Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Well he will certainly be keeping the munitions workers employed replacing those cruise missiles and of course the aircraft industry, spares if not whole aircraft. As I said the whole exercise is another stimulus package. If you have a recession, have a war, it is an old economic strategy. Very soon they will find an excuse for arms shipments to the rebels, just to level the playing field and there is going to be a whole army to reequip when this is over with shinny new tanks and APC and a new air defence system and a whole new air force, should be very stimulatory for the US with Libya as a new client state, lots of lovelly oil dollars

---

A good war every so often gives a chance to use up the old munitions so we can get new improved ones... not to mention the practical experience of the military.

But there is already Iraq and Afghanistan that took care of that.

Libya is just a waste of effort... time and lives.

And the "Volunteer" army isn't quite so "Volunteer" anymore since "Stop loss" was implemented to keep people from leaving it. Even after multiple tours even Draftees in Vietnam weren't forced to endure.

They only had to do their one year, and past that it was by their choice.

Unless of course you were John Kerry... and you got to leave after only 4 months. (and yeah, there were circumstances that could get you out earlier even if you didn't have friends in the right places)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

And the "Volunteer" army isn't quite so "Volunteer" anymore since "Stop loss" was implimented to keep people from leaving it.

---

Wow, I didn't know about that until you mentioned it here: Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't imagine why anyone would jon the armed forces knowing that they legally can be forced to stay much longer than they planned. That's a horrible policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Wow, I didn't know about that until you mentioned it here: Stop-loss policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't imagine why anyone would jon the armed forces knowing that they legally can be forced to stay much longer than they planned. That's a horrible policy.

---

It gets implemented in times of emergency... not sure how often it is however, but I know people that had made it back to the USA... were hours from ending their tour in the USA (outprocessing Stateside)... and were sent BACK overseas after all their household goods were shipped to the States. During the first Gulf war. Got this from their own mouths when they got back to the Army base overseas. Several in fact. Want to talk about angry... if looks could kill.

It REALLY ticks off people that had served their time... had plans in place... to be told... too bad, get back to where your were, NOW! THey had shipped everything... sold their cars (most couldn't be sent back to the states) etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I didn't think you had been.

---

That's what my wife says but that's another subject. So it's not a war, it's a "kinetic military action."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

And the "Volunteer" army isn't quite so "Volunteer" anymore since "Stop loss" was implimented to keep people from leaving it. Even after multiple tours even Draftees in Vietnam weren't forced to endure.

)

---

Not much different to the Libyian edict to fight or die them, seems their army isn't free to go home either. I think it shows that regimes become more authoritarian over time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That's what my wife says but that's another subject. So it's not a war, it's a "kinetic military action."

---

I think that's Obamaspeak for "I'm Bullsh*ting you again" Since the man seems incapible of actually saying what he means... and making Clintions " it depends on what the meaning of is, is." seem rational in comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

I think that's Obamaspeak

---

Actually it's Bush-speak:

Quote:

---

From a 2002 article...

Bob Woodward's new book, Bush at War, introduces a new Washington retronym: "kinetic" warfare. From page 150:

For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S. started going "kinetic," as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a visible way? The public was patient, at least it seemed patient, but everyone wanted action. A full military action—air and boots—would be the essential demonstration of seriousness—to bin Laden, America, and the world.
.
.
.
Dropping bombs and shooting bullets—you know, killing people—is kinetic. But the 21st-century military is exploring less violent and more high-tech means of warfare, such as messing electronically with the enemy's communications equipment or wiping out its bank accounts. These are "non-kinetic." (Why not "latent"? Maybe the Pentagon worries that would make them sound too passive or effeminate.) Asked during a January talk at National Defense University whether "the transformed military of the future will shift emphasis somewhat from kinetic systems to cyber warfare," Donald Rumsfeld answered, "Yes!" (Rumsfeld uses the words "kinetic" and "non-kinetic" all the time.)



"Kinetic warfare." - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

---

Like Bill Clinton... "I never had sex with that woman" .



Yeah, let any married guy try that defense in divorce court and see how far it gets them.

Heck... how many wives would accept that excuse from their husbands?


BESIDES... Obama still hasn't properly notified Congress... or gotten approval.


His quick afterthought after I'm heading off to Brazil for another vacation... and OH by the way, I ordered Libya to be bombed in about 90 mintes from now. By bye... don't bother me if its not really important. I'm going to check out the thong wearing chicks at the beach in Rio. Michelle thinks I'm just working on my tan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

His quick afterthought after I'm heading off to Brazil for another vacation...

---

Hello again, smoothy:

We're back here again... The president CAN do presidential stuff when he's away from the White House.. He brought his blackberry, and Air Force 1 has a radio or two. While you're looking up the job description of a state senator, look up the one for president...

excon

He could at least give us the courtesy of an address to the nation explaining his thoughts behind this intervention... especially if he has no plans to allow Congress to do their job(and I can find that in the Constitution).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

He could at least give us the courtesy of an address

---

Hello again, tom:

I've been unhappy too, about the way he manages the presidency... But, he has his style, and I'm willing to wait before I judge the results...

Do you watch Trump? The other day, Gary Busey was named project manager. His management style left a lot to be desired too, but in the final analysis, he won. I manage kind of funny too. When I owned a restaurant, I managed it from the dish washers station... Most people thought that was nuts... It wasn't.

excon

A minimal amount of transparancy should compel him to make his case to the people of the country when committing the country to military action. I do not recall an instant in post-Vietnam America where the President decided on military action and didn't address the nation at the time of action.
(no I don't watch Trump... honestly ,he has a very mixed record of success and often comes with his hand out to the government for assistance)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

We're back here again.... The president CAN do presidential stuff when he's away from the White House.. He brought his blackberry, and Air Force 1 has a radio or two. While you're looking up the job description of a state senator, look up the one for president....

excon

---

Hmmm... didn't you once complain that George Bush didn't freak out the classroom he was reading to children in when he first was told events on 9/11? Before anyone had a clue what really happened.

The problem is... he didn't take time to properly infom Congress... in advance.

An "Oh, by the way......" comment 90 minutes before the bombing commences doesn't qualitfy as properly informing congress. Regan did it, Both Biushes did it... Bill Clinton did it... But Obama is special and above it all apparently.

I'm waiting for Joe Biden to start impeachment proceedings against Obama. He did say he would spearhead impeachment proceedings against any president that went to war without getting congresses blessings first.

You would think committing an act of war would merit more than an afterthought... and might interrupt a vacation. But not with Obama... He's the messiah... the messiah does what he wants and the Messiah answers to no man.

Actually he is only required to give you his thoughts once a year and that is through Congress. If there was a little less PR there might be a little less concern

Quote:

---

actually he is only required to give you his thoughts once a year and that is through Congress. If there was a little less PR there might be a little less concern

---

Every president in my memory addressed the public and /or Congress before engaging in warfare . If you can find the exception I'd like to know it.

What we agree on is the constitutional mandate for Congress to approve war. To date ,the most the President has done is inform select members of Congress .
Even in Kosovo ,there was a slow deliberate build up to US and NATO action ,and Clintoon addressed the nation the day the air campaign began.On March 23, 1999, the day before President Clinton approved
The use of force in Kosovo, the Senate adopted a resolution authorizing
“air operations and missile strikes” in cooperation with NATO
against Yugoslavia. On March 24, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting
U.S. armed forces “engaged in military operations against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia".

Cool... the Canadians added an additional asset to the effort. Besides the crop duster they've added Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard to lead NATO forces against Daffy .
Way to go Harper!. see you in May after your election victory!!

After his Brazil visit, I can say the only reason we're in this “time-limited, scope-limited military action” for which he sought everyone's approval but Congress, is for the oil.

The other theory I came across this morning is that if he has our assets committed to Libya ,that he can says sorry...we are occupied elsewhere when the call comes to intervene in Syria.

Quote:

---

A cynic might be inclined to argue that President Obama’s operation in Libya serves the purpose of preemptively tying up US reserves. It supplies a relatively target easy to beat up on — admittedly a bad guy who looks and plays the part — so that if and when the heavy lifting is required elsewhere the Commander in Chief can justly say, “I already gave at the office”.

---

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardferna...dget-of-force/

Hello:

What Obama understand, and you don't, is there's an upheaval in the Mid East not seen in over 100 years... He knows enough to see how it works out, rather than stick "our" finger in the wrong hole.

Bush stuck our fingers in the wrong hole called Iraq and you want Obama to do the same thing... Good thing he ain't going to.

excon

Which hole is better ? I agree that this is an upheaval not seen there since the fall of the Ottomans. The question is what is the US role ? Either we are going to influence the results or we are likely to get a situation where both the Gulf of Arabia and the Mediterranean become lakes of the jihadist ummah.