By Peter J. Vorster II || There are a few things that really get under my skin, I mean, in ways that seek to scrape away the (sometimes thin) veneer of civilization that coats the inner Viking.
This article by Michael Yon is a perfect example of an issue that would have me, as per H.L. Mencken, “hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
Extracted from an email displayed in Yon’s article, this line (regarding Spain’s lack of support for American troops in Afghanistan) sums it up succinctly:
The Spanish are not interested in helping in anyway, and are trying to make us decide to leave based on their unacceptable treatment of Americans.
If the allegations included in this article are true – and one would be calling into doubt the veracity of an eyewitness who also happens to be a U.S. Army Lt. Colonel if one were to imply otherwise – then there needs to be some serious jack-booted thuggery launched in the direction of this erstwhile ally.
The Spanish, like a few of America’s other NATO “allies,” seem to be doing a whole lot of posing with respect to their NATO commitment and not a whole lot of fighting.
Why is Spain even a part of NATO? What contributions have they made to fighting Islamic Fundamentalist inspired terrorists and terrorism?
Oh right … they made a brief showing in Iraq and then as soon as they were bombed by these same Islamic Fundamentalists, they showed their real colors (read: yellow) by electing the closet thing to communists they could find to run their county.
And then they got out the hell of Iraq as fast as we could fly them home.
With “allies” like these is it any wonder that old “Dubya” decided to go without the broad support of NATO?
I guess the Spanish are still a little upset over the last time we had to iron out a few differences.
I hope and pray that there remain within the higher echelons of our general staff and our diplomatic corps, a few people with the intestinal fortitude to tell these whimpering curs exactly what side of the face is going to be slapped if this sh!t isn’t fixed most ricky tick.
Our troops deserve better and if we hold our leaders accountable for ensuring that they are given every available tool to complete the mission, then the full flame of our indignation and contempt must fall on these “friends” who would make an already miserable existence that much more difficult.
By the way, the writer, Michael Yon, is one of the best front line reporters out there today and a great photographer to boot. If you don’t read him regularly, you should.
About the author: Peter J. Vorster II is a charming, humble, opinionated, open minded, hard core conservative, loving father, devoted husband (non Sanfordian), excellent friend, patriot and proud Southerner.
By CNSYD March 8, 2010 at 6:29 pm
The Spics can’t hold a candle to the Frogs. What is the definiton of a good French rifle? One that has only been thrown down once. Why are French roads tree lined? So the Germans can march in the shade.
By reprobate March 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm
What they used to say about the Frogs(French)?
They f*ck with their mouth, and fight with their feet.
By Liberty for Me March 8, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Who sank the Maine???….I used to think T.R. was the MAN until I learned the real history of this country.
All of you that somehow think God only gave citizens of the U.S. unalienable rights are a poor example of logical and or Liberty minded individuals and are delusional in calling yourself Conservative.
By CNSYD March 9, 2010 at 12:12 am
LFM, and which revisionist provided you with the “real” history?
By Liz March 9, 2010 at 9:44 am
25,000+ Colonists did not die in the American Revolution so that their progeny could invade foreign countries. They died for the right of real self-determination. That’s not something an invading or occupying army can single-handily provide.
By Seymour Glass March 9, 2010 at 10:01 am
@ CNSYD,
It seems Liberty has read Howard Zinn too many times.
By Brandon March 9, 2010 at 10:12 am
Liberty,
Speaking of history of the country…
“Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows nither victory nor defeat” TR, “The Strenuous Life”
PS – TR is indeed the MAN.
By vorster March 9, 2010 at 11:47 am
Brandon,
Well said. I’m waiting on the finalized volume of the “real history of our land” to be issued to see exactly what a horrible country we have and how every single one of the events we were taught, was part of a much more vast and diabolical conspiracy than our simple minds can actually absorb. I suppose when it finally sinks in, we too will run out and burn flags and tear down our country at every opportunity. Can’t wait for enlightenment…
By B Side March 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm
So if anybody disagrees with your unconsidered nationalism ( “there needs to be some serious jack-booted thuggery launched in the direction of this erstwhile ally”) they are somehow endorsing a self-loathing, anti-American mindset? Get real, man.
By Liberty for Me March 9, 2010 at 4:40 pm
What sheep you people are..As we slowly loose our liberties and get closer and closer to a communist state,you want to wave flags in the faces of anyone pointing it out.How deep and wise you must be you must be.
It does not take a Constitutional scholar to know since Woodrow Wilson that our country has gone in the total opposite direction as Jefferson and Washington intended…If that makes me a revisionist and a traitor ,so be it…I can only say that I love my country enough to try to keep it in tact, while you morons go around saying how you are law abiding so you don’t have to worry about freedom.
I hope for all our sakes your ignorance in supporting socialism does not cost us all our rights.
By Remember the Reconquista March 9, 2010 at 4:41 pm
If you think the Spanish have been “soft” on Islam you are a f-cking moron.
By Liberty for Me March 9, 2010 at 4:54 pm
B Side….You are are so right.Most of these pro-militant turds are so one dimensional they cant think past a Sean Hannity quote.
By vorster March 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I am “real man”. My nationalism is very considered. I consider America first and then others. Citizenship 101. So when we have an ally that is treating our soldiers with contempt and dishonor, like the WTC attack, it is because we brought it on ourselves, right?. Because of our “unconsidered nationalism”. Stop trying to insert 256 shades of grey where black and white will suffice. Us and them. Friend or foe. Our interests versus their interests. How to treat and ally versus how not to treat one. Then again, that’s just my unconsidered nationalism speaking.
I also failed to see in there where I said if you don’t agree with what I think should happen you are “endorsing a self loathing, anti-American mindset”. But since you mentioned it, if the treatment of our guys doesn’t get you just a little pissed, then yes, you do have some issues and are most likely, anti-American. Or at the very least probably self loathing.
As a postscript to the article, the situation was brought to the attention of higher echelons of leadership and is being resolved.
By CNSYD March 9, 2010 at 6:46 pm
You Chamberlain types like LFM and B side are so out to lunch. I know, you hold in your hand the paper he signed and it means peace for our time. Right. Keep dreaming. It is very simple. They are either for us or against us. By their actions shall we know them. You get no respect by kissing their asses. I guess the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor was our own fault, right?
By lowcountry March 9, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Wow, first time I’ve actually agreed with Liberty for Me. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the biggest frauds, with his Brooks Brothers, tailored “western” outfits. CNSYD: I recommend you read, “The Imperial Cruise”. You might be surprised.
By Liberty for Me March 9, 2010 at 8:51 pm
By vorster
“My nationalism is very considered. I consider America first and then others”…..change the America to Germany and that would feel right at home in Mien Kampf
How about being respectful of everyone’s unalienable rights….Lets start with a right to not have to enter other peoples so called wars…or to leave them anytime they want.Especially when there is no objective…or discernible enemy
By CNSYD March 9, 2010 at 9:22 pm
lowcountry, I have NOT defended any actions of TR. I have merely stated how we need to determine who is our friend and who is our enemy. IRT to Bradley’s premise, it is inconceivable that TR’s actions precipitated the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. I note this book is a hit on “Libertarian” book lists. Just remember what ADM Yamamoto said after the attack on Pearl Harbor, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” THAT should be the thought that we infuse in the minds of all who would dare contemplate harmful acts toward us.
By CNSYD March 9, 2010 at 9:34 pm
LFM, twice today you have used the phrase “unalienable rights”. I presume you are attempting to lift verbiage from the Declaration. If so, lets use the entire phrase, “CERTAIN unalienable rights”. Further lets see what those words meant in the context of the time they were written, supposedly, by Jefferson. He said that these were rights of MEN. He literally meant that. Further, it was obviously not the intent of the document to include slaves in these rights as the later written original Constitution dealt with how they were to be “counted”. So this conception of yours that this document is Holy Grail for all people doesn’t quite seem to fit. Quite rightly suceeding generations have had need to modify the original to be more inclusive.
By vorster March 10, 2010 at 3:31 am
LFM, I guess you’re just a citizen of the world then aren’t you? I suppose that those of us still confined by the ideals of loyalty to the country we live in are really just hayseeds out of touch with the world we live in. Let’s make it clear, we are members of one country. When the chips are down, it’s what’s best for our country that counts.
Your disgusting remark associating my comments with Mein Kampf indicate the level of dialogue you are interested in conducting.
Your last statement reeks of ignorance and is horribly strung together. There is a discernible enemy, there is an objective and what do you mean “leave them anytime they want”? So if we do enter a war then when they are tired of us being there we should leave? Keep in mind, none of this would be happening if we hadn’t been attacked on 9/11. Period.
By Liberty fo Me March 10, 2010 at 5:59 am
CNSYD..So you are saying the French or Spanish dont have the God given freedom to do what they want???.That the U.S. should be able to force people to fight wars for us??No matter what you people think we are supposed to be equal…we should be equal and treat others with do respect.
The Constitution helps us understand how not to have these twisted slef-righitous beliefs that so many of you hold
By Liberty fo Me March 10, 2010 at 6:08 am
vorster ..I meant the french or Spanish have the right not to fight
My comment towards country means marching is lock step spouting bullshit might make you a patriot to others of like mind…but some see the U.S. as bullies pushing their own agenda.How is our dorr kicking in Iraq any different than Germany??We were not attcked by Iraq.How do we have a right to go there, push people around,and kick in their doors.The only right we have over others is a bigger military.Soon as our economy collapses our power to run others will be gone(just like the british)
By Liberty fo Me March 10, 2010 at 6:13 am
vorster…so tell me what is the objective that would win?Please don’t say something vague like wipe out terrorism..That is not a discernible goal..nor is there a discernible enemy.There is no army,no uniform.This is a perpetual conflict that will last forever…makes no sense
By Liberty fo Me March 10, 2010 at 6:27 am
CNSYD..So you are saying that woman,blacks and people from other countries are somehow not free when they are born??That Jefferson meant we had privilege over other countries and woman etc. But the smarter later generations fixed all that by changing the black vote count and giving woman rights to vote??…That is such a weak and never ending repeated drivel.What cant you people understand freedom??
“GOD” given rights…only government can take away.It is not a hard concept to grasp.
By B-side March 10, 2010 at 8:12 am
Vorster,
If you can honestly view anything about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as “black and white,” then I feel justified in saying your nationalism is unconsidered.
Suppose the Spanish have been less than enthusiastic in their support, and have even slighted American troops. What is all your bluster about “thuggery” supposed to accomplish? About the same as the chip on your shoulder toward everyone here who disagrees with you. Nothing.
We get it. You support the troops. So do I, and millions of others who have questions about the sustainability of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Setting up some false dichotomy of “Vorster: Liberty-Loving Defender of the Troops” vs. “Blog Commenters: Malcontent Terrorist Subversives” is easy for you, but hardly the reality.
By vorster March 10, 2010 at 9:54 am
B,
You don’t see one thing about the wars as black and white? Really? I’m not saying, nor have I said, that there are not nuances and factors that are themselves worthy of an entire conversation. The point is that too many people lose sight of some of the basic issues. We were perfectly correct in going into Afghanistan. Could we have done things a little smarter in hindsight? Sure. We had every reason to believe, based on the intelligence at hand, that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. If they weren’t, a simple yes, you can inspect these sites, would have cleared it up just fine. Could we have done many things differently in Iraq? Sure, plenty. Have we ever tried to do something on that scale before as a nation? No, so all these people who squeeled about it had no precedent to base anything on. But there are discernible enemies, we are killing them as I type this in several countries. There are goals, perhaps not the ones we agree on but they’re there.
The whole point of the jack booted thuggery remark is that a really insipid and weak approach has crept in when it comes to the tone with which we address issues on an international level. And yes, it started well before the current administration. I’m sick of the people who represent us(all parties included) having such a craven and apologetic tone, as if the U.S. is a lumbering imbecile that can’t help it’s own stupidity.
The only dichotomy I’m interested in setting up is between those who demand that our country be the best it is capable of being and those who would see us weak and subservient to the whims of the majority vote in the General Assembly of the U.N.
By Brandon March 10, 2010 at 10:02 am
lowcountry:
TR did indeed look a little different than the other cowboys in the Dakota Territory. But when one of them dared make fun of him calling in “four eyes” he punched his lights out. No one ever made fun of him again.
Lesson – you might want to watch who you call a fraud due to their appearance, they might show you their cowboy side.
Now…some suggested reading for you…
“Theodore Rex” by Edmund Morris
“The Lions Pride” by Edward Renehan, Jr.
“Mornings on Horseback” by David McCullough
“The River of Doubt” by Candice Millard
and “Hunting Trips of a Ranchman / The Wilderness Hunter” by TR hisownself.
By CNSYD March 10, 2010 at 10:25 am
LFM, remove your head from your rear. I did not say that that women, blacks and people from other countries did not have God given rights. I was merely pointing out that your first line of defense is always wanting things to be as Washington and Jefferson intended them. So you need to look squarely at what Jefferson supposedly wrote and meant. It did not include women and blacks. Is that what you advocate a return to? BTW what did Jefferson intend IRT Ms. Hemmings?
By Liberty fo Me March 10, 2010 at 7:35 pm
CNYSD….YES!!! of course that is what I want us to return to.It is not a first line of defense,it is our framework of freedom and it should always be followed.
I am not sure what your hang up is with blacks and the constitution.I guess you are somehow looking for a gaff so you can legitimize bastardizing it….That dog wont hunt
By CNSYD March 10, 2010 at 8:07 pm
LFM, no one is so blind as one who refuses to see. If you buy into the “virgin” unammended Constitution, then you have to accept it warts and all. I have no hangup IRT women or blacks but the framers of the original Constitution dealt them out. So you can’t have it both ways.
By Liberty fo Me March 10, 2010 at 8:57 pm
They did not…..ALL men are created equal!!MEN meaning mankind….
“CREATED” by GOD!! Not Jefferson…The Constitution has nothing to do with being created equal.It is not a difficult thing to understand.
We are born into freedom.. and have freedom by nature….
By CNSYD March 10, 2010 at 9:34 pm
LFM, if the original Constitution was so crystal clear, why did it have to be ammended to include women and people of color? Obviously your liberal definition of the word “men” didn’t fly.
By Liberty fo Me March 10, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Well we have kind of gone off in three different discussions…
The original point was that Spain is free to do what they think is best in their interests….I am sure they never would have been there to start with if it were not for the U.S. heavy hand..
I am also saying we are all free by nature until government takes your freedom from you.This is by natural law..not the constitution or any man made proclamation.
Having said that, the constitution is the most perfect governmental document ever written and for you to chastise it based on the circumstance on which it had to be written flies in the face of the so called patriotism you so regularly pretend to wave.
Patriotism is the pride of what our country stands for …not for how many other countries we can bomb or doors we can break down in the name of “protecting” ourselves.
By Liberty fo Me March 10, 2010 at 11:04 pm
“did not fly”..does not mean that tampering with the constitution proves that the changes were correct.Tampering is the only way we could have taken a free country and turned it into a socialist state.
By CNSYD March 11, 2010 at 9:16 am
LFM, the Constitution was/is a great governmental document. However it was written using assumptions germaine to the time of its origin. Exclusion of women is but one example that required correction in latter times. Originally the upper house (Senate) was elected by state legislatures not directly by the citizens. Why? Because the framers did not want or think that the rank and file should be entrusted with that decision. Obviously that has been changed. None of those subsequent changes make the original framework “wrong”, it merely shows that the details (wherein lies the devil) needed to be cleaned up. My point to you has always been that when you want to go back to the original you have to be prepared to buy ALL of the original.
By Liberty For Me March 11, 2010 at 10:20 am
UHHH,I dont know where you get your rules from…all or nothing?..
Are you saying the bill of rights is not part of the original?? Just curious to where you go with your “rules”….
So you agree with the 17th amendment I presume??…A perfect example of bastardizing control on the march to socialism.
I am not sure anything but the original(including the bill of rights of course)is either neccesary or productive…as the incorporation doctrine is wrong.It gives some people a sort of secuity ,so many fear its exposure as a fruad,but it really helps to wreck the whole framework of our offered protected freedom.
By CNSYD March 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm
LFM, if the original document was perfect, as you allege, then why did there need to be any ammendments? I agree with the Bill of Rights and other ammendments. I am after what YOU agree with. The 17th is “bastardizing control on the march to socialism”? How do you come up with that? You would prefer that Senators be elected by a good ole boy system in smoke filled rooms? They are more intelligent than the citizens?
By Liberty for Me March 11, 2010 at 3:34 pm
The bill of rights is the governments agreement NOT to infringe in these areas.It is not protecting your rights or restricting your rights.
That is why amendments are not necessary.The federal government as far as I know never said women could not vote…states did
Senators represent the state as a whole…congress represents the people.
When the state can not control the state senator…You see what you get with Lindsey.
This was changed so that big banks and or private companies can pretty much guarantee a win by funding their inside man…You cant win an election without money.But you can be appointed by the local people elected to represent them…..Just think deeper into this…It will all come to you.
Some people are afraid to admit to the truth of the constitution,because states can outlaw guns…etc
This is a false fear as people can vote with their feat or make themselves real vocal on the local front.I am a lot less afraid of south carolina than I am the feds