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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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:
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
66-We are screwed. Only from the standpoint you didn’t get your way. We are not screwed from a military stance.
67
Thanks for your thoughtful engagement. I could hope for nothing better.
It will be fun to watch history bury you.
Don’t hold your breath, i will be buried by the time the history is written.
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?
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?
73- dear shiloh..for your’s
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
both parties pander to & then often abuse minorities. There you go! Was that so difficult?
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.
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:
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:
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