ideology from both left and right are as equally dangerous. A zealot rightwing ideology would spring us head long into war, however a leftist one would certainly render us defenseless.
Both are equally as repugnenent, equally as dangerous.
November 21, 2006 - 04:19 PM on November 21st, 2006
“that’s what robots do, dear boy. thanks for proving the point.”
Robot pot, robot kettle…
November 22, 2006 - 07:59 AM on November 22nd, 2006
Poor shiloh too ignorant to understand what gets reported. Henry Kissinger, said a “clear military victorY” is not possible there.
“I think we have to redefine the course, but I don’t believe the alternative is between military victory, as it has been defined previously, and total withdrawal,” he said.
Dumbass..learn to read:roll:
November 22, 2006 - 08:09 AM on November 22nd, 2006
Re 28:
Kissenger is inccorect- most experts agree that military victory is possible given the correct strategy is employed.
As for your “outline”- specious babble. We are not ar enough along the course of history to establish any as fact. None of those eassertions have come to fruitition, except for perhaps the capturing of bin Laden (of which there are still two years left in Bush’s administration). That would take invasion of Pakistan- I assume then you are for that?
As for the assertion “The country has come ‘round to Murtha’s point of view vis-a-vie Iraq.” that is also false- most of the country does not want to cut and run, they just want a change. Please provide evidence to support your assertion.
As for John Kerry- Wallace is completely within his right to hold Kerry accountable for his view that folks that currently enlist are uneducated or ignorant. This is a position that the elitist left (of which Kerry is a member of) typically hold. Indications are now that John Kerry also holds it.
It isn’t hard to figure out.
November 22, 2006 - 08:13 AM on November 22nd, 2006
Re 29:
So what you are saying is the assumption I made that Shiloh could diseminate a factual quote is also false?
Then I retract my statement- what Kissenger said is true, and in line with most experts.
November 22, 2006 - 08:50 AM on November 22nd, 2006
“IF a clear military victory isn’t possible, just what kind of victory is left that would satisfy you?”
There in lies the point that you are missing. A clear military victory is possbile. To obtain such goal, a different strategy must be employyed however.
how long will we fight & how many more Iraq’s & Americans have to die for something that is not going to be a ‘clear victory’.
as in Vietnam, you win or lose. we declared victory in Vietnam, knowing we had lost, left Vietnam, knowing we had lost & got lied to about how “honorable’ our leaving was.
That is correct, but that is Mutha’s strategy proposal now. That is why I disagree with it.
When this began, I fully expected to be there a generation, at least. But as I said, a clear3 military victory is possible.
November 22, 2006 - 08:51 AM on November 22nd, 2006
“IF a clear military victory isn’t possible, just what kind of victory is left that would satisfy you?”
There in lies the point that you are missing. A clear military victory is possbile. To obtain such goal, a different strategy must be employyed however.
how long will we fight & how many more Iraq’s & Americans have to die for something that is not going to be a ‘clear victory’.
When this began, I fully expected to be there a generation, at least. But as I said, a clear military victory is possible.
as in Vietnam, you win or lose. we declared victory in Vietnam, knowing we had lost, left Vietnam, knowing we had lost & got lied to about how “honorable’ our leaving was.
That is correct, but that is Mutha’s strategy proposal now. That is why I disagree with it.
November 22, 2006 - 09:07 AM on November 22nd, 2006
“i missed the ‘cut & run’ proposal that you insist he has put forth. please explain”
Well, right here, silly:
The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
November 22, 2006 - 09:25 AM on November 22nd, 2006
Those sections are not relevant- redeploying the forces means the forces are no longer in Iraq. When the forces leave Iraq before the mission is accomplished, that is the definition of “cut and run”. It is what happened in Viet nam, and what Murtha is proposing for Iraq. Our forces can not pursue security and stability in Iraq without actually being there to do so. It is physically impossiable to do so.
November 22, 2006 - 10:24 AM on November 22nd, 2006
39.
November 22, 2006 - 10:33 AM on November 22nd, 2006
Shitto,
Murtha just wants to leave now. Don’t give me this redeploy to a safe area Bull…! The weasel words all you liberal Democraps put on your “plan” are just there to dupe people into supporting you. There is no way you’ll put any troops back into Iraq once you’ve cut and run.
November 22, 2006 - 10:45 AM on November 22nd, 2006
Murtha just wants to leave now. Don’t give me this redeploy to a safe area Bull:! The weasel words all you liberal Democraps put on your “plan”are just there to dupe people into supporting you. There is no way you’ll put any troops back into Iraq once you’ve cut and run.
This certainly isn’t a response to the previous post, which seemed to have something to do with “exit strategy.”
Would someone like to spin Bush’s remarks on exit strategy to the order of: “Republicans good. Democrats Bad.”?
November 22, 2006 - 10:54 AM on November 22nd, 2006
39.
The fact that Bush was for a time table is irrelevant. Different situations call for different approaches.
For example, in The Gulf War Conflict objective was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. This takes an entirely different strategy, as ther were many other factor and reasonings involved.
The same can be applied to Kosovo.
But I will agree- for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.
November 22, 2006 - 11:03 AM on November 22nd, 2006
Bush’s line was: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
This doesn’t seem to be a reference to a specific instance (Kosovo or any other); in fact, it seems pretty universal: “Exit strategy = victory.”
“But I will agree- for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.”
Because the domino theory proved accurate? I’m not sure what good sacrificing a few dozen thousand more eighteen year olds would have done.
November 22, 2006 - 11:42 AM on November 22nd, 2006
re 44:
Bush’s line was: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.â€
This doesn’t seem to be a reference to a specific instance (Kosovo or any other); in fact, it seems pretty universal: “Exit strategy = victory.â€
If Bush was refering to a universal military strategy, then perhaps you would be correct. However, but Shiloh’s own admitance this was in regards specifically to Kosovo so your assumption is false.
Because the domino theory proved accurate? I’m not sure what good sacrificing a few dozen thousand more eighteen year olds would have done.
This depends on what you mean by “the domino theory”- this can refer to many different specific items. However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed. Hopefully, like in WWII, we will recognize it in time to change it.
Re 45:
we lied our way into Vietnam. we lied our way into Iraq.
things have a way of balancing themselves out.
the lessons of Vietnam seem lost to some.
Viet Nam and Iraq are two different conflicts, set in two different times, with two different objectives and with two different goals.
There are few valid comparisons, however if you wish to bring some up I will gladly address them (besides the one I already acknowledged above).
November 22, 2006 - 12:11 PM on November 22nd, 2006
re 46:
If Bush was refering to a universal military strategy, then perhaps you would be correct. However, but Shiloh’s own admitance this was in regards specifically to Kosovo so your assumption is false.
If one could not refer to a specific situation with a universal proclamation, you would be correct. This isn’t the case, however. If I were to ask you if I could rob a Chase Manhattan bank, and you were to reply “stealing is wrong,” I assume that you’d be surprised if I claimed to have taken your advice after robbing a Citybank. The statement “Victory means exit strategy” is a universalizing utterance (like most assertions of the form “X is Y”), here applied to a specific case.
This depends on what you mean by “the domino theoryâ€- this can refer to many different specific items. However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed.
By “Domino Theory,” I mean the position of SoS Dean Acheson articulated in the mid-to-late-40s, which undergirded the Truman doctrine and, eventually, the cold war. I was under the impression that this is what everyone means (at least when discussing the DT in relation to Vietnam). It was used to scare the citizenry into supporting (temporarily) some otherwise senseless military activities and it proved false insofar as after we lost in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh didn’t arrive in California in a canoe and takeover.
I agree with Shiloh that the lesson to be learned from Vietnam probably isn’t “stick around.”
November 22, 2006 - 12:43 PM on November 22nd, 2006
“the Bush administration (& Ted) thinks the lesson from Vietnam was “don’t cut and run.”THAT’S the lesson for these guys?!!!
If we’d only stuck it out a little longer, we’d have won in Vietnam. Huh?”
Perhaps you should re-read my posts Shiloh, as this is not at all close to what I said. Quote where I said this.
Let me point out the relevant section for you:
“However, our failure in Viet Nam was our inflexibilty- our strategy was flawed and we failed to recognize it. This is the one comparison that can be made with Iraq to Viet Nam- our post occupation strategy is flawed. Hopefully, like in WWII, we will recognize it in time to change it.”
November 22, 2006 - 12:50 PM on November 22nd, 2006
“If one could not refer to a specific situation with a universal proclamation, you would be correct. This isn’t the case, however. If I were to ask you if I could rob a Chase Manhattan bank, and you were to reply “stealing is wrong,”I assume that you’d be surprised if I claimed to have taken your advice after robbing a Citybank. The statement “Victory means exit strategy”is a universalizing utterance (like most assertions of the form “X is Yâ€), here applied to a specific case.”
This is incorrect. The context of the conversation was specifically kosovo.
To turn your assertion on your ear, if it was universal utterence on the part of Bush, then he would beleive that we lost WWII, as we had no exit strategy for it.
However, nice attempt at a strawman argument.
By “Domino Theory,”I mean the position of SoS Dean Acheson articulated in the mid-to-late-40s, which undergirded the Truman doctrine and, eventually, the cold war. I was under the impression that this is what everyone means (at least when discussing the DT in relation to Vietnam). It was used to scare the citizenry into supporting (temporarily) some otherwise senseless military activities and it proved false insofar as after we lost in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh didn’t arrive in California in a canoe and takeover.
Your impression was incorrect, as it is also refered to in other topic.
Truman’s Domino theory proved correct though, as it was the very reason we stayed in Korea, Germany, Japan and Viet Nam for years to come. Those were the stop gaps that prevented the spread of Communism, and what eventually lead to its defeat.
November 22, 2006 - 01:14 PM on November 22nd, 2006
shitto, enjoy your Rx’s. I’m sure the people at “happy acres” will make sure you have good socialist dreams.
November 22, 2006 - 01:15 PM on November 22nd, 2006
“for us to leave Viet Nam was a horrible blunder on Ameica’s part.”
That is an accurate statement- it was a horrible blunder on America’s part. We should have stayed, and changed to a winning strategy just like we did in WWII (Yes, we were loosing it to until we re-examined our strategy there too.). The cold war would have shortened, millions of lives would have been saved.
Instead, we left. Millions died, the cold war was lengthened (thank God for Reagan, or we may still be fighting it) and our reputation as a country was irreparibly damaged.
Imagaine what would have happened if we withdrew from the Pacific during WWII?
November 22, 2006 - 01:28 PM on November 22nd, 2006
The context of the conversation was specifically kosovo.
To turn your assertion on your ear, if it was universal utterence on the part of Bush, then he would beleive that we lost WWII, as we had no exit strategy for it.
1. As I stated above, a context, however specific, doesn’t de-universalize an utterance. Hence the bank example. If it did, concept formation (and thus thought) would be impossible. I can map this out if it isn’t clear.
2. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush didn’t know that we won WWII. Regardless, what’s at stake is his hypocrisy.
3. What makes you think that we lacked an exit strategy in WWII? Looking through some of the better known military histories of the period, although the context was completely different from our own, I wouldn’t say that we had no exit strategy. Regardless, the comparison to WWII seems less apt (for historical, military, cultural and other reasons) than the comparisons to Vietnam and Kosovo.
Truman’s Domino theory proved correct though, as it was the very reason we stayed in Korea, Germany, Japan and Viet Nam for years to come. Those were the stop gaps that prevented the spread of Communism, and what eventually lead to its defeat.
1. You’re just conjecturing. The only way for the domino theory to have been proven correct is for the dominos to have fallen. In the cases you mentioned (excluding Vietnam, which I’ll get to below), we’ll never know whether the DT held water. It is, was, and shall ever be an hypothesis.
2. The case of Vietnam is slightly different. Our early exit (which you noted above as a “horrible blunder”) did not cause the dominos to fall. In this case, at least, the domino theory was disproven (though it may or may not have held in other cases–we’ll never know).
3. More generally, the defeat of Communism was hardly caused by our keeping military bases in Japan, Germany, etc. Rather, most historians agree that the victory came by our forcing the Soviets into a military buildup that their shakey economic system couldn’t support (the external cause), as well as through the fact of corruption within the Soviet bueracracy (the internal cause). Here, I’d recommend texts by Hamburg Gary, Paul Hollander, Jeremey Smith, and Jeffrey B. Symynkywicz. All go into great detail re: the fate of the USSR.
November 22, 2006 - 02:06 PM on November 22nd, 2006
1. As I stated above, a context, however specific, doesn’t de-universalize an utterance. Hence the bank example. If it did, concept formation (and thus thought) would be impossible. I can map this out if it isn’t clear.
Oh, I understand what you are saying, however you aren’t understanding what I said- the utternence was specific to Kosovo, and thus was not universal as you assume. The context of the comment is all important.
I can also map this out to you if it isn’t clear. Let me.
If I say “fire” in a crowded movie theater and there is a fire, then I would be right in making said “comment”. However, if I said fire and there weren’t, I would be breaking the law.
Context is important. The context was Kosovo- thus it is relative.
2. I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush didn’t know that we won WWII. Regardless, what’s at stake is his hypocrisy.
This is simple psychology- in order to rationalize a personal dislike for some one, you must place them under you in some way- in this case, intelligence.
3. What makes you think that we lacked an exit strategy in WWII? Looking through some of the better known military histories of the period, although the context was completely different from our own, I wouldn’t say that we had no exit strategy. Regardless, the comparison to WWII seems less apt (for historical, military, cultural and other reasons) than the comparisons to Vietnam and Kosovo.
It is your assertion that we did- please prove your assertion. One can not prove a negative. It is like saying “prove God doesn’t exist”.
1. You’re just conjecturing. The only way for the domino theory to have been proven correct is for the dominos to have fallen. In the cases you mentioned (excluding Vietnam, which I’ll get to below), we’ll never know whether the DT held water. It is, was, and shall ever be an hypothesis.
I can agree with that- it is conjecture…just as it is conjecture that the DT wasn’t accurate. Communism would have had to won to prove the DT inaccurate.
2. The case of Vietnam is slightly different. Our early exit (which you noted above as a “horrible blunderâ€) did not cause the dominos to fall. In this case, at least, the domino theory was disproven (though it may or may not have held in other cases–we’ll never know).
Except the DT was to be a global event. Cambiodia did fall, but neither that nor your assertion proves anythng one way or another.
3. More generally, the defeat of Communism was hardly caused by our keeping military bases in Japan, Germany, etc. Rather, most historians agree that the victory came by our forcing the Soviets into a military buildup that their shakey economic system couldn’t support (the external cause), as well as through the fact of corruption within the Soviet bueracracy (the internal cause). Here, I’d recommend texts by Hamburg Gary, Paul Hollander, Jeremey Smith, and Jeffrey B. Symynkywicz. All go into great detail re: the fate of the USSR.
Actually, that isn’t completely accurate. We kept military bases there and throught all of Europe early in the cold war to keep Communism at bay however this also contributed to the build up. The USSR economic system greatly relied on absortion of the resources of other countries- you prevent that and you prevent them from growing.
November 22, 2006 - 02:27 PM on November 22nd, 2006
#54 Instead Americans listened to Walter Commiekite, Jane Fonda, the Hippies, and the Fifth Columnists.
Let’s not make that same mistake.
November 22, 2006 - 04:24 PM on November 22nd, 2006
Now let’s see what several key Founding Fathers and American and other notables had to say about religiosity and intelligence.
KEEP SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE INTACT!
Age of Englightenment
November 22, 2006 - 07:57 PM on November 22nd, 2006
This is some good stuff.
I’m not specifically going to support or discredit anything that shiloh said; but the American people are moving towards his point of view in droves.
You can argue the points all day long, but President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have already done all they need to do to push Americans towards a stance similar to shiloh’s.
You guys really need to wake up to reality.
November 22, 2006 - 08:15 PM on November 22nd, 2006
Actually Zelda, they are not. If I am to believe the polls, they want the war over, but they don’t want us to just up and leave today..so that is hardly saying the public favors shiloh’s stance. There is no Democratic solution in Iraq is a good read btw
November 22, 2006 - 08:25 PM on November 22nd, 2006
“The American people are moving towards his point of view in droves.”
While Peejz may or may not have a point, perhaps they are. However like elctions, opinion tides turn just like they did twelve years ago. I suspect in twelve years or so, folks we be abandoning his opinion in droves also.
November 23, 2006 - 02:46 AM on November 23rd, 2006
We’re probably getting away from the issue, but I’ll try again:
Oh, I understand what you are saying, however you aren’t understanding what I said- the utternence was specific to Kosovo, and thus was not universal as you assume. The context of the comment is all important.
If I say “fire”in a crowded movie theater and there is a fire, then I would be right in making said “commentâ€. However, if I said fire and there weren’t, I would be breaking the law.
In this case, however, Bush didn’t say “we need an exit strategy in Kosovo,” he said “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” The context of the utterance is a discussion about Kosovo and, more specifically, a critique of Clinton’s Kosovo policy. What he’s saying, in effect, is that Clinton botched this specific engagement in Kosovo by ignoring what any military man knows: When you occupy a foreign country, one that doesn’t want you to be there, you should have a plan for getting out without leaving things in total disarray. The first half of the sentence is universalizing [X = Y]; the second half refers this universalizing sentiment to a specific case (where Clinton’s military activity falls under the heading [X = Y]).
More importantly, I think, can you explain why this statement is false for Iraq while remaining true for Kosovo? This is really what’s at issue and probably goes beyond what Bush said about Clinton (which was most likely the sort of slam from the sidelines that one would expect from the rival party).
First, do you mean that we should set up permanent bases in Iraq but shouldn’t have done so in Kosovo? If it’s good to keep bases in war torn regions (and I personally don’t think that this is incompatible with having an exit strategy), it would seem that there’s as much as argument for one as the other (excluding oil interests, of course).
Second, do we keep military bases in countries that clearly don’t want us there, so that attacks on the military flare up constantly resulting in numerous fatalities even after the (already highly questionable and likely disproven) notion that the country ever posed a military threat to the US has dissolved?
Third, is there an exit strategy that couldn’t be targeted as “cut and run,” if one wanted to do so?
Fourth, this all comes back to the question of our presence in the region. Is it a good thing for America, that is, does it make us safer? If our presence in the region makes America safer, perhaps it is a good thing. I’m not convinced:
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.
Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”
November 23, 2006 - 06:18 AM on November 23rd, 2006
“There is no Democratic solution in Iraq”
Agreed. Unfortunately the Republicans don’t either.
November 23, 2006 - 08:45 AM on November 23rd, 2006
Solarc- I read your arguement and it was ridiculous from the first attepmt up until post 62.
Permanent bases? Call me crazy, but the ME is a cesspool and it would be in our strategic best interest to keep bases in the region.
November 23, 2006 - 08:49 AM on November 23rd, 2006
66-We are screwed. Only from the standpoint you didn’t get your way. We are not screwed from a military stance.
November 23, 2006 - 12:40 PM on November 23rd, 2006
67
Thanks for your thoughtful engagement. I could hope for nothing better.
It will be fun to watch history bury you.
November 23, 2006 - 09:18 PM on November 23rd, 2006
Don’t hold your breath, i will be buried by the time the history is written.
November 23, 2006 - 11:04 PM on November 23rd, 2006
It amazes me that pundits, journalists, and politicians who have kept their lily white asses firmly planted in the safety of an office chair in either (at worst) the USA, or (at best) a hotel inside the Green Zone in Iraq are claiming that we are doing so damn badly in this war, while the soldiers and unbiased reporters actually with the troops are telling about (all things considered) how well it’s going. We’re rebuilding Iraq. They’ve got more eletrical power and better communications everywhere in Iraq than they have ever had, more schools are open, etc etc etc. When is any of this going to hit the MSM?
The MSM is droning on about how our troops don’t have adequate equipment, but totally ignore the 8 years of military spending cuts of the Clinton Administration that lead to those equipment shortages. They claim we don’t have enough troops, but ignore the massive troop reductions that occurred under the Clinton administration. They complain that the military has substandard weaponry, but fail to investigate why the M9 Beretta got a waiver for a potentially fatal design flaw (slide separation) while the Smith and Wesson entry in the 9mm pistol trials was refused a waiver for a minor inconvenience flaw (crack in the plastic grips). They also fail to investigate why the Army has pulled out of the trials for a new 45 caliber pistol that would by all accounts be far more effective than the current 9mm while ordering thousands more of the less than effective 9mm Berettas. Whose pocket got lined to insure that contract was awarded to the detriment to our soldiers?
There is only one possible exit strategy, win and help a stable government become entrenched in the country. Part of that will have to include reigniting the spark of freedom in the breasts of a people so long oppressed that oppression has become an accepted way of life. It isn’t an easy prospect to train a captivity bred animal to be able to survive in the wild, why do so many people feel that it is so easy to do the same with a country?
November 24, 2006 - 08:17 AM on November 24th, 2006
72-if you think this war can be won militarily . Stop there. What is the defintion of a military win?
as I said in this thread: I was talking to my Dad this week, and as far as we can tell, for all the “pull the troops out”talk, the left has no choice but to reconsider that thought. See, you brought up on your blog the fact that the left is stuck pre-80’s..well our government is now just starting to come out of the cold-war way of operating the military, our intelligence agencies, etc., Tommy Franks wrote of it in his autobiography, but Cheney has been saying that as has Rummie..people scoffed at it. Human nature is to resist change. We all do it. This country has no choice but to come to the realization that an orgasm for peace is not the answer. We need to be ahead of the enemy. We need to realize that not every issue can be talked out. There are terrible people that live 400 years in the past that don’t talk. Well Kissinger made that statement, and I think, if I understood him correctly, he said we are not fighting a Vietnam or our enemies of WWII etc., we are fighting a different kind of war that will not have the clear cut victories that we have seen in the past. We need to be clear on what we will accept, obviously, but this is not the warfare of our fathers and grandfathers. Take a look at both fronts. You have civilians being used as shields. You have no clear cut enemy, as they are not just Iraqis or Afghanistanis fighting us. No uniforms etc: This is an entirely different military operation. Yes mistakes have been made but my gosh, look at what these soldiers are doing!
As for our standing internationally? Who is it that we are in the bad graces of shiloh? The ones that got caught screwing us over in the oil for food scandal? What is the importance of this?
November 24, 2006 - 08:19 AM on November 24th, 2006
73- dear shiloh..for your’s
November 24, 2006 - 09:14 AM on November 24th, 2006
Let’s start with this: but Teddy didn’t have to resign his Senate seat in order to keep from being impeached & possibly going to jail, did he? Of course he didn’t resign, he is a Democrat and that’s what they do. They are above the law. They don’t resign even when impeached by the Senate and Congress..as long as they can get a vote, they stay in office.
context: the Supreme Court voted he had to turn over the tapes. the above linked tape was made public. Nixon resigned. Yes, we all know this. And all but you seem to get the fact that he was not found guilty, in a court of law, of any crime. He resigned the office, therefore was not impeached, unlike Bubba. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice. I did love Teddy’s reaction to the impeachment: Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) said, “History will now say on this impeachment, as they said on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, that it was the radical Republicans. … And that is going to be the judgment of history.”
:lol:
Because of a pardon, Nixon never had to face charges. That is the peroggative of the POTUS. Just like Marc Rich was pardoned by Clinton, as was Patty Hearst(interesting because, all her co-conspirators were charged with murder right after her pardon), and William Borders of the Alcee Hastings scandal.
So you can go on and on about Nixon’s guilt, but there is no court conviction to back up the babbling..There is no impeachment to back it up. He resigned the office. Something Ted should have done, but didn’t.
November 24, 2006 - 09:40 AM on November 24th, 2006
78- We weren’t talking about Nixon, you were. He is innocent in the eyes of the law becuse he was never even brought to trial you stupid moron! Shall we talk about Jew haters? I’ll take “JEW MOTHERFUCKER” AND “NIGGER” for $1000 Alex. My turn again? I’ll take Clinton’s IRS Gestapo for another $1000 Alex.
November 24, 2006 - 10:21 AM on November 24th, 2006
let’s not talk about the ‘Southern Strategy’ being a racist republican tool to cynically give a nod & a wink to the bigots ion the south. that wouldn’t be helpful to your ‘winning’. probably shouldn’t as it would bite you in the ass just like everything you try to bring up.
your historical revisionism. It isn’t revisionism, it it fact. The facts just get in the way of your stupidity.
November 24, 2006 - 12:59 PM on November 24th, 2006
It would appear that the discussion is getting diluted, so I am going to map this out as plainly as possible.
Here is the exact quote in question:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”.
This is quoted by the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999. According to Wikipedia (Yes, I know- a shaky source) “On Kosovo, Houston Chronicle (April 9, 1999)”. This alone seems to state the quote was in context of Kosovo. However, let’s not make this assumption at this point, and continue.
Let’s examine the exact part in question., specifically “Victory means exit strategy”. It is claimed this is a universal concept and not in context as stated by Bush. Here is exactly where you say it, post #44:
Bush’s line was: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”This doesn’t seem to be a reference to a specific instance (Kosovo or any other); in fact, it seems pretty universal: “Exit strategy = victory.â€
What is being stated by my opponents is that it is implied that this was meant as a universal statement even though it was within the context of Kosovo as stated by Wikipedia and the Houston Chronicle. Let’s examine this assertion.
Let’s test the assertion “Victory means exit strategy” as a universal. , shall we? When running a 1600 meter race, does this apply? No, as there is no exit strategy planed for such a victory. When playing chess, does the universal assumption “Victory mean exit strategy” apply as a universal (or even Exit strategy = victory)? No, as an exit strategy does not equal victory here either.
It would appear that this is not a universal concept as stated by my opponents. This is an simple concept to grasp, one that even George W. Bush could conceive of, regardless anyone’s estimation of his lack of intelligence.
With the fact established that “victory means exit strategy” is not a universal, and clearly this would not be a concept held by a person of reasonable intelligence, even George W. Bush. In order to apply this “universal concept” we must now look past the wording into what is implied.
That is the danger.
In order to fit this as a “universal concept” the context of this would be limited of that of war, as that would be the one constant between Kosovo and Iraq (the item that it is being compared to). Even within that context, this isn’t correct as not all wars have an “exit strategy”. That aside, in order for this to be correct, one has to make this as an assumption as it is simply NOT stated in the quote, essentially making the quote “(In war) Exit strategy= victory”. One can seldom make these assumptions accurately, as they have no empirical proof to support the assumption made (naturally, other wise it would not be an assumption).
It is just as easy to make the assumption and no less accurate that the quote implied would be “(In Kosovo)Victory means exit strategy”. Again, there is no empirical proof to support this assumption. As a result one must look at the context of the quote, which was indeed regarding Kosovo. This is the only reasonable conclusion.
November 24, 2006 - 02:31 PM on November 24th, 2006
83-
I’m still of the opinion that for Bush’s criticism of Clinton’s strategy to function as a criticism, it would have to be universalizing. In this case, a paraphrase would be “Any idiot knows that to secure a military victory, you need an exit strategy and you don’t have one in Kosovo.” The degree to which it could be universalizing is, however, constrained not by the context of the utterance (Kosovo) but by the language itself–no one uses the term “exit strategy” outside of a military context (at least no one that I’m aware of).
Again, as I mentioned earlier, we’re probably going too far in dissecting what was essentially a slam from the sidelines.
If we were to take the comment as referring only to Kosovo, then the question arises as to why it would be true for Kosovo (we needed an exit strategy there) and false for Iraq. The Balkans has historically been as much of a powder-keg as the M.E.
November 24, 2006 - 07:23 PM on November 24th, 2006
80- let’s talk about Clinton. let’s not talk about the ‘Southern Strategy’ being a racist republican tool to cynically give a nod & a wink to the bigots ion the south. that wouldn’t be helpful to your ‘winning’. Okay, then how about we talk about the fact that the democrats like to keep minorities down by making them dependant on the government. Or let’s talk about the racism of the democratic party..Shall we talk about Byrd? Or how about you pull your head out of your ass and realize that everytime you point your finger at the republicans, there are 4 pointing right back to you and the democratic party.:roll:
November 24, 2006 - 07:59 PM on November 24th, 2006
83-Bush said his statements in 1999. I would think that if asked now, he would say he was wrong to have said that. People that are not sitting in the high office or are not directly involved militarily, should not speak for which they don’t know.
85-The lesson of Kosovo is being missed. Kosovo is an example of a situation, much like Iraq, where we should have been able to send our troops in, easily squash the ‘enemy’, and then leave…I think that is what most people think of when they think of a military engagement/victory. Kosovo, according to Clinton, “should and will take about one year”, but that isn’t the case is it? Why not? Well, he denied it, but it was ‘nation building’. Bush said we shouldn’t and wouldn’t nation build, but we are. Clinton and Bush are both correct in their nation building plans, unfortunately, they both should have just said from the onset that that might or would be the case.
What’s taking so long in Kosovo? Well, tense and fragile situations for starters. You still have ongoing crisis that make stability and security difficult, not to mention the strain it has put on the democratisation and developments in the region. Should we just hastily transfer all powers over to the respective governments and hope for the best? Kosovo independence a ‘nightmare’ for Serbia
November 24, 2006 - 08:53 PM on November 24th, 2006
Yes, when are the troops coming home from Kosovo? Weren’t they supposed to be home by Christmas 1996 or something? What was the exit strategy? OOps…there wasn’t one. Where were the U.S. interests? OOps…none of those either.
But that’s okay. It was their war…the Left had their people in power….so it was okay…
November 24, 2006 - 10:54 PM on November 24th, 2006
I’m still of the opinion that for Bush’s criticism of Clinton’s strategy to function as a criticism, it would have to be universalizing. In this case, a paraphrase would be “Any idiot knows that to secure a military victory, you need an exit strategy and you don’t have one in Kosovo.”The degree to which it could be universalizing is, however, constrained not by the context of the utterance (Kosovo) but by the language itself–no one uses the term “exit strategy”outside of a military context (at least no one that I’m aware of).
That is incorrect. It was first coined in investment circles. The phrase is also used when referring to “a plan for removing oneself from a difficult situation if it arises” (per Webster’s dictionary).
Again, as I mentioned earlier, we’re probably going too far in dissecting what was essentially a slam from the sidelines.
No offense intended, but I am not one who micro-analyzes Bush’s speech. As a matter of fact, this conversation was started by you and your brethern. I was only countering such actions with logic, as I find them ridiculous..
That said- I completely agree.
If we were to take the comment as referring only to Kosovo, then the question arises as to why it would be true for Kosovo (we needed an exit strategy there) and false for Iraq. The Balkans has historically been as much of a powder-keg as the M.E.
I never contented otherwise, although I can see how this would be true. Planned short-termed skirmishes with singular definitive goals (such as Gulf War I and Israel’s raid into Iraq, and other single-strike covert actions) would fall under this. You meet the goal or you can not. Once this is realized, you leave. Long term conflicts where circumstances change in a series of long term conflicts would make an exit strategy nearly impossible. Victory or defeat is not defined by a single victory or defeat zand thus make the planning of an exit strategy impossible.
November 24, 2006 - 10:57 PM on November 24th, 2006
83-Bush said his statements in 1999. I would think that if asked now, he would say he was wrong to have said that. People that are not sitting in the high office or are not directly involved militarily, should not speak for which they don’t know.
I obviously disagree, as this is done here and on other blogs on a daily basis. As a matter of fact if that was true, then no war should be critisized or even commented on.
November 25, 2006 - 03:16 AM on November 25th, 2006
89, 90-
You’re right that I did start the micor-analysis stuff. What can I say…
Where I come down on the should/shouldn’t criticize question is probably obvious.
I do think that Bush’s initial intent with the Clinton comment was to affect a greater knowledge of military strategy from the sidelines and that he’s had to contradict himself due to further experience. Neither Clinton nor Bush showed themselves to be military geniuses, though.
I don’t think that Kosovo is quite the mess that Iraq is for a a bunch of reasons:
1. Cost to the American people.
2. Destabilization of the wider region.
3. American/Allies casualties.
4. Civilian Casualties
5. Relative success in garnering international support.
November 25, 2006 - 07:32 AM on November 25th, 2006
90- Ted, we are not running for high office and we are nothing but arm chair quaterbacks. Bush was running for the office of POTUS. He made statements that he should not have made as he did not have the inside knowledge that was afforded Clinton. He should have said, ” it seems to me that we are involved in xyz, which wasn’t in the original plan, I would like an explanation” or “Yes it would appear that an exit strategy is needed, but I would like to hear an explanation as to why it hasn’t happened.”
November 25, 2006 - 07:40 AM on November 25th, 2006
91-I don’t think that Kosovo is quite the mess that Iraq is for a a bunch of reasons:
1. Cost to the American people. How much did 9/11 cost us in dollars and cents?
2. Destabilization of the wider region. What do you mean by stable? Iran was pursuing their nukes, Syria was occupying Lebanon, and the ME wanted to wipe Israel off the map..prior to us going in in 03′
3. American/Allies casualties.- The numbers are actually low. Yes we have lost life, but the numbers are low considering that our troops don’t even know who the enemy is…
4. Civilian Casualties- The Iraqis and insurgents are killing them.
5. Relative success in garnering international support. How much did the international community stand to lose by taking out Saddam? The oil for food was wide spread.
November 26, 2006 - 07:42 AM on November 26th, 2006
both parties pander to & then often abuse minorities. There you go! Was that so difficult?
November 26, 2006 - 10:30 AM on November 26th, 2006
you haven’t commented yet on the southern strategy being racist, have you? No I haven’t missed it..you must have missed the discussions we have had on the topic. No I don’t consider the Sothern Strategy to be racist. I consider those that don’t know the history of it to be ignorant.
November 27, 2006 - 11:44 AM on November 27th, 2006
but that won’t apply, will it, dearie? no, not to you. Of course it doesn’t apply to me, nor do I live by a double standard. My rants are in response to your ignorance. It is not me claiming that my party is without fault..dumbass.:roll:
November 27, 2006 - 11:45 AM on November 27th, 2006
P.S.–I found that comment #99 in the spam box and I didn’t even put you there..it seems the system has grown tired of your stupidity..:shock:
March 16, 2007 - 09:51 AM on March 16th, 2007
Interesting information. The odour sense is very important for insects. It is used for finding food, escaping enemies and finding a mate. Odours used to send messages between individuals of the same species are called pheromones.
The class of pheromones most widely explored are the sex pheromones in insects. In most cases it is produced by a female to attract a male of the same species
When used in combination with traps
[url=http://www.pheromone-pheromone.info/catalog-gift-pheromone]catalog gift pheromone[/url] can be used to determine what insect pests are present in a crop and what plant protection measures or further investigations might be in order to assure that there is no really bad damage to the crop