A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NATO

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NATO

Postby Santa-Klaus » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:17 am UTC

It’s very reassuring to know that in a time of increased Russian aggression and rising Chinese military ambitions that NATO saw it fit to appoint a former left-wing radical, former Norwegian Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg to lead the military alliance for the next four years. This is a man who used to admire Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, and who has admitted in newspaper interviews to throwing rocks at the American embassy in Oslo during an anti-war rally in the early 70’s.

The new Secretary General used to lead a labour Government in Norway that annually gave Nok 300 000 000 to the Palestinian Authorities who then used part of that money to pay the ‘salaries’ of convicted Palestinian terrorists imprisoned in Israeli jails for the most heinous terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

His Government was also the first and only western government to recognize Hamas, and invite a Hamas representative to the Norwegian parliament.
It’s also reassuring to know that the new Secretary General ran around like headless chicken in the hours after the terror attacks in Norway on July 22, 2011 and that he blatantly refused to refer to the incidents as a terrorist attack, because that might offend Muslims (this was before it was established that the terrorist was a non-Muslims).

It’s also reassuring to know that the government that he led at the time was heavily criticized in the official report for their incompetent response to the attacks and their glaring unpreparedness for such an attack. This really makes me feel comfortable that he will stay calm and guide the organization safely through any potential crises and wars during his tenure.

So congratulations to all citizens of NATO membership nations, your leaders have elected a complete buffoon to lead the military alliance that your countries rely upon for its protection.

Putin and the Chinese probably can’t believe their luck.

PS ’Jens Stoltenberg has been referred to as a leader who detests confrontations by those who know him, a very ‘beneficial trait’ for a military leader.

http://secretarygeneralofnato.blogspot.com

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Zamfir » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:56 am UTC

You realize that the secretary general of NATO is not the commander of NATO forces?

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Santa-Klaus » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:08 am UTC

Yes, I’m very aware of the difference, and yes I’m aware that there are those who might argue that the Secretary General of NATO is just a figurehead with no real power, and that may very well be the case.

However, by appointing a leftwing politician who is obsessed with dialogue and who is known for lacking steadfastness and decisiveness, two basic prerequisites of a pragmatic and resolute leader, NATO is sending out a very unambiguous message to the rest of the world that it is a pursuing a non-confrontational dialogue policy.

This is very worrying, considering the state of the world at the moment with a very assertive Russia, China and various Al Qaeda linked groups.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Kulantan » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:14 am UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:PS ’Jens Stoltenberg has been referred to as a leader who detests confrontations by those who know him, a very ‘beneficial trait’ for a military leader.

Why the quotation marks? Are you being sarcastic? Cause I think its a pretty nice quality in a military leader, which the Secretary General of NATO isn't.

Santa-Klaus wrote:Putin and the Chinese probably can’t believe their luck.

I like that its not "the Russians and the Chinese" or "Putin and Jinping". It gives the impression that while China would need an army, Putin is just going to ride into America on a bear and conquer it.

Santa-Klaus wrote:However, by appointing a leftwing politician who is obsessed with dialogue and who is known for lacking steadfastness and decisiveness, two basic prerequisites of a pragmatic and resolute leader, NATO is sending out a very unambiguous message to the rest of the world that it is a pursuing a non-confrontational dialogue policy.

You do realize the Secretary General of NATO is basically a diplomat who keeps all the signatories on the same page? Appointing a person who isn't interested in dialogue isn't a great move.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Santa-Klaus » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:24 am UTC

Yes, if you are living in a hippie la-la land those are probably good qualities to have, if however you are living in the real world where the law of the strongest is the order of the day, having a no-nonsense leader is preferable, that is unless you want the big bullies to walk all over you.

Obama is the perfect example in that regard, telling Putin that it was a very bad thing to invade Crimea and not doing much more than that.

A toothless tiger.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Derek » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:30 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Santa-Klaus wrote:
Santa-Klaus wrote:Putin and the Chinese probably can’t believe their luck.

I like that its not "the Russians and the Chinese" or "Putin and Jinping". It gives the impression that while China would need an army, Putin is just going to ride into America on a bear and conquer it.

Umm, yes?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Diadem » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:40 am UTC

The secretary-general of the NATO has foremost a diplomatic role. Like Kulatan says, he's there to keep all member states on the same page. That doesn't make him a figurehead. It's an important job. But he does not need military skills - it is not a military role. If NATO goes to war, he is not the one deciding where the armies get sent. Neither is the person who decides if the armies get sent - that's a political decision made by the heads of government of the individual NATO members.

The secretary-general's job is to lobby with countries on behalf of NATO. Get them to cooperate better, get them to agree on a joint policy, etc. Do you have any reason to think this guy may be bad at that job?

Also, he won't take over until October 1st. By then the Ukrainian crisis will most likely have been resolved (or escalated to the point where diplomacy is not longer done with words).

Also, this is what wikipedia has to say on the guy:
Stoltenberg has been described as a cautious politician belonging to the right wing of social democracy.[5] In foreign policy, Stoltenberg has been noted as a strong proponent of Norwegian membership of the European Union. In security policy, he favours both increased military spending and dialogue.[6]

Hardly sounds like a radical left-wing politician. Besides Norway is one of the richest and all around best organized countries in the world, so he can't have been doing such a terrible job.

*edit*
Santa-Klaus wrote:Obama is the perfect example in that regard, telling Putin that it was a very bad thing to invade Crimea and not doing much more than that.

So what should he have done? Nuke Moscow?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby yurell » Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:58 am UTC

I just looked him up on Wikipedia out of curiosity, and I think it's more than a bit deliberately misleading to describe him as a "left-wing radical", when he's been on the right-side of politics ever since holding actual power.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby eSOANEM » Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:00 am UTC

Also, i'm not sure why him being left wing would be relevant to his ability to do the job in the first place.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Zamfir » Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:42 am UTC


Yes, if you are living in a hippie la-la land those are good qualities to have, if however you are living in the real world where the law of the strongest is the order of the day, having a no-nonsense leader is preferable, that is unless you want the big bullies to walk all over you.


Thing is, this doesn't just apply to Russians. There is not much point in NATO for NATO members, if it is just American bullying instead of Russian bullying.

That's even true for the US itself,which doesn't seem very interested in running an occupation of Western Europe, even if they could perhaps pull that off.

So, NATO has to reflect the interest and priorities of a range of members. For short run military decisions, it has a direct hierarchy with an American general at the top. But its policy structure cannot be organized on similar lines. It has to be a mushy, diplomacy-oriented process with all countries having some input.The secretary-general is not the leader of that process, it's a facilitating role.

Think of the alternatives: NATO policy gets a single strong leader who can make offensive decisions like 'we will send troops to the Crimea'. Option one: this is an American. Now think of the Iraq war, and what it would have done to NATO if its Strong Leader had just ordered NATO into that war. No more NATO.

Option two: the Strong Leader is not American. Better yet, let's just not waste time on option two.

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Santa-Klaus » Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:56 am UTC

That may be the case, but then again pretty much every choice one makes here in life sends out a signal, a signal that others then interprets and act on accordingly. Sometimes those signals are very unequivocal and other times they are more diffuse and vague.

Individuals who send out mixed signals or who aren’t sufficiently firm in their dealings with others, and especially within strict hierarchical system are often viewed as indecisive and weak and they are more likely to be pushed around than those who stand firm. Bullies are experts at seeking out such behaviour and they pounce upon it instantly. One brilliant example that comes to my mind is the US prison system where stronger inmates dominate their weaker co-inhabitants.

One of the things that mentally weak individuals do is to send out an unmistakable signal that they are a ripe for the picking. It’s a primal instinct and a characteristic that humans pick up on straight away, and I might add, a trait that we share with animals. Weak persons are very quickly sniffed out and treated accordingly.

To appoint a person such as Jens Stoltenberg, who is a proven weak and indecisive person, not to mention blatantly incompetent, which by the way is a characterization congruent with the official assessment of his leadership in the official report about the terror attack in Norway, is not a wise move. It sends out a signal to the rest of the world that NATO holds such values in high esteem.

The wolf pack out there knows it and they know that they can get away with behaviour that they normally wouldn’t be able to get away with if a more resolute and no-nonsense person had been at the helm, and yes I know that the Secretary General is not the commander in chief, but it’s naive to believe that it is completely irrelevant who is put in that role.

The secretary General of NATO is the organization’s face to the rest of the world, and to claim that this role has no bearing on the perception of the organization is laughable.

One more thing about Putin and the invasion of Crimea;

Who’s to say that Putin would have done the same thing if the US had a strong president, and not the indecisive buffoon that’s in the white house at the moment? Regardless of what the answer is, it’s pretty naive to dismiss that this pretty significant detail wasn’t factored into Putin’s equation before he decided to push ahead and invade.

And last but not least, have a look at Jens Stoltenberg’s track record, which can be found on the link that I provided in the initial post, and don’t swallow the official presentation which has been given the ‘Pravda treatment’ on Wikipedia.

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1721
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Jplus » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:02 am UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:Yes, if you are living in a hippie la-la land those are probably good qualities to have, if however you are living in the real world where the law of the strongest is the order of the day, having a no-nonsense leader is preferable, that is unless you want the big bullies to walk all over you.

I'm glad you're not a world leader.

(Tangent on statements about leftness: you may be interested to know that both the Russian and the Chinese governments are nowadays pretty far to the right, economically speaking. The Chinese government is still officially "communist", but in practice it's just extremely authoritarian. We're not living in a "liberals vs. communists" world anymore. Also, I think it's pretty short-sighted to equate everything that might have a hint of leftness to it with Pure Evil™.)
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:06 am UTC

I do not really know this fellow, is there any particular evidence that he is a weak leader? Examples relating to him, rather than extrapolated from party membership, etc would be ideal.

The "obama/nukes" comment seems like hyperbole, though. There is a wide range of policies possible short of nuclear war, and the stance that Obama should have done more does not imply that nukes suddenly have to be used.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby yurell » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:16 am UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:And last but not least, have a look at Jens Stoltenberg’s track record, which can be found on the link that I provided in the initial post, and don’t swallow the official presentation which has been given the ‘Pravda treatment’ on Wikipedia.


None of that suggests he was left-wing when he had any real power; the only examples they can offer are from 30-40 years ago (not that it really matters, anyway, as has already been pointed out). Colour me unconvinced, especially since it's a blog by an unknown blogger with no verification method and no reason for me to expect any impartiality.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Santa-Klaus » Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:00 am UTC

Quote;

"None of that suggests he was left-wing when he had any real power; the only examples they can offer are from 30-40 years ago (not that it really matters, anyway, as has already been pointed out). Colour me unconvinced, especially since it's a blog by an unknown blogger with no verification method and no reason for me to expect any impartiality."

All the claims in the article are backed up by links, so verifying the veracity of the content should be fairly straight forward with google translate.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby curtis95112 » Tue Apr 15, 2014 5:40 am UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:That may be the case, but then again pretty much every choice one makes here in life sends out a signal, a signal that others then interprets and act on accordingly. Sometimes those signals are very unequivocal and other times they are more diffuse and vague.

Individuals who send out mixed signals or who aren’t sufficiently firm in their dealings with others, and especially within strict hierarchical system are often viewed as indecisive and weak and they are more likely to be pushed around than those who stand firm. Bullies are experts at seeking out such behaviour and they pounce upon it instantly. One brilliant example that comes to my mind is the US prison system where stronger inmates dominate their weaker co-inhabitants.

One of the things that mentally weak individuals do is to send out an unmistakable signal that they are a ripe for the picking. It’s a primal instinct and a characteristic that humans pick up on straight away, and I might add, a trait that we share with animals. Weak persons are very quickly sniffed out and treated accordingly.



Cautious!=Mentally weak.

You are suggesting that a pushover somehow politicked his way up to prime minister three times, and went on to become the Secretary-General of NATO. Observe that these are highly desired positions and that there are many ruthless politicians who want these jobs.

Let me quote something a wise person once said.

Weak persons are very quickly sniffed out and treated accordingly.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Santa-Klaus » Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:07 am UTC

Quote;

"Cautious = mentally weak".

No, Stoltenberg = mentally weak.

He was appointed due to massive lobbying by the Norwegians. The only reason he ever made it in politics is because he comes from an influetial political family, kind of like George W Bush. He's probably made the same amount of blunders too.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Diadem » Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:43 am UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:One more thing about Putin and the invasion of Crimea;

Who’s to say that Putin would have done the same thing if the US had a strong president, and not the indecisive buffoon that’s in the white house at the moment? Regardless of what the answer is, it’s pretty naive to dismiss that this pretty significant detail wasn’t factored into Putin’s equation before he decided to push ahead and invade.

So Putin would magically never have invaded Crimea if Bush had been in the white house? C'mon, even you must realize what a ridiculously cheap cop-out that is.

Answer the damn question: What should Obama have done differently after Russia invaded Crimea?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Santa-Klaus » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:24 am UTC

Quote;

"Answer the damn question: What should Obama have done differently after Russia invaded Crimea?"

How about learning some manners?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Diadem » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:35 am UTC

Another cop-out. Typical.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:54 am UTC

What's with the fake quotes that aren't quotes? You know there's a reply with quote button next to each person's post. That way you get their exact words rather than exact opposite (cf. "Cautious = mentally weak" vs "Cautious!=Mentally weak.", the ! is very important because != is fairly commonly used for "does not equal").
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:27 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
Santa-Klaus wrote:One more thing about Putin and the invasion of Crimea;

Who’s to say that Putin would have done the same thing if the US had a strong president, and not the indecisive buffoon that’s in the white house at the moment? Regardless of what the answer is, it’s pretty naive to dismiss that this pretty significant detail wasn’t factored into Putin’s equation before he decided to push ahead and invade.

So Putin would magically never have invaded Crimea if Bush had been in the white house? C'mon, even you must realize what a ridiculously cheap cop-out that is.

Answer the damn question: What should Obama have done differently after Russia invaded Crimea?


Well, I'm between ya'll here. I think a strong presidency helps. However, I don't think I'd hold Bush up as the model here. Remember that lovely Bush quote about looking into Putin's soul?

As for what Obama should have done, well, after is always a bit late. Keep in mind that Obama's reset of relations with Russia essentially amounted to a cancelling of punishments for Russia's previous military adventures. That would be an excellent concrete example of a way that Obama chose a less firm reaction to military aggression.

That said, this is something of a side conversation. What Obama should or should not have done does not reflect directly on this fellow's qualifications or lack thereof. Still waiting on a specific example of why this Stolenberg fellow is a poor choice. Has he made any specific errors in policy, etc you can point at?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:38 pm UTC

Didn't Putin also steal chunks of countries while Bush was President? That's how Americans learned that Georgia wasn't just another state.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Diadem » Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:08 pm UTC

I also seem to recall this rather minor incident happening during the Bush administration.

This is probably harder to see for Americans than for non-Americans, but the fact of the matter is that US foreign policy changes surprisingly little between administrations. The tone changes a bit, but the actual policy is always surprisingly consistent. Secure oil, protect their sphere of influence against other major powers, pay enough lip service to morals and international law to appease the public.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:48 pm UTC

Yup. Those are excellent reasons not to consider him particularly strong. Yes, he made lots of angry words AFTER Sept 11th. Which is appropriate, I suppose, but is not so useful at preventing problems.

People tend to see mostly the wars that were not prevented. The biggest successes of foreign policy often are never noticed.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:48 pm UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:Quote;

"Answer the damn question: What should Obama have done differently after Russia invaded Crimea?"

How about learning some manners?
It's a little rude to tell someone to learn some manners in order to avoid a question.
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Azrael » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:28 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
Santa-Klaus wrote:How about learning some manners?
It's a little rude to ...
Arguing tone like he was isn't really rude. But it is a well known evasion and derailment tactic. And it can be a logical fallacy.

So ... yeah.

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Wnderer » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:04 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Santa-Klaus wrote:One more thing about Putin and the invasion of Crimea;

Who’s to say that Putin would have done the same thing if the US had a strong president, and not the indecisive buffoon that’s in the white house at the moment? Regardless of what the answer is, it’s pretty naive to dismiss that this pretty significant detail wasn’t factored into Putin’s equation before he decided to push ahead and invade.

So Putin would magically never have invaded Crimea if Bush had been in the white house? C'mon, even you must realize what a ridiculously cheap cop-out that is.

Answer the damn question: What should Obama have done differently after Russia invaded Crimea?


It's about how Obama played his hand before the crisis.

You really don't remember this.

140305_lowry_russia_reset_ap.jpg


or this

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... o-1-enemy/
Said Romney: "This is without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe. They fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed."

Blitzer asked Romney if he thought Russia is a bigger foe than Iran, China or North Korea.

"I'm saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world's worst actors," Romney said. "Of course the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran, and a nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough. But when these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them ... who is it that always stands up with the world's worst actors? It's always Russia, typically with China alongside. And so in terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that's on the Security Council that has the heft of the Security Council, and is of course is a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe."

The op-ed

Romney followed that interview a day later with an op-ed in Foreign Policy magazine.

In that piece, he never used the word "enemy" or "foe" to describe Russia. But he did depict it as an adversary and referred to its "intransigence."

"Without extracting meaningful concessions from Russia, (Obama) abandoned our missile defense sites in Poland. He granted Russia new limits on our nuclear arsenal. He capitulated to Russia's demand that a United Nations resolution on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program exclude crippling sanctions," Romney wrote. "Moscow has rewarded these gifts with nothing but obstructionism at the United Nations on a whole raft of issues. It has continued to arm the regime of Syria's vicious dictator and blocked multilateral efforts to stop the ongoing carnage there. Across the board, it has been a thorn in our side on questions vital to America's national security. For three years, the sum total of President Obama's policy toward Russia has been: ‘We give, Russia gets.’"

Later, on a multi-nation trip in July designed to beef up his foreign policy credentials, Romney condemned Russia as a "country where the desire to be free is met with brutal oppression."


To which Obama responded

"Gov. Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida. You said Russia ... the 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years," Obama said.


Ya right. Romney was out of touch.

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Santa-Klaus » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:15 am UTC

Regarding the question as to why Mr. Stoltenberg is a weak leader;

He’s a weak leader because he shies away from confrontations, in other words he doesn’t feel comfortable dealing with assertive individuals who speak their minds. This has been pointed out by several people, most notably by two of his own ‘allies’, former Labour union boss, Liv Gerd Valla and former Government minister for the Norwegian Labour Party, Karita Bekkemellem, who have publicly characterized him in such terms and described him as a person who detests confrontations.

Here’s a Norwegian newspaper article that collaborates this claim (in Norwegian – it can however easily be Google translated).

http://www.nrk.no/norge/ny-bok-om-stoltenberg-1.7866872

I might add that I have followed his career for a long time, and his reluctance to stand up for himself becomes especially obvious during live TV debates where he backs off and loses his composure whenever people start pushing him too hard.

He’s a weak leader because he over delegates responsibilities and then throws people under the bus when they’re criticized for following his instructions, as was the case in the aftermath of the 22/7 terror attack in Norway when he let his good friend Øystein Mæland, who at the time was the head of the National Police Directorate, take the full responsibility for the bungled police response, while Stoltenberg himself who was ultimate responsible for the fiasco flatly rejected to step down. Stoltenberg also has a nasty habit of staying away from the spotlight whenever something goes wrong, and instead leaves it up to others to deal with the situation; this is clearly not the behaviour that one expects from a good leader.

He’s also a weak leader in the sense that he not very pragmatic, which is quite obvious in Norway where his policies have resulted in a terrible mess such as, rampant out of control crime, asylum and immigration policies that are a complete joke, infrastructure and hospitals that are totally unequipped to deal with the rising population, which again is a direct result of Stoltenberg’s open door policies. So no, I don’t think NATO has made a very wise decision. I’m sure there are other considerations factored into the equation and I’m sure that NATO have weighed the pros and cons up against each other, but I think they have made a terrible mistake which they will pay dearly for in the future.

And regarding my earlier comment about Putin and Crimea, there is really no need for any further explanations, the quote highlighted by Diadem is pretty much self-explanatory. Nor do I like discussing with people who fail to display basic civility and who have to rely on straw man arguments to make their case.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:48 am UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:Regarding the question as to why Mr. Stoltenberg is a weak leader;

He’s a weak leader because he shies away from confrontations, in other words he doesn’t feel comfortable dealing with assertive individuals who speak their minds. This has been pointed out by several people, most notably by two of his own ‘allies’, former Labour union boss, Liv Gerd Valla and former Government minister for the Norwegian Labour Party, Karita Bekkemellem, who have publicly characterized him in such terms and described him as a person who detests confrontations.

Here’s a Norwegian newspaper article that collaborates this claim (in Norwegian – it can however easily be Google translated).

http://www.nrk.no/norge/ny-bok-om-stoltenberg-1.7866872


Surveying it, it says that they have claimed this, yes, bu, it describes his approach as analytic. As going for the right thing, even if it isn't tactically optimal That's...a perfectly fine approach. One does not need to thrive on confrontation to lead. It says he may be out of touch on the nuances of his party going ons. *shrug* That's not necessarily something that will hinder him here, and being detail oriented can be a good thing.

I mean, I don't have any particular reason to love the guy, but neither do I have any strong reason to worry about him. Nobody is perfect, after all. Now, I don't know the detailed nuances of Norwegian politics, of course, but I wouldn't discard him as a military leader on this basis. No doubt others will have the domain knowledge he lacks, and being detail oriented can be excellent in the military provided one does not tip into the black hole of micromanagement.

He’s a weak leader because he over delegates responsibilities and then throws people under the bus when they’re criticized for following his instructions, as was the case in the aftermath of the 22/7 terror attack in Norway when he let his good friend Øystein Mæland, who at the time was the head of the National Police Directorate, take the full responsibility for the bungled police response, while Stoltenberg himself who was ultimate responsible for the fiasco flatly rejected to step down. Stoltenberg also has a nasty habit of staying away from the spotlight whenever something goes wrong, and instead leaves it up to others to deal with the situation; this is clearly not the behaviour that one expects from a good leader.


If he'd fallen on his sword then, no doubt he would not be a contender now. That sounds like...typical political games. Maybe I'm jaded here, but the Brevik killings were something of a crazy anomaly. It is always popular in the aftermath to look back on black swan events like that, and find troublesome precursors...but the other way around is vastly harder. Extremely few people, even troubled people, do such things. If you can stop them, excellent...but there is a significant luck element in such things happening or not on any given politicians watch.

Did you have some other person in mind for the post that was clearly a better choice? Obviously, such things are very politicized, but still...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Thesh » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:15 am UTC

Wnderer wrote:Ya right. Romney was out of touch.


At what point does Russia become a threat to the US or anywhere other than former Eastern Bloc countries? Besides a bit of dick waving, Russia isn't much of a threat. Putin may be an asshole, but he's not stupid, and he is not going to start WWIII. Now, if they were doing things like overthrowing governments in South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, then they might be considered a major threat to the world.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:21 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
Wnderer wrote:Ya right. Romney was out of touch.


At what point does Russia become a threat to the US or anywhere other than former Eastern Bloc countries? Besides a bit of dick waving, Russia isn't much of a threat. Putin may be an asshole, but he's not stupid, and he is not going to start WWIII. Now, if they were doing things like overthrowing governments in South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, then they might be considered a major threat to the world.


Geopolitical threat? Sure. American interests extend beyond our borders. Quite a bit so. Geopolitics centers around turf. Russia has a lot more control and influence there than turf.

Romney was entirely correct. On that issue.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Diadem » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:41 am UTC

I think Americans (and many non-Americans) vastly overestimate the amount of fucks Putin gives about who is in the White House, or what they think about his actions.

Putin's agenda is the restoration of the Russian empire. As such he cares what people and governments in former soviet countries think. He probably also cares about the EU thinks, because the EU is the main competition for influence in Eastern Europe, and also the most important trade partner. He can't restore the Russian empire if he crashes and burns its economy. I'm pretty sure he cares lot lot less about opinions in Brussel or Berlin then about opinions in Kiev or Minsk though. But Washington? The fact of the matter is that America just isn't important enough for Russia.

I mean, yeah, obviously Washington could make itself important if it wanted too. It could send troops into the region, threaten nuclear annihilation, the whole shebang. But this is never going to happen, because the 'not important enough to care' relationship is mutual. This is also something Putin knows of course. And something that would have been the same no matter which president is in the white house.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Thirty-one
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Thirty-one » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:40 am UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:He’s also a weak leader in the sense that he not very pragmatic, which is quite obvious in Norway where his policies have resulted in a terrible mess such as, rampant out of control crime, asylum and immigration policies that are a complete joke, infrastructure and hospitals that are totally unequipped to deal with the rising population, which again is a direct result of Stoltenberg’s open door policies.


Ah, yes, the famed rampant and out of control crime of Norway.

As for the blame for the clusterfuck of a response to the Breivik attacks, are you suggesting it would have been any other way if they'd have happened in 2004, as an example?
Annoyed, getting worked up or bored by the post above? Help is here.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:10 pm UTC

Thirty-one wrote:
Santa-Klaus wrote:He’s also a weak leader in the sense that he not very pragmatic, which is quite obvious in Norway where his policies have resulted in a terrible mess such as, rampant out of control crime, asylum and immigration policies that are a complete joke, infrastructure and hospitals that are totally unequipped to deal with the rising population, which again is a direct result of Stoltenberg’s open door policies.
Ah, yes, the famed rampant and out of control crime of Norway.
You hurt my sides from laughing to hard. That wasn't very nice of you!
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Santa-Klaus
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:46 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Santa-Klaus » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:48 am UTC

That the police response would have been just as poor if the attack had occurred in 2004 is completely irrelevant. The attack occurred in 2011 and it occurred on Stoltenberg’s watch, thus he had the ultimate responsibility for the completely incompetent response to the attack. At the time of the attack, July 2011, Stoltenberg had been prime minister for more than 6 years, which is more than enough time to fix any inadequacies in the various departments responsible for dealing with such scenarios (inadequacies which he had been made abundantly aware of ever since he took office).

Yet Stoltenberg chose to do nothing. He was even incapable of making the simple decision to have concrete bollards installed in front of the entrance to the most important building in Norway which would have prevented ABB from parking his van right next to it (a fact btw which had been brought to his attention several years before the attack occurred). Now, how’s that for a pragmatic leader?

What’s even worse is the fact that ABB actually made a phone call to the receptionist at the government building in March 2011, just months before the attack occurred and insisted on being put through to Stoltenberg’s office. In a calm and refined voice ABB heavily criticized several leading politicians and informed the receptionist that he intended to shoot and kill young AUF members on Utoya Island (where the mass shooting eventually took place).
The receptionist made a note of the caller’s name and phone number, and informed her immediate superior, yet no one took it upon themselves to investigate that particular phone call or attempted to track down the caller. It was only brought to the attention of the media after the attack occurred.

What I’m about to say now might be very hard to swallow, but the Government led by Stoltenberg actually decided to investigate this incident themselves and chose not to let the police look into it!!

How very convenient, the government gets to bury their own mistakes.

Articles describing the incidents can be found here (in Norwegian – can easily be Google translated)

http://www.nrk.no/norge/truet-regjering ... -1.7942675

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/terr ... /10076943/

I would also like to add that having to witness the official reaction to the attack is probably the most nauseating experience that I’ve ever had endure in my adult life. Instead of placing the responsibility squarely where it belonged, the Norwegian MSM/leading politicians and various social commentators decided to protect Stoltenberg and instead hound and persecute an innocent blogger (Fjordman) simply because Fjordman had been included (unbeknownst to himself) in the terrorist’s manifest.

But worst of it all is the fact that Stoltenberg himself, the man responsible for the incompetent handling of the attack, decided to join the fray and criticized Fjordman in his new year’s speech in December 2011 (Stoltenberg didn’t mention Fjordman by name, but it was abundantly clear who he was talking about). This is the same Stoltenberg who had the nerve to inform the Norwegian public in the days following the attack that the aim of the investigation was not to look for any scapegoats!

How convenient for Stoltenberg......

Instead of manning up and taking the responsibility for his own incompetence, Stoltenberg has now been awarded with a prestigious new job as the new Sec Gen of NATO, an organization whose job it is to maintain security and peace in Europe. How bloody ironic is that, the guy who is proven completely incompetent in that regard gets to head one of the organizations which is given the task (amongst other things) of preventing terrorist attacks in Europe!

User avatar
Thirty-one
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Thirty-one » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:19 am UTC

Santa-Klaus wrote:That the police response would have been just as poor if the attack had occurred in 2004 is completely irrelevant. The attack occurred in 2011 and it occurred on Stoltenberg’s watch, thus he had the ultimate responsibility for the completely incompetent response to the attack. At the time of the attack, July 2011, Stoltenberg had been prime minister for more than 6 years, which is more than enough time to fix any inadequacies in the various departments responsible for dealing with such scenarios (inadequacies which he had been made abundantly aware of ever since he took office).


It's relevant because politicians get their power from the people. The people in Norway generally seem happy about not living in a lock-down state, and having their politicians walk among them, with no armed guards most of the time. It's a case of the country's mentality as a non-target, more than anything.

The receptionist made a note of the caller’s name and phone number, and informed her immediate superior, yet no one took it upon themselves to investigate that particular phone call or attempted to track down the caller. It was only brought to the attention of the media after the attack occurred.


So the receptionist's boss doesn't bring it to his higher ups and this is a failing of Stoltenberg? Jensemann, what will we do with you? Why do you keep letting us down?

I would also like to add that having to witness the official reaction to the attack is probably the most nauseating experience that I’ve ever had endure in my adult life. Instead of placing the responsibility squarely where it belonged, the Norwegian MSM/leading politicians and various social commentators decided to protect Stoltenberg and instead hound and persecute an innocent blogger (Fjordman) simply because Fjordman had been included (unbeknownst to himself) in the terrorist’s manifest.


Innocent and pure Peder became a target because his hateful rhetoric formed the basis of ABB's attack. Calling out your elected government as traitors helps making them seem like legit targets, so that's frowned upon, it turns out.
I'm sure them being elected has nothing to do with the people voting for them though, and is all down to the foul play of the "MSM".


Instead of manning up and taking the responsibility for his own incompetence, Stoltenberg has now been awarded with a prestigious new job as the new Sec Gen of NATO, an organization whose job it is to maintain security and peace in Europe. How bloody ironic is that, the guy who is proven completely incompetent in that regard gets to head one of the organizations which is given the task (amongst other things) of preventing terrorist attacks in Europe!


You seem to still be ignoring what his actual job as the new sec gen of NATO will be, though people posted that earlier in the thread. The sec gen of NATO's chief responsibility is not to mind read the boss of a receptionist, apparently. Lucky escape for NATO, I think we can both agree. Or should I say.. how convenient..

Btw, you forgot to use "sheeple". Points deducted.
Annoyed, getting worked up or bored by the post above? Help is here.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby elasto » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:48 am UTC

Also note how the 'NATO leader' had no role in the deal just brokered between Russian, Ukraine, the US and Europe; That was directly managed by the various foreign ministers and leaders involved. The same would be true if Russia invaded the Ukraine or WWIII itself broke out.

Even if everything you said was valid, I'm sorry but this guy's role is nothing like as important as you make it out to be. It's just a dry middle-management position.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Diadem » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:40 pm UTC

Secretary-General of NATO is hardly a job for political high fliers anyway. It's one of those jobs that politicians get sent to so they get a face-saving end of their career. The previous secretary general was Jaap de Hoop Scheffer from my own country. He was a pretty bland, uninspiring politician. He became party leader of one of our major parties while they were in the opposition, and they performed quite poorly under him. So his leadership came under fire, and he chose to resign gracefully instead of going down fighting. He got rewarded for that with a post of minister of foreign affairs a few years later when his party won the elections. His main contribution to that post was bringing us into the Iraq war. Bush was obviously quite content with him being a good lapdog, so when his party lost the next elections and his political career was over, they supported him for the job of Secretary General.

Hardly an inspiring story. And other secretary generals aren't fundamentally different I think. At least not recent ones.

The appointment is entirely political. The Netherlands got the job because we are an uncontroversial choice - popular or at least not unpopular with everybody, with no risk of overshadowing others in the alliance. Plus the US wanted to reward the few European countries that supported the Iraq war (and our support was small enough that it didn't majorly piss of the French). So they needed a Dutch politician, but obviously no one who is currently active in politicians wants such a dead end job. So it's given to someone whose career is already over, and who is still owned a few favours.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: A former leftwing radical has been appointed to lead NAT

Postby Ormurinn » Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:20 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Hardly an inspiring story. And other secretary generals aren't fundamentally different I think. At least not recent ones.



I remember being pretty impressed by his predecessor. He was a pretty muscular Gen.Sec, not afraid to critiscise member states or advocate for defense spending. I believe he also contributed to keeping ground forces out of Libya.

I was grateful for his contribution in opposing a pan-EU armed forces too.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests