Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, weakening democracy inciting enemies.

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Peter Dow, Mar 31, 2014.

  1. Peter Dow

    Peter Dow Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
    The current and next NATO Secretary Generals - Rasmussen (shaking hands) and Stoltenberg (left) wait in line to grovel before their royal master King Harald of Norway (right).

    [​IMG]
    The current NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen meeting with his royal master King Harald in Norway.

    [​IMG]
    Seated back - Stoltenberg, left, Duchess Camilla (middle), King Harald, standing right. Seated at the front with his back to us - Prince Charles

    [​IMG]
    Rasmussen (left) and Stoltenberg (right) seemingly lost without a royal to grovel to.

    Royalists keep grip on NATO

    The former Norwegian Kingdom Premier Jens Stoltenberg failed to defend Norway from the terrorist Breivik's Oslo bombing and Utøya shootings. Never trust the King's men!

    The current NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was a former Prime Minster of the Kingdom of Denmark who has lost NATO's war on terror & Afghanistan-Pakistan mission to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence generals who sponsored Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

    Rasmussen has demonstrated that a naive, corrupt ex-Prime Minister of a Kingdom is not a fit and proper person to serve as NATO Secretary General.

    Royalists such as Rasmussen and Stoltenberg accept imposed monarchs and military dictators, and the chaos and terrorism which comes in their wake, rather than fighting for a democratic republic, so these royalists will mislead NATO to defeat in our Afghanistan - Pakistan mission and to defeat in the war on terror.

    To end the Pakistani military dictatorship which dictates military policy to sponsor Al Qaeda, Taliban and other jihadi terrorism (behind the scenes of the window dressing of an elected but relatively powerless Pakistani government) NATO must kill the traitor Pakistani generals. However, the royalist Anders Fogh Rasmussen never has ordered assassination missions against Pakistani generals and I predict that the royalist Jens Stoltenberg never will, sadly.

    We ought to be concerned that Stoltenberg like Rasmussen is an inept military leader who will allow our enemies to drain the strength out of our alliance.

    The Pakistani generals are simply like "the royals" of Pakistan and the European royalists will surrender to them, do deals with them, retreat from them and be defeated by them accordingly.

    Additionally look at the war record of those countries - Rasmussen's Denmark resisted in the second world war when invaded by the Nazi Wehrmacht for all of 2 hours. They simply could not surrender fast enough! Norway too was unprepared to resist Nazi invasion and occupation.

    These royalist armies are superior usually only when faced with natives with sharp sticks such as in the Zulu wars, or when shooting civilians as in Northern Ireland. Any real opposition royalists crumble, can't fight to win.

    For kingdoms to win world wars, they usually need to hire smart people irrespective of their politics, form alliances with republics and take a back seat when it comes to who provides the supreme military command.

    Then once kingdoms have won their wars they go back to persecuting the people who have just won their war for them, like the UK did when it drove Alan Turing to suicide after the war even though as a brilliant computer scientist he decoded the Nazi's secret military communications and gave Britain a war-winning advantage over the Nazis.

    If you want to go to war and win, go as a republic.

    To win the war on terror and our Afghanistan - Pakistan mission we need leadership from a republican A-team comprising I propose of Condoleezza Rice and myself Peter Dow as NATO Secretary General & Supreme Allied Commander Europe - I don't mind which of the two us does what job but Condi is really the only person I'd be happy being deputy to or taking orders from, apart from the North Atlantic Council (NAC) which is NATO's principal political decision making body.

    Obviously, as a NATO leader I would take my directions from the NAC but in terms of me being supervised by a superior officer, I don't see anyone but Condi measuring up to that task right now.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well.... good luck on that nomination for NATO Secretary General or Supreme Allied Commander, whichever comes first!
     
  3. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How exactly do you win a war against a broad concept such as terrorism? It's like declaring war on the weather.

    We didn't actually lose Afghanistan. The problem is that we can't win it either.

    What exactly do you mean by royals?

    Oh come on. You honestly think that Denmark could have had a chance at defeating the Germans? Which at the time had the most modern and largest land force in Europe.

    You mean the Aglo-Zulu war. That's singular not plural. And Cetshwayo did have firearms even before isandlawana.
    And if you wan to go even further there are tons of examples where "royalist armies" have actually won wars.
    That was the IRA's job and we did win against them and we did win in Malaya as well.

    The government didn't do that, the law did.

    You still haven't actually explained how a republic is better at fighting wars than any other form of government.
    I hope that this is somehow humorous.
     
  4. Peter Dow

    Peter Dow Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    "The war on terror" is short-hand for a war on the state sponsors of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and associated terrorists attacks against the US and allies by Al Qaeda.

    You beat state sponsors of Al Qaeda terrorism by regime-changing them so that the new state or states are really friends, not simply pretending to be "friends" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia but using secret agent terrorists to wage war on us.

    We can win it and that's what this topic explains in detail how to do -

    Afghanistan NATO Taliban Pakistan Jihad Madrasah Arabs Drones Raids - AfPak strategy

    but beginning to win is very easy. We simply need to start waging war on the enemy states of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia instead of aiding and trading with them.

    In this statement
    I mean that in the de facto Pakistani dictatorship which still operates behind the window dressing of an elected but relatively powerless government of Pakistan, the generals form a junta, a ruling class, an elite which has embedded itself in power and cannot be removed and replaced by an open democratic process because the generals will act to eliminate any serious threat to their rule - for example by shooting politicians who challenge their rule.
    In this sense, a military dictatorship defines itself as embodying the constitution of a country, in the way that the monarch and royal family does for a kingdom.

    The people can't easily vote out the Pakistani generals from any part of Pakistan just as the people can't easily vote out the royals from any part of land ruled by the United Kingdom.

    Not on its own but if Denmark had got its military act together in alliance with other countries who were also threatened by the Nazis sure. There was no good reason for Denmark and other countries threatened by German not to modernise and expand their military as Germany had been doing. The only reason was the rotten leadership from the Danish kingdom and other kingdoms of Europe.

    Yes I watched "Zulu" - "Fire at the smoke" sure but a lot of them were armed only with spears and shields and had to charge at the army of the "British" Empire.

    Sure when two royalist armies meet then one of them is bound to win.

    No it wasn't but the IRA's operating procedures in cell structures made it impossible to command them in the responsible fashion any good republican would insist upon if at all possible.

    Well I seem to remember that there is a peace process. So maybe everybody wins?

    Well the Malayan communists had a very small army - of only about 8,000 fighters

    My point is that all things being equal a republic does better than a kingdom.

    The French and Americans did not win in Vietnam because things were not equal - the Vietnamese communists were a far bigger enemy to confront. The Peoples' Army of (North) Vietnam fielded over a quarter-million soldiers, in addition to roughly 100,000 National Liberation Front (or Vietcong) guerrillas. There were many other factors which made the Malaya emergency much easier to win.

    The kingdom's law. The kingdom makes it lawful to persecute its best war heroes. Sure. That's my point. The law, the courts, the judges, the prisons, the universities, the hospitals, the military - everything in a kingdom is not as good as a republic.

    The commander in chief is the critical factor in a war and it is rare indeed for a king or queen to be a better commander than an elected president.

    I'll let you know when I try my hand at satire.
     
  5. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know but you don't actually need to invade other nations in order to do that
    That won't guarantee that. Because terrorist don't actually need the state in order to function.

    You're talking about two very different forms of government. A military Junta does typically have a council composed of senior officers.
    A monarchs ascension is hereditary.

    And why on earth would people feel the need to vote out the crown?

    That really was a tall order.
    Actually yes. It costs money and men in order to expand and modernise and that's proivding that Denmark could have acquired military equipment that was comparable to Germany.
    And on top of that Denmark had no real concern that Germany was going to invade until it was too.
    Christian X was not responsible for the organisation or procurements for the Danish forces basically he wasn't in charge.
    Most people have but it's not that accurate a film. And the Impi were formidable irrespective of whether all were armed with firearms or not. But my point was is that they were armed with projectile weapons even before Isandlawana.
    And why did you put British in quotation marks?
    No. If you look up the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth then you'll see how a republic isn't necessarily better at it.
    If you want I can throw in a few more examples

    Really. So all those bombs they let off weren't directed at civvies then?
    And they didn't have procedures, they were thugs who partly funded by organised crime.
    No. The IRA didn't get Ulster and they stopped their activities in exchange for immunity.
    All right if you say so.

    The UK is a constitutional monarchy and it's been that way even before the the civil war of the 1640's.
    What that means is that parliament creates the laws but is not the property of the sovereign ergo the governmental branches are separate.

    However if you want to look a the the USA which did discriminate against it's veterans after the war particularly if they were black.

    The last time a monarch in our country took charge was King George II.
    And I honestly doubt if Obama actually makes the vast majority of military decisions.

    You were serious were you? Ok tell me something do you have any military experience? And do you hold a senior position in the armed forces?
     
  6. Peter Dow

    Peter Dow Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    You can certainly do a lot with air and missile power and naval power towards regime-changing a country. It depends from case to case whether the change can be completed without invasion. For example, Serbia was regime changed by a spell of bombing. But Iraq got hit very hard by air power twice - but it took an actual invasion finally to oust Saddam.

    I would certainly not be advising invasion of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to effect regime change there, but would advise other war policies towards the aim of regime change such as ultimatums, sanctions, naval blockades, air strikes, international arrest warrants, assassination missions, seizing control over TV satellites and a whole selection of measures we could bring to bear short of actually invading.

    Well terrorists need their supplies and even when they develop independent revenue streams - such as the drug trade for the Taliban - they still need at least to be left alone in safe areas by the host state to be able to continue operations.

    For example, you ought to educate yourself to the extent to which the Taliban rely on secret state support from Pakistan.

    The evidence for Pakistan's secret terrorist war against the West can be viewed in the BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN" videos.

    Part 1. Double Cross
    [video=youtube;qSinK-dVrig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSinK-dVrig[/video]

    Part 2. Backlash
    [video=youtube;G5-lSSC9dSE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5-lSSC9dSE[/video]

    Different but both undemocratic forms of government.

    Be serious. I am not going to sit here and re-type all the reasons in history why people have overthrown a monarchy to get themselves a republic.

    It was not any taller an order for the non-German countries than it was for the Germans.

    Or all the Danish republicans who dared to embarrass the royalists with expressing their concerns got locked up or sectioned as is the way with royalists who won't listen.

    But the kingdom's officers were in charge and they wouldn't have been if it had been a republic with a president who would have sacked or demoted royalist officers for being irresponsible idiots as most royalists are.

    OK well I simplified in my first description.

    Well in many ways the Empire was more anti-British than British, did the British people a disservice when we would have done so much better as a democracy, a republic, many republics, a commonwealth of republics maybe.

    Well Wikipedia says this
    So it was a kingdom, maybe a constitutional monarchy but not a true republic with an elected president as head of state.

    I'd rather you threw a few more monarch's heads in the executioner's basket.


    Sure they were but my point is that such directions are not the acts of what could be accurately called a "republican" army because no good republican attacks the public.

    What they had was a cell structure which was forced upon them by infiltration by the UK security forces which meant that no responsible republican command structure could be established to ensure appropriate targeting of enemy combatants only - namely the Queen's forces who were shooting unarmed protesting Catholics, as on Bloody Sunday.

    No but the Irish nationalist and Catholic population of Ulster got a deal and a new power-sharing constitution. It's not for me to say if it was a good enough deal to claim certainly that "everyone wins" but there is a peace process and that is worth noting.

    Yes and the people are separately abused by each separate branch of the kingdom - kicked out of university without a re-sit or a right to raise your case, arrested by the police, denied justice by the courts, banged up in prison etc.

    Yes Parliament creates the laws and then the Queen's ape judges and pig police ignore any laws they don't want to pay attention to abuse innocent people.

    Whomsoever's property the kingdom is, it sure isn't mine. I have absolutely no stake nor allegiance to the kingdom and its branches of government which are all just different branches of the enemy as far as I am concerned,

    The USA elects its presdent - white or black is their choice. We don't get to vote for our president but get lumped with that Queen and her rotten kingdom.

    Well the monarch's Prime Minister and Privy Council has been in charge and that's as bad.

    The President nominates the Secretary of Defense who must be confirmed by Congress and serves at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed by the president for any reason or no reason. So the US military is commanded by the president without doubt.

    No I have no military experience. I did once apply to join the Territorial Army but did not get further than potential recruit. So I'm still a civilian, always have been but I am ready to serve NATO as a senior military commander because I can see that I know more about what needs to be done at the highest command levels than what little is now being done to secure us versus our enemies.

    Admittedly, it would be a rapid rise to the top of NATO command from potential recruit to Supreme Allied Commander Europe (or deputy SACEUR if Condi is made SACEUR or Secretary General) in one step but "needs must" as they say.
     
  7. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes but they don't actually have to get those from the state.
    As for being left alone, the state's control over an area isn't always going to be complete.

    I'll bear that in mind.

    No because a constitutional monarchy like the UK is a democratic form of government because people actually vote for the party that they want which can make up both the parliament and government.
    I am serious.

    What does that even mean? The German military at the time was bigger and more powerful than the rest of Europe's armies.
    And yet you think that Denmark could have resisted them if they maybe had some foreign support which is unlikely considering how quickly the Germans would have been able to engage and defeat them.

    You've dodged my point. How was Denmark supposed to modernise and expand it's military needs in anticipation of a German invasion?

    That's not how the Empire worked and it was a very good reason.
    But you're still not answering the question. How is a republic superior to any other form of government?

    Read further on. Even that article says otherwise.

    That's not something I'll entertain, let alone oblige.

    Right. They were terrorists.
    The first part of that is rubbish, absolute rubbish. It doesn't matter because the individual combatant can still recognise whether someone is armed or not.
    The second part. Well fair enough but it wasn't sanctioned and unfortunately these things do happen.
    No we vote for government as I've implied the crown does not have any influence over it's decisions and it's been like that for a very long time.

    It's also the Kingdom that you're part of.
    Tell me something how exactly did Scotland become part of the realm? War perhaps?

    You didn't answer the question.
    Right but does Obama actually decide where to put soldiers in a warzone? Or what uniforms they should wear? Or anything else that is involved with the day to day running of army?

    It shows.
    What you don't understand is that theoretical knowledge can only get you so far. It takes experience as well in order to make decisions that cost as few lives as possible.
    This is why in any section it's not the officer that actually runs it. It's the sergeant as the officer has the education but not the experience.

    No it wouldn't be a rapid rise. It just wouldn't happen in any way, shape or form. Absolute fantasy.

    Based upon what you've written and spoken about I think that you need to talk to someone.
     
  8. Peter Dow

    Peter Dow Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The state does need to allow supplies and funding to terrorists at some level, even if that is just turning a blnd-eye to private funding. The IRA got private donations from the USA and state help from Libya. Al Qaeda and the Taliban get private donations from Saudi Arabia and state help from Pakistan.

    In the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, the area is federally administered by the Pakistani military and they allow allow the Taliban to run operations from those areas, occasionally cracking the whip with punitive raids if one Taliban faction attacks the Pakistan military more than is convenient for the Pakistani generals who wish to retain plausible deniability.

    I wish you would but I believe that as a royalist you don't have the attention span to watch all the 2 hours of video of the BBC Panorama "SECRET PAKISTAN" and you don't have the brain power to remember the main points.

    There's more to democracy than rigged elections in a unitary state.
    In a real democracy, elected representatives don't have to give oaths of allegiance to a monarch.
    In a real democracy, people are free to speak out, publish and protest against the state which rules them. We Britons are not. We are arrested, tortured and jailed if we do.
    In a real democracy, people must be allowed to set up independent self-government. The British people are not allowed to set up independent states which are free from the UK.

    The UK is not a real democracy. Why would anyone expect the UK to be a democracy when it is called "The United KIngdom" It's a kingdom, not a republic, not a democracy. It doesn't even claim to be a democracy, it claims to be a kingdom and that's what it is - a kingdom and all kingdoms are undemocratic because they are governed by the king or queen or the monarch's ministers and judges and officers - and that's how the UK is governed - undemocratically.

    You are seriously ignorant if you have no idea why people in history wanted a republic instead of a kingdom.

    Hitler built it up rapidly from 1933 and there was nothing to stop the other European countries doing likewise.

    Sure. Denmark, Belgium, Holland would have been great places to station standing armies of anti-Hitler forces, perhaps launch preemptive invasions of Germany once the provisions of the Versailles Treaty had been breached.

    Denmark could have re-armed and mobilized in proportion to its population and also stationed other forward armies of other Scandinavian countries in Denmark - armies from Norway and Sweden in particular if they had also re-armed and mobilised. Admittedly, that would have taken Norway and Sweden to step forward and volunteer so not all the blame for Denmark's weakness is the fault of the Danes alone.


    In every way as far as the people are concerned. Only the royal family and their hangers on lose out in a republic. The economy is stronger, clever people are encouraged to contribute to the economy not banned from university, denied freedom to publish, locked up and tortured - so a republic has people of talent contributing to the economy instead of having to spend their time fighting the oppressive royalists to try to get basic freedoms.

    So with all the people's talents being used to the maximum, the country can afford a stronger military if it chooses.

    With a kingdom talented people spend all their lives in the country fighting for basic rights or they leave the country in disgust to go to another country that appreciates their talents.

    So a kingdom is just left with the idiots running it.

    But the votes are rigged. People can't vote themselves out of kingdom control. The broadcasters broadcast idiot royalist politicians, keep clever republicans off the air, MPs have to swear allegiance to the Queen or they don't get to have their seats in parliament.

    Not willingly. It is simply like being in a big jail.

    Of course. The Scottish kings waged war on the Scots to enslave and subjugate us so that the royalists could ruin our economy and bribe us into union with England.

    What was the question again?

    If he wants to he can.

    Well I can think of 400 plus British soldiers lives lost in Afghanistan caused because we've put our forces in the hands of experienced royalists - generals, defence ministers, NATO Secretary Generals, experienced at getting our guys killed that is.
     
  9. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You've never heard of smuggling before have you? And you can't actually look at every single bank transaction.

    The clue is in the title.
    Don't insult me. I've taken the time to respond to you despite the fact that most people have written you off as a lunatic.

    Yes we do. I know people who regularly protest. And how exactly are we tortured through sarcasm perhaps?

    That might be true if only a couple of hundred people were barred doing so.
    But as it happens we are one of the few countries that will actually entertain a referendum.
    Of course it's not a fully fledged democracy which is why it works better than most of them.
    As for undemocratically governing a nation, what do you want that everyone should vote on everything and every opportunity?

    In this country. Most revolutions took place because the population were starving and the violence didn't stop even when a republic was proclaimed.

    Very little of this actually makes much sense or that much difference.
    So you don't have a passport then? And judging from that video you put on that website of yours it my even help if you left the house occasionally.
    No. The Kingdom of Scotland was bankrupted because it tried to found a colony on Nova Scotia.

    What makes a fully fledged republic like the US better at fighting wars as opposed to a constitutional monarchy?

    But doesn't
    That's war, people will die no matter what you do.
    In fact it's because of the fact that we do have such good soldiers that those casualties are so low both officers and regs.
     
  10. Peter Dow

    Peter Dow Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The Taliban don't need to smuggle their weapons and supplies to their bases in Pakistan - they are delivered by the Pakistani military ISI.

    True, once we give aid payments to Pakistan or pay for oil to Saudi Arabia they can divert the money to terrorism or making nuclear weapons no problem.

    The only broadbrush solution is don't give any aid to Pakistan before regime-change. Don't pay the Saudis for oil before regime-change.

    Clue to what? I didn't think any of you royalists had a clue but if you have one that's a start.

    Well I find your tone to be insulting to me in remarks such as

    That's also untrue. Most people haven't written me off as anything because most people don't know me.

    But you royalists like to lock up innocent people and section sane people, don't you?

    Well the Queen's pig police don't have the resources to arrest everyone.

    I've been arrested plenty of times for protesting or for even demonstrating in a supportive way - such as bringing a union flag to a 2-minute silence being organised by British Rail at their stations in respect of the victims of the 7 / 7 London bombings. If the Queen's pig police can arrest someone they likely will.

    Those who are arrested without injury are the lucky ones. Others are injured when arrested, sometimes killed in police custody.

    I've been tortured by police using rigid police handcuffs to cause very painful crushing injury to the victim's wrists.

    [​IMG]


    In a true democracy, even a minority in a particular area should be allowed to break away, establish a new state, perhaps within or alongside the existing kingdom.

    If the Catholics can have the Vatican state without all Catholics staying there then so should Scottish republicans or British republicans have at least a capital state, a parliament, a military headquarters where our interests can be represented, even if we are yet but a minority.

    So in other words, there shouldn't have to be a referendum to determine if there are enough republicans here who want a republic to get something if not the whole of the land, at least something.

    Ah the truth at last. This is the point of my "Royalist Stoltenberg to head NATO, weakening democracy inciting enemies" thread that royalists like you and Cameron and Rasmussen and Stoltenberg have no interest in advancing the cause of democracy, see no need to defend democracy. What you are defending is the status quo of the privileges of all those monarchs of kingdoms and the subjugation of all those people ruled by those kingdoms.

    No I don't think the UK does work better. This land has been blessed by many great scientists and engineers in past centuries but now today's great achievers have better places to go than stay stuck in a 2nd rate kingdom so Britain is being drained of its best brains and is falling behind.

    The citizen should always have his or her own democratic freedoms - to speak, to publish, to protest - so that if injustice is done by the authorities and the law offers no remedy at least the citizen can represent himself or herself.

    This is disallowed by the UK by the Queen's ape judges imposing gagging orders when they don't like, don't agree with what is being said and then the Queen's ape judges threaten persons with imprisonment for contempt of court.

    This is disallowed by the police who don't allow protests and demonstrations except in limited circumstances.

    Probably because the army of the kingdom didn't accept the proclamation of a republic and wanted to crush the republic and restore the monarchy.

    What appears on TV makes all the difference and to change a regime you need to change the TV that supports that regime. That's a clue for helping regime change Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as well as the UK.

    I have no desire to leave my homeland. I have a desire to be a free person in my homeland.

    Ah so I can be arrested, for - carrying a flag, talking to people, handing out a leaflet, not wearing a shirt, swearing, answering back to a police officer, knocking on a door to gain entrance, being accused of shoplifting though I hadn't, not turning up to court when cited as a witness and similar non-offenses.

    It seems that leaving the house (or even not leaving the house) is an arrestable offence for the citizen in this kingdom.

    That was in the lead up to the Union of the parliaments in 1707. Before then in 1603 was the Union of the Crowns where the murdering royal family who had seized the Scottish crown broke the Declaration of Arbroath, an early consitution for the Scottish kingdom, to abandon the sovereign rights of Scots to have their own king (or head of state).

    None of this union would have been possible if the Scots had not been defeated in war by the enemy kings who imposed themselves as monarchs by force over and above the objections of the Scots.

    Even were a majority of people living here to vote to end Scotland as an independent country, democracy would allow for those who do wish Scots to remain as an independent nation be entitled to have a state and a republic of their own. This kingdom and its rigged referendum does not allow for this.

    Considering that the US has the strongest economy in the world, it can afford to have the biggest or best equipped military.

    However in terms of getting bang for the buck, an efficient military rather than simply a lavishly equipped military then leadership of command is the most important factor. In a chess game, both sides are very equally matched to begin with but the better player usually wins. So it is with equally matched warring armies - the better generals will usually win.

    Well we have seen simple basics of military practice not followed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - such as supply routes not defended by a perimeter defence, enemy allowed to approach onto the roads to plant mines, road-side bombs, and mount ambushes, killing troops again and again.

    This had been true for the US military as much as the British and other armies so there seems to be something badly wrong with the high command of the military these days.
     
  11. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do wish these Scottish nutters would stop posting rubbish.

    Scotland was independent for a time because of the Pope's protection. Until Scotland left the Catholic church some time in the 1500's and became Protestant from then on Scotland was allied with the England and Ireland, this alliance saw the Union of the Crowns for Geo-Political interest of both countries. However Scotland has it's own parliament, currency, church, law system and armed forces. The two were deeply invovled with each others internal affaires and when the Scottish support Parliament against the for religious reasons in the British civil war it was the turning point. They also support the Glorious Revolution and colonial expansion. So it just was in Scotlands interest to be part of a United British Isles under the Parliamentary Monarchy system with a Church to protect Protestant faith, national courts and national parliament. This worked very will until the government started taking over the education system and Unionisation happened which destroyed the British ability to fight wars and ability to build things cheaper than the US or Germany who good massive government help in the case of Germany. But we saw what happened in the ship building race the UK won it easy.
     
  12. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It always seems as if most Scottish nationalists seem to have a few screws loose. I've only come across one who actually had some sense.
     
  13. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Pro-Consul

    Pro-Consul Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh god.
    The insanity of that move is incredible. Actually I was lost for words as I fled my office in horror upon reading this.
    Did they somehow alter the geography of the land like a poorly put together jigsaw puzzle and hope everything fits together?

    But no that's the first I've heard of that story and in fact I stopped even considering the feasibility of independence after I read Salmond's/SNP points of how Scotland would be formed.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see Peter is posting more conspiracy theory fodder stuff in the wrong forum again.
     

Share This Page