06.10.11
The Pain of Pantywaists
The pantywaist military of Pakistan has cried out in pain, pleading for respect, according to the Wall Street Journal:
Pakistan’s opposition politicians have joined the fray, spurring public disenchantment with the military, for decades the dominant political and economic powerbroker in the country. And we’re both obsessed with militaries.
The roughly 1,000-word statement—at various points apologetic, belligerent and strident—was the clearest indication to date that in striking a balance between the competing demands, Pakistan’s military leaders are looking to first assuage their own people, even if that means scaling back ties to the U.S.
The statement also offered an indication of the crisis now gripping Pakistan’s military and the lengths its leaders are potentially willing to go to restore public respect. The statement also said the army would be willing to divert U.S. military aid to help improve the lot of ordinary Pakistanis.
What? They’re going to give up golfing in Abottabad? Instead of new F-16s, ask for cash money they can hand out in the streets?
This is what the pantywaists will do. They’ll quietly ask for more weapons from Uncle Sam and sooner or later we’ll order ’em up for them.
“Gen. Kayani in recent weeks has attempted to rally his troops, going from garrison to garrison to explain that he shares their sense of humiliation over the raid …” continues the piece.
“After the speech, a colonel in attendance pointedly asked: ‘How can we trust the United States?’ ”
Straight from the mouths of the 98-lb. weaklings, a few weeks after having the sand of the bin Laden raid kicked in their faces.
Please, please, please, show us respect or … or … or … we won’t tell you were Mullah Omar is living. And we’ll get more of your sushi weapons … and not pay!
Further:
Pakistanis are insulted [by the thought that they’re reluctant pantywaists.] They point out that they have caught numerous al Qaeda members. A third of Pakistan’s army is arrayed along the border with Afghanistan fighting local Taliban militants, a campaign in which almost 3,000 Pakistani soldiers have died. Many generals, Gen. Kayani included, say the nation is now critically exposed to attack from archrival India on its eastern flank.
[In WWII this was called a Sitzkrieg.]
In the field, soldiers say they are angry at the lack of recognition from the U.S. for their losses fighting militants.
“We are fighting for the whole world. It’s very bad it’s not recognized,” said Lt. Col. Fazal Rabbi, a helicopter pilot with the Frontier Corps.
They’re worried about India, too.
Classic small man’s syndrome. Having an inferiority complex re India, now they have another aggravated one with regards to the US.
It’s horrid being patronized, unrecognized for your contributions and exports to the world — like Mumbai and various bomb plots in England.
Hey, Pakistan does outsourced debt collection calls for American banks!
That’s something good, right?
The alert reader will note Pakistan and the US have something in common. Neither country makes much of anything except for one really famous product. We make weapons. Pakistan makes terrorists.
More arms for different pantywaists
From the WaTimes:
Congress is stepping up pressure on the Obama administration to sell more F-16 jet fighters to Taiwan as the island’s air defenses deteriorate and China’s air power grows.
They only want 66 of them. And Lockheed is threatening to close the F-16 production line if we don’t approve the sale. Americans will lose jobs because weapons are the only reliable manufacturing, besides cars and some jet engines and guitars, we have!
“What’s in a name???? Shakespeare asked. How about when someone calls you a “pantywaist???? Formerly “a child’s undergarment in which a shirt and pants were buttoned together at the waist,??? pantywaist was often bandied about in masculine circles in my youth.
Lane Bryant, a women’s and children’s clothing outlet, sold these “pantie waists” (more commonly spelled “panty waists”) in their 1935 catalog for boys and girls from 2 to 8 years of age. The term panty waist later became a slang term of abuse for boys who were sissies or disinclined to behave in a properly masculine way …
Technically a “panty waist” was nothing more than an alternative term for underwaist with strap reinforcements for buttons and garter tabs. The buttons, usually attached to the waistline by tapes to make them more flexible and more difficult to pull off, were principally for attaching button-on trousers and skirts, but were also used by girls for buttoning on panties or bloomers, hence the term panty waist. The term panty waist was also used by many mothers to refer to any undervest for children up to the age of at least twelve, and sometimes fourteen, which could serve as a garment for anchoring hose supporters for long stockings …
Ralph said,
September 28, 2011 at 11:28 am
I wore panty waists (i.e., under waists) up to the age of about ten for the purpose of anchoring pin-on supporters for long stockings, which I wore with short trousers in the chillier months during the 1930s. They were sleeveless white garments made out of cambric with elastic garters attached. Nearly all boys who wore tan thigh-length cotton stockings needed them during that period. But by age ten boys usually graduated to more grown-up garter waists for the long stockings which were like suspenders with a waist belt and had the supporters attached at the sides through pin tubes. A lot of kids wore knickers with knee socks, but my mother thought these looked sloppy, so I got kept in short pants, often with long stockings, especially for dress-up occasions like church until I went away to boarding school.