Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, harming democracy, helping enemies

[Peter Dow]

How is the USA military going to defend it's multi-billion dollar budget without an enemy? Seems pretty logical to me

Well when if ever, we get to that point, of "no enemy" presumably we will find out.

Meanwhile there is a very real enemy to defeat out there and that takes prudent spending and none of it on enemy war costs.

Seems pretty logical to me

What is, the theory that the US is knowingly funding the enemy to fabricate and sustain an enemy that wouldn't otherwise last two minutes against the sole superpower, so as to justify the US's military budget? That seems more cynical than "logical" to me.

I think if that theory was correct many Americans, who have a better use for the tax-payers' money - such as on other government spending or on tax cuts - than on artificial wars, would see through the sham wars and elect a president who would cease funding the enemy, win the war with competent military leadership and then with no enemy to speak of left, benefit the people with the money saved by cutting military budgets to what was really required.

I think Pakistan has been getting military funding for reasons more to do with getting their permission to supply Afghanistan via Pakistani roads and airspace and that's seen as a cheaper alternative to going via other routes or regime-changing Pakistan to get permission for free or at cost, such as cost to maintain and defend the roads from bandits or simply invite the US and NATO to build their own new supply road through Pakistan.

I think there is a failure of strategic vision by Obama, not a military man, and Defense Secretary Hagel who only served at NCO level, a sergeant in Vietnam. These men are not war strategists and simply think

"how can we supply our troops, or get out stuff out of Afghanistan the quickest and easiest route?"

Not
"how do we defeat and regime change those states sponsoring terrorism as per the Bush Doctrine?"

Obama is a dove president so his hope and plan is to end the war by pulling out. He's not really for funding Pakistan so as to keep the enemy Taliban financed but to ease, he hopes, his exit plan and because of a failure of vision as to the consequences of funding the Pakistan military.

 

[yield]

What is, the theory that the US is knowingly funding the enemy to fabricate and sustain an enemy that wouldn't otherwise last two minutes against the sole superpower, so as to justify the US's military budget? That seems more cynical more than "logical" to me.

You aren't cynical enough.

 

[Peter Dow]

Fuck me. I've only been skimming your posts if I'm honest, Peter. But you want to bomb Islamabad?

Well after suitable ultimatums are issued regarding the war aims of the war on terrorism, yes.

We could demand the arrest and handover, dead or alive, of the Pakistan generals responsible for sponsoring Al Qaeda terrorism since we were first attacked. So for the US, that could be since 2000 when the USS Cole was bombed killing 17 US Navy personnel.

Then only after ultimatums were issued and after the Pakistani state didn't meet the demands, would acts of war commence.

I really want peace with justice same as everyone. I happen to think that a war plan against Pakistan will be necessary to achieve that peace with justice. No one would be happier than me if the appropriate demands were met without bombing Islamabad.

But if it comes to it, yes, the ISI HQ is in Islamabad and wherever the ISI has its bases from which it sponsors terrorism, of course those should be legitimate targets in the war on terror.

I know you're hatstand. But wow.

Strange that you think a war can be won without bombing or threatening to bomb the enemy capital city.

Did you think Saddam Hussein could be ousted without bombing Baghdad? Or the Afghan Taliban regime ousted without bombing Kabul? Hitler gone without bombing Berlin? Are you surprised to read that Hitler ordered London bombed? Was there no logic in doing so?

I suppose you may be thinking of the French surrender to the Nazis so as to save their capital? But in that case, the Nazis threatened to bomb Paris if the French didn't surrender.

Perhaps the Pakistanis will surrender rather than see Islamabad bombed too, though I doubt it as the Pakistani military high command has shown a disregard to bombings of Pakistan by their own Taliban terrorists.

You're oddly conventional under all the hatstandiness, with a touching faith in the authorities you rail against. You want there to be some deep order to the power structures in the world. And you're happy to be subordinate to them. Your Condi-fetish starts to make more sense now.

I have no faith in the United Kingdom. I have faith in our ability as republicans to make a better world.

 

[mango5]

I'm not saying "racist shit" and have no complaint or comparison with any such request which I fully agree with. The issue is that I don't accept that the word "Paki" as used by me is "racist".

What you accept is not acceptable here. This is your final warning for using for using lazy offensive racist 'shorthand' of any kind. Do it again and face a ban.

 

[maya]

I'm not the one to want mod trouble but why on earth was my post on this thread removed? It was a real media pic of Stoltenberg posing in the gym when he was young, I know I didn't provide very much textual content to go with it but since when have only sensible posts been allowed in this forum? Just puzzled me a bit, no criticism...

 

[weltweit]

Whenever I see threads by Peter Dow I am tempted to write :

Brevity Peter ... Brevity !!

 

[mango5]

maya Nothing whatsoever has been removed. This is your first post on this thread.

 

[maya]

Nothing whatsoever has been removed. This is your first post on this thread.

Hmm, okay. I seem to remember an identical thread by Peter where I did post up a picture. Perhaps a board glitch or something, or perhaps that thread was junked and he started a new one... It doesn't matter very much either way, just felt a bit confused that's all. But thanks.

EDIT: ah, thanks frogwoman for solving the mystery...

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...nted-to-lead-nato.322718/page-2#post-13064415

It was a thread by brispete, i get the conspirapeople confused sometimes

Apologies mango5, you know I have nothing against the mods in any way, shape or form- it's just sometimes that i occasionally get a bit confused when things seem strange and feel the need to understand what's going on...

 

[SpineyNorman]

Have to say this thread is pretty special, even by Peter's high standards