"kinetic military action"

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,106
Location
Somewhere Nice
Most ridiculous.

This from a guy who as Senator criticized his predecessor at every turn about military action. The hypocrisy is truly off the charts and yet, very little criticism by the MSM....more hypocrisy...it is never ending.

President Obama says there's no reason for him to return the Nobel Peace Prize he won two years ago, shortly after taking office, despite the obvious "irony" of America being involved in three different wars.
Uh, make that two wars and one "kinetic military action."
That, at least, seems to be the administration's preferred term for describing the enforcement of the UN-declared no-fly zone in Libya.
In fact, military and national-security officials can't seem to stop talking about America's current "kinetic options" and "kinetic capabilities."

Certainly, administration spokesmen have taken great pains to avoid referring to the ongoing operation as a war -- which would, of course, require the president to get congressional approval.
Now, there's nothing particularly new about this bit of Pentagon-speak.
It simply means the use of active military force
-- dropping bombs, firing weapons, and the like -- as opposed to things like cyberwarfare and the use of nonlethal, high-tech electronic gadgetry.
Indeed, the Pentagon has been using the term since the early days of post-9/11 action in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Back then, though, the term was ridiculed. Timothy Noah, for example, called its use by Donald Rumsfeld "unconscionably euphemistic, with antiseptic connotations derived from high-school physics."
Of course, Team Obama is well known for its use of euphemism when it comes to fighting radical Islam -- recall that the Pentagon once suggested replacing the term "global war on terror" with "overseas contingency operation."
Not to mention that the very term "Islamic radicalism" was dropped from the National Security Strategy early on.
Still, to paraphrase Shakespeare, a war by any other name is still a war.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...is_still_m5xY8QTxTK35Y5VympnGbK#ixzz1Hi1CjVES
 
Werbung:
The bottom line is Obama's campaign slogan, "Change" has proved to be nothing but a slogan. He is just as quick to use US military force as the president before him. I guess his campaign slogan in 2012 will be "Same old sh*t".
 
Not content with just the two wars George Bush left him, he feels the overwhelming need to surpass his predecessor. Having out golfed and spent him, Obama now wants a third war -to secure his legacy of superiority over george.

It’s a no brainer, (seriously), since with Obama in the White House, Gitmo is no longer a recruiting tool for those extremist of unknown origin, and the so called, “war” in Afghanistan is really nothing more than Community Organizing.

I’m not sure how Obama will get around all of those Democrats, who see the current wars as unfunded liabilities, and believe that they should have been paid for through tax increases, but John Kerry says it’s a good idea, so let the next U.S. led war in the Middle East begin.

With Obama and his teleprompter in charge, I’m positive we’ll get full Muslim support this time, and the outcome will be much better.

just sayin
 
Maybe Obama's plan is to talk our enemies to death.

His teleprompter could possibly be the most powerful weapon in the history of warfare. A true "weapon of mass destruction".

:eek:
 
Maybe this is the Obama Doctrine. I am not sure how to define it and apparently he can't either.

Lets recap, he fails to act when the Iranians tried to overthrow their government, but he does act for Egypt and Libya. What will he do with Syria and Yemen?

And there is talk of the Libyan rebels having ties to Al Queda. If true, why would BO support our avowed enemy?

There is a theory out there that he only wants to destabilize ME governments that have been passive to Israel. Who knows with this guy? He has hidden his true beliefs (like most liberals) since day one.

But the hypocrisy is amazing.
 
Werbung:
A good President must be both a good manager and an experienced analyst. A good manager of a very large organization would some way of systematically receiving concise, accurate, and time-tested advice. One example would be to have perhaps 10 different groups, consisting of about 4 people experts on a particular subject. On any particular question, he may call in one or more groups for consultation. One group would be experts on Africa. Another group may be experts on Muslim fundamentalists. Another group may be experts in military strategy. Of course, the Secretaries of State and Defense would also attend each meeting.

Any President who doesn't have some sort of systematic way of getting solid and thorough advice can never make the best decision.

Don't confuse this system with what the press calls appointed "Czars", who are individuals appointed to handle a particular problem (usually domestic problem). For example, drug czar or auto czar. These types of appointees have been needed by many presidents in the past to organize programs that often span several different Departments.

It is apparent that Obama acts without fully analyzing the problem - and he need a good, systematic way to do that. I can just imagine Obama sitting down with Secretaries Clinton and Gates, neither of whom impress me as great thinkers. Regardless, two individuals can not be an expert on all world affairs. I am amazed that no one seemed to know what the rebels stand for or who is their leader. Their common cause seems to be to get rid of Gaddafi - nothing more.

When no one can stand up and give a creditable answer about why we are in Libya or our intended goals (or mission), you must believe they never really thought about it until after the we became involved. Nothing that is said by Obama, Clinton or Gates stand the test of logic. Protect innocent civilians in Libya? Enforce a no-fly zone? Our moral obligation? These are not reasonable military missions. Innocent civilians are dying all over the world and enforcing a no-fly zone is not going to accomplish that goal for very long.

I don't think he is a hypocrite, I think he is simply incapable to be President; he has neither the knowledge nor skills to run a very large organization. Obama sold us a dream, but is absolutely incapable of making that dream come true.
 
Back
Top