Monday, August 17, 2009

walk softly and carry a big dictionary

"Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages they speak and the cultures they understand"
And after spending a trillion dollars on a failed "stimulus," he vows to veto defense bills. Stupid, naive, and very very dangerous.

Tell me again what he'd be doing differently if he really wanted to destroy the country?


Steve said...

"Walk softly and carry a big dictionary", so you can beat them over the head after you sneak up behind them and steal their gun. Then you can defend yourself properly.


Mike W. said...

To be honest I really do think we could afford to cut defense spending. Given the level of government waste in other areas I think we could trim defense budgets with no ill effects on national security.

That said, to do it while spending like a drunken sailor on entitlements is downright moronic. (yet also SOP for liberals.)

Bgg said...

That's wonderful - who needs automatic weapons when we can just have the Pentagon cut a Purchase Order for a half a million site licences to Rosetta Stone Language Software....

Anonymous said...

Hey check out the It's a new widget application that let's you share and interact in real-time anywhere. It empowers your community to interactively connect with each other in real-time across your blogs, profiles, Flickr, Facebook, Friend Feed, Twitter Feed, etc. Be able to have an interactive chat with all your friends who are watching together at the same time. Check out what other bloggers have been saying about snazL: Be sure to sign up and create your own video. You could win an ipod Touch or trip to NYC when you enter the snazLStories contest:

Snazzle Dazzle!!

Lorimor said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this guy is going to get a bunch of Americans killed.

Alan said...

WTF? A pork laden "stimulus" bill had to be passed so quick no one had time to read it, but now he's threatening to veto a defense bill because of pork?


Obama is beclowning himself.

Chrystoph said...

Lorimor, you misunderstand the job of the Commander in Chief.

His job is not to keep the military alive, it is to make certain that they do not die without meaning. I admit that I don't feel that he is succeeding here, but it is a valid difference.

On the main topic, how would you feel about a line item veto? If the military doesn't want the engine for the Raptor, and Herr Presidanté vetoes it, is that not a good thing?

Jon said...

I had a discussion about defense spending with a friend of mine who spent a tour in Iraq and is back in the states in his reserve unit looking to go officer.

Overall the US military has one of the largest, and occasionally idiotic bueracracys in the world - and while things can be trimmed and corrected - cutting spending on new hardware, better protection, and the like, which is frequently a liberal equate to happy fun time - is idiotic.

Lorimor said...

I'm against wasteful spending of any kind. It's just that I don't trust the Obama Admin to recognize what is, and what is not, wasteful spending.

Already we've seen his unwillingness to stand up for America when tinpot dictators take their verbal shots at her.

This indicates to me anyway, the man has a problem with recognizing what is fundamentally right and wrong. World leaders are certainly entitled to their opinion of America but I believe one of the President's jobs, particularly when overseas, is to stand in defense of America.

Maybe his heart just isn't in the job?

BobG said...

“Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.”
– General Douglas Macarthur

fish_tattoo said...

> He assailed "indefensible no-bid contracts that cost taxpayers billions and make contractors rich" and lashed out at "the special interests and their exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget."

Pork is great for the backyard BBQ, but sucks in government spending.

Sigivald said...

Languages are great, but it's not like we can teach everyone every language we might need in 2, 3, 5 years, preemptively.

Sure, Pashtun and Arabic are big right now, but what if the SHTF in Indonesia and everyone needs to know Indonesian Malay in 3 years? How about Somali?

Languages can be taught as needed to the masses of the Armed Forces - but you can't really rush-order new planes, ground vehicles, and large numbers of rifles.

Anonymous said...

Lots of these military programs are behind schedule and over budget because the gov't can't make up their minds on what they want.

Consider the car ad that says, "starting at $14,999!" By the time you add air conditioning, leather seats, premium sound, GPS navigation, alloy wheels, a sunroof, spoiler, undercarriage sealant and floor mats, your economy car costs $23,479. Same thing happens with military contracts, only the "budgeted" amount is still $14,999 and everyone blames the greedy contractor for the delay and cost growth.

B Smith said...

I've always thought that when you're pointing a firearm, that's pretty much all the language you need. (Remember the old WWII-era posters, featuring the grizzled GI holding his Garand, that said, "The M-1 does my talking"?)
In the wake of various police shootings where some clueless moron was thoroughly ventilated while reaching for his wallet after the cops drew down on him, I used to say, "When someone---ANYONE---is pointing a gun at you and screaming, you don't NEED to understand the language. There is only one sensible action at that point." Same principle applies.

Ken said...

"...the languages they speak..."

Also sprach unser Präsident...who is monolingual, ain't he?

Conant said...

In that Obama went to the equivalent of a US Public elementary school in Indonesia, he almost certainly learned Bahasa Indonesia at at least a conversational level.

"Indonesian Malay"? WTF is that?