PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Overseas-Contingencies-Kinetic-Aliocious


vailpass
04-20-2011, 10:45 AM
Overseas-Contingencies-Kinetic-Aliocious
In trying to explain himself when bombing foreign lands,
It behooves a modern president to keep his prose in hand.
One little slip in lexicon accounting for the rubble
Will end up in congressional investigative trouble.

Ohhhhhh!
Overseas-contingencies-kinetic-aliocious
I must admit the messaging is really quite atrocious
But if you say it soft enough, you'll always sound precocious,
Overseascontingencieskineticaliocious!

Um-diddle-diddle-um-diddleye
Um-diddle-diddle-um-diddleye

In olden days they called this thing a stale three-letter word
But in this new millenium I find that quite absurd.
My unabridge-ed thesaurus is dog-eared through and through,
One syllable seems pitiful when thirteen more will do!

Ohhhhhhh!
Overseascontingencieskineticaliocious,
When you put it in that way it won't seem so ferocious.
Gargle first with Listerine in case of halitosis,
Overseascontingencieskineticaliocious!

Um-twiddle-diddle-um-twiddle dee
Um-twiddle-diddle-um-twiddle dum

Unlike Bush adventurism, there's no "war" to fear
It's um... it's er... it's uh... it's mmm... let me be crystal clear
In days not weeks we cease it all, for "peace," or as you know,
Suoicilacitenikeicnegnitnocsaesrevo.

Ohhhhhh!
Overseascontingencieskineticaliocious
A neologic tailor-made for media hypnosis
If you hear it long enough you'll drink until cirrhosis,
Overseascontingencieskineticaliocious!*

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/overseas-contingencies-kinetic-aliocious.html

orange
04-20-2011, 12:25 PM
Ohhhhhhh!

http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/data/media/8/037-Rip-Van-Winkle-port.jpg

Birth of a Washington Word
When warfare gets "kinetic."
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2002, at 6:40 PM ET

"Retronym" is a word coined by Frank Mankiewicz, George McGovern's campaign director, to delineate previously unnecessary distinctions. Examples include "acoustic guitar," "analog watch," "natural turf," "two-parent family," and "offline publication." 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.

In common usage, "kinetic" is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, "active, as opposed to latent." 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.)

The recent war in Afghanistan demonstrates that when the chips are down, we still find it necessary to go kinetic. Indeed, for all its novel methods of non-kinetic warfare, today's military is much more deadly than it ever was before. For the foreseeable future, civilians and at least a few soldiers will continue to be killed in war. "Kinetic" seems an objectionable way to describe this reality from the point of view of both doves and hawks. To those who deplore or resist going to war, "kinetic" is unconscionably euphemistic, with antiseptic connotations derived from high-school physics and aesthetic ones traceable to the word's frequent use by connoisseurs of modern dance. To those who celebrate war (or at least find it grimly necessary), "kinetic" fails to evoke the manly virtues of strength, fierceness, and bravery. Imagine Rudyard Kipling penning the lines, "For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'/ But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the U.K goes kinetic." Is it too late to remove this word from the Washington lexicon? Chatterbox suggests a substitute: "fighting."

http://www.slate.com/id/2074367/

KC Dan
04-20-2011, 12:29 PM
Slice it, dice it any way you want but if you are dropping bombs on people or military equipment, you are at war. Forget all of these nice, tidy descriptions. They are wars, screw PC

patteeu
04-20-2011, 12:38 PM
Birth of a Washington Word
When warfare gets "kinetic."
By Timothy Noah

LOL @ blame Bush.

You didn't see the Bush administration trying to hide behind this word in an effort to avoid saying we were at war, did you? That's the difference. No one accuses Obama of making up a whole new word. He's being accused of using it in a new way, which is true.

orange
04-20-2011, 12:42 PM
LOL @ blame Bush.

You didn't see the Bush administration trying to hide behind this word in an effort to avoid saying we were at war, did you? That's the difference. No one accuses Obama of making up a whole new word. He's being accused of using it in a new way, which is true.

BS. It's been around and heavily used at least a decade. It's the word his generals fed him. Only now does (some of) the right object. They used to lionize Rummy.

patteeu
04-20-2011, 12:52 PM
BS. It's been around and heavily used at least a decade. It's the word his generals fed him. Only now does (some of) the right object. They used to lionize Rummy.

And yet, Rumsfeld didn't have any problem speaking plainly and using the word "war" when addressing the American people. Like I said, hiding behind military jargon like this is an Obama administration innovation. You can't blame Bush for it.

vailpass
04-20-2011, 12:54 PM
BS. It's been around and heavily used at least a decade. It's the word his generals fed him. Only now does (some of) the right object. They used to lionize Rummy.

Your pathetisadness grows by the day as you gamely continue to try and defend the most defenseless President in US history.

orange
04-20-2011, 01:02 PM
And yet, Rumsfeld didn't have any problem speaking plainly and using the word "war" when addressing the American people. Like I said, hiding behind military jargon like this is an Obama administration innovation. You can't blame Bush for it.

What's the current U.S. casualty count for our "war" in Libya?

And are we at "war" in Yemen and Pakistan?

patteeu
04-20-2011, 01:07 PM
What's the current U.S. casualty count for our "war" in Libya?

And are we at "war" in Yemen and Pakistan?

As far as I know, we haven't lost anyone in Libya yet.

We have what I would call covert wars going on in Pakistan and Yemen.

vailpass
04-20-2011, 01:07 PM
What's the current U.S. casualty count for our "war" in Libya?And are we at "war" in Yemen and Pakistan?

I'll pay 100% of your airfare to go over there and get an up close look.

mlyonsd
04-20-2011, 01:10 PM
Not only is Libya a war but it's nation building.

I'll bet the Obama administration is giving Cheney goosebumps.

orange
04-20-2011, 01:12 PM
And yet, Rumsfeld didn't have any problem speaking plainly and using the word "war" when addressing the American people.

Rumsfeld speaking plainly:

Rumsfeld Noted In 2003 That Purported End Of "Major Military Activities" In Iraq "Did Not Mean ... The End Of Kinetics." From a June 18, 2003, Defense Department operational update briefing:

RUMSFELD: Security throughout the country is indicated here. Green is what's characterized as permissive. That's not to say perfect, but it's permissive. The yellow is semi-permissive and the red area in Baghdad and then in the area north towards Tikrit is considered not permissive or semi-permissive. There are now some 8,000 police officers back at work and 2,000 on patrol. And in those pockets, you'll recall that when President Bush indicated that the major military activities had ended, we said very explicitly that that did not mean that the -- that was the end of kinetics; that there would continue to have to be significant efforts to root out the remnants of the regime. That's been going forward, and it's been going forward in recent days, particularly, in ways that have been quite helpful. [Federal News Service, 6/18/03, accessed via Nexis]

Discussing Afghanistan, Rumsfeld Said In 2004 That Pakistan Border "Is Where The Kinetics, For The Most Part, Are Taking Place." From the February 6, 2004, edition of Fox News' Special Report:

BAIER: U.S. officials say five new PRT's, run by NATO, will be operational by June. And not only that, NATO ministers expressed interest in taking over the entire military operation in Afghanistan, one sector at a time, starting in the north and the west.

RUMSFELD: The bulk of the problems are along the Pakistan border. And that is where the kinetics, for the most part, are taking place. And it is entirely possible that that would be the last sector. [Fox News, Special Report, 2/6/04]

more: http://mediamatters.org/research/201103250041

orange
04-20-2011, 01:17 PM
*belch*

p.s. I see from my link above that you're just rebleating a Limbaughism from three weeks ago.

I repeat:

http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/data/media/8/037-Rip-Van-Winkle-port.jpg

ClevelandBronco
04-20-2011, 01:21 PM
Rumsfeld speaking plainly:

Rumsfeld Noted In 2003 That Purported End Of "Major Military Activities" In Iraq "Did Not Mean ... The End Of Kinetics." From a June 18, 2003, Defense Department operational update briefing:

RUMSFELD: Security throughout the country is indicated here. Green is what's characterized as permissive. That's not to say perfect, but it's permissive. The yellow is semi-permissive and the red area in Baghdad and then in the area north towards Tikrit is considered not permissive or semi-permissive. There are now some 8,000 police officers back at work and 2,000 on patrol. And in those pockets, you'll recall that when President Bush indicated that the major military activities had ended, we said very explicitly that that did not mean that the -- that was the end of kinetics; that there would continue to have to be significant efforts to root out the remnants of the regime. That's been going forward, and it's been going forward in recent days, particularly, in ways that have been quite helpful. [Federal News Service, 6/18/03, accessed via Nexis]

Discussing Afghanistan, Rumsfeld Said In 2004 That Pakistan Border "Is Where The Kinetics, For The Most Part, Are Taking Place." From the February 6, 2004, edition of Fox News' Special Report:

BAIER: U.S. officials say five new PRT's, run by NATO, will be operational by June. And not only that, NATO ministers expressed interest in taking over the entire military operation in Afghanistan, one sector at a time, starting in the north and the west.

RUMSFELD: The bulk of the problems are along the Pakistan border. And that is where the kinetics, for the most part, are taking place. And it is entirely possible that that would be the last sector. [Fox News, Special Report, 2/6/04]

more: http://mediamatters.org/research/201103250041

That won't do it, orange. He was just pinpointing the most active front in the war.

patteeu
04-20-2011, 04:50 PM
Rumsfeld speaking plainly:

I didn't say that the term is new or that it's never been used. I said that hiding behind the jargon was an Obama administration innovation and it is.

I bet the phrase "overseas contingency operation" predates the current president too, but it wasn't used by the political class to systematically avoid speaking clearly until January 2009.

patteeu
04-20-2011, 04:52 PM
p.s. I see from my link above that you're just rebleating a Limbaughism from three weeks ago.

You knew what Limbaugh's position was on this before I did. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though.

mikey23545
04-20-2011, 05:03 PM
http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/data/media/8/037-Rip-Van-Winkle-port.jpg

Birth of a Washington Word
When warfare gets "kinetic."
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2002, at 6:40 PM ET

"Retronym" is a word coined by Frank Mankiewicz, George McGovern's campaign director, to delineate previously unnecessary distinctions. Examples include "acoustic guitar," "analog watch," "natural turf," "two-parent family," and "offline publication." 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.

In common usage, "kinetic" is an adjective used to describe motion, but the Washington meaning derives from its secondary definition, "active, as opposed to latent." 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.)

The recent war in Afghanistan demonstrates that when the chips are down, we still find it necessary to go kinetic. Indeed, for all its novel methods of non-kinetic warfare, today's military is much more deadly than it ever was before. For the foreseeable future, civilians and at least a few soldiers will continue to be killed in war. "Kinetic" seems an objectionable way to describe this reality from the point of view of both doves and hawks. To those who deplore or resist going to war, "kinetic" is unconscionably euphemistic, with antiseptic connotations derived from high-school physics and aesthetic ones traceable to the word's frequent use by connoisseurs of modern dance. To those who celebrate war (or at least find it grimly necessary), "kinetic" fails to evoke the manly virtues of strength, fierceness, and bravery. Imagine Rudyard Kipling penning the lines, "For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'/ But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the U.K goes kinetic." Is it too late to remove this word from the Washington lexicon? Chatterbox suggests a substitute: "fighting."

http://www.slate.com/id/2074367/


Nearly two hours to respond...Have you not been feeling well, TyrannoSoros Rex?

orange
04-20-2011, 05:20 PM
Nearly two hours to respond...Have you not been feeling well, TyrannoSoros Rex?

Rrrrrrrrr.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_enl_1097231620/img/1.jpg

mikey23545
04-20-2011, 05:29 PM
Rrrrrrrrr.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/sci_nat_enl_1097231620/img/1.jpg


LMAO