Afghanistan Koran Protest Leaves At Least 8 Dead At U.N. Compound

[Peter Dow]

How to get Ban Ki-moon out and Condi in

The UN Secretary General must be nominated by the UN Security Council.

Every country has a right to change its mind and change its vote. None of us signed away our freedom to Ban Ki-moon.

We are not now all slaves of Ban Ki-moon with no right to reject our imposed master.

Every permanent member of the security council - the USA, GB, France, Russia & China has a veto over the nomination of the UN Secretary general - and so if any of them change their mind about the incumbent UN Secretary General and want him out, their veto is available to withdraw the nomination of the Security Council.



I would say the way to go would be to take advantage of the UN head quarters being in New York.

The UN is administered from 5 main buildings in the world - New York, Geneva, Vienna, The Hague and Nairobi.

• The US President should take short-term control of UN HQ in New York, dismissing Ban Ki-moon.
• The US President should appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (New York)
• The Swiss government could also appoint Cond as acting UN Secretary General (Geneva)
• The Austrian government could also appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary (Vienna)
• The Dutch government could appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (The Hague)
• The Kenyan government could appoint Condi as acting UN Secretary General (Nairobi)
• Condi should appoint appropriate representatives from countries with dictatorships - so for example, the UN representative for Burma, (oops, "Myanmar" ) , would be Aung San Suu Kyi or her representative in New York, the UN representative for Libya would be the rebel leaders in Benghazi, new representatives for the Arab countries representing the "Arab Spring" revolutions and so on.
• The new UN should then hopefully confirm Condi as permanent UN Secretary General.

In other words, kick out the dictatorships and make the UN what it is supposed to be - an organisation of nations, rather than an organisation of governments some of whom oppress their own nations.

To start the process the US in particular needs to come to its senses about Condi and stop pretending that having her out of power is in some way "a good thing".

 

[High_Gravity]

Peter you are spot on about everything you posted, the UN is a useless organization and I wouldn't be caught dead in one of their "bases" overseas, the UN headquarters is probably easier to over run than the girl scouts.

 

[High_Gravity]

As far as the security at UN compounds, if finding competent soldiers is so hard for them why not hire out? there is a shitload of civilian contractors in Afghanistan right now, the US Military is stretched thin so I don't want them responsible for guarding UN Compounds.

 

[Peter Dow]

Peter you are spot on about everything you posted,

Thanks HG. I often have "spot-on" scathing criticism of the rotten leadership we suffer from but my outspokenness rarely gets me any thanks and more often gets me banned from places here in Aberdeen and from internet forums too.

"Everything" I posted? So you agreed with my dig at the King of Norway's Nobel peace prize too? You know Obama got that, right?

Condi doesn't want to "chirp" at Obama but I don't see why not. I mean, the elected President of the United States (Obama) bowing to the Saudi King - that is just plain wrong! Perhaps, that is as bad as President Bush holding hands with the Saudi King.

the UN is a useless organization

Under Ban Ki-moon the security of this UN compound was pretty useless but I am not saying there is no use ever for an improved UN organisation. I have discussed how to improve the UN organisation.

The thing is, HG, the people of the world can't afford to have a useless UN. We actually need the UN to be doing a good job. There is plenty for the UN to do. There are plenty of countries, like Afghanistan, whose national governments are very weak and they need the UN to back them up, but doing so competently, not incompetently as now under Ban Ki-moon.

So I don't think writing the whole UN off is the way to go. There is much in the principles of the UN which is worth building upon and trying to make work as it should.

I think we need to see how we can fix the UN, starting with replacing Ban Ki-moon with someone a lot better, such as Condi.

and I wouldn't be caught dead in one of their "bases" overseas,

It doesn't take rocket science to build a secure base. This should be basic military engineering but it looks like they got a "cowboy builder" in to build it.

This UN compound had a "watch tower" which looked like it was made out of plywood and one of the Afghan mob climbed onto the compound wall and simply pushed the watch tower over!

the UN headquarters is probably easier to over run than the girl scouts.

Hmm. The UN HQ is where Ban Ki-moon and all the representative of the rotten regimes hang out. The dictators of the world want an ineffectual UN abroad but they want their own representatives safety assured.

I bet the UN HQ base in New York, with UN security guards, backed up by NYPD is probably one of the safest UN bases anywhere. Safe enough for rotten dictators like Gaddafi and Mugabe to visit anyway.

The Taliban could certainly host an Al Qaeda training camp that could train for an assault on the UN HQ in New York. They have attacked New York before as we know.

So I don't say the UN HQ is 100% safe but for Ban Ki-moon, the safety of the people who appointed him and who work in the UN HQ is likely to be his priority. Ban Ki-moon wants to save his own ass - it is other people's ass in Afghanistan he is not so good at saving.

There are scouts in Afghanistan but I am not sure whether they are targeted by the Taliban. I would not put it past the Taliban to target the scouts, especially if they were educating girls on how to look after themselves.

My point would be we should not ask civilian scouts to do the military job of defending the UN workers and their bases.

 

[Peter Dow]

As far as the security at UN compounds, if finding competent soldiers is so hard for them why not hire out? there is a shitload of civilian contractors in Afghanistan right now,

The 4 Gurkhas who were killed were competent soldiers, at least at the non-commissioned level. The Gurkhas are well trained soldiers, who know how to fight, are good fighters when they are ordered to fight.

It is not hard to hire more Gurkhas or other competent soldiers if you have the money to spend and the willingness to spend it on hiring more professional soldiers. Clearly the UN didn't do it, didn't want to do, didn't think they needed to do it. Fools!

Gurkha who repelled Taliban attack gets bravery medal

Acting Sgt Pun's father and grandfather were both Gurkhas too

A Gurkha who single-handedly fought off an attack by at least a dozen Taliban insurgents has been awarded Britain's second highest medal for bravery.

Acting Sergeant Dipprasad Pun used up all of his ammunition and resorted to using his machine gun tripod to repel the attack in Afghanistan in September.

The Gurkhas also follow orders so when they were ordered by the UN senior staff not to open fire on "demonstrators" and there is confusion in the UN senior staff as to who is a demonstrator and who is an attacker, the Gurkhas delayed opening fire. They were badly led at the senior officer level, specifically they were badly led by the Norwegian military attache who was the senior military officer at the compound. Like I said, she should have ordered everyone out on the first day she inspected the compound and found out it was not well constructed nor sufficiently professionally defended.

Man for man, Gurkhas might be smaller than your average US marine but they are very good fighters.

As well there were not enough Gurkhas hired in the first place. 4 only against a one thousand strong mob armed with AK47s taken from the police. Gurkhas are good but they should not be expected to be that good, not if they are told not to open fire first anyway.

If it had been 12 Gurkhas with orders to shoot-first-ask-questions-later to stop an attacking mob, my money would have been on the Gurkhas.

the US Military is stretched thin so I don't want them responsible for guarding UN Compounds.

It would also have been foolish of the UN to choose to live in such a poorly constructed compound even if they had hired more troops. They needed more troops and they also needed a base or compound with a more secure defence architecture. They needed a fort not a walk-in centre.

What I suggested as a first secure move would be to embed the UN base within an existing NATO-ISAF base in the area in and around Mazar-i-Sharif, where 500 Swedish troops and 150 Finnish troops are already based.

The Scandinavian-staffed NATO-ISAF base was I guess what was meant in the report that the UN staff under siege telephoned a nearby base in the desperate hope that they would be rescued by a swift-reaction force.

So in the first instance, the UN workers should have found a spot inside the ISAF base and been protected by 650 Swedish and Finnish troops where they would have been a lot safer.

US troops, as I am sure you know HG, are in Afghanistan serving with NATO-ISAF as well but the US forces were not nearby on this occasion, being based elsewhere in Afghanistan, although if any military expert, from any country, had told the UN workers they were sitting in a death trap that would have been good advice.

The mission which is the most that could ever be expected from the Afghan civil police in circumstances of a well-defended UN or NATO-ISAF base would be to stop the mob attacking the base because if the Afghan police didn't stop the mob then the mob would be wiped out by the military professionals who should be guarding the base.

In other words, the Afghan police might shoot a few Afghans in the mob to deter the rest of the mob to avoid what comes next if they don't - the UN or NATO-ISAF forces being required to kill as many hundreds in a mob as it takes to stop the mob - but no-one should depend on the Afghan police shooting hundreds in an Afghan mob just to save the lives of a few foreigners.

 

[High_Gravity]

Peter you are spot on about everything you posted,

Thanks HG. I often have "spot-on" scathing criticism of the rotten leadership we suffer from but my outspokenness rarely gets me any thanks and more often gets me banned from places here in Aberdeen and from internet forums too.

"Everything" I posted? So you agreed with my dig at the King of Norway's Nobel peace prize too? You know Obama got that, right?

Condi doesn't want to "chirp" at Obama but I don't see why not. I mean, the elected President of the United States (Obama) bowing to the Saudi King - that is just plain wrong! Perhaps, that is as bad as President Bush holding hands with the Saudi King.

the UN is a useless organization

Under Ban Ki-moon the security of this UN compound was pretty useless but I am not saying there is no use ever for an improved UN organisation. I have discussed how to improve the UN organisation.

The thing is, HG, the people of the world can't afford to have a useless UN. We actually need the UN to be doing a good job. There is plenty for the UN to do. There are plenty of countries, like Afghanistan, whose national governments are very weak and they need the UN to back them up, but doing so competently, not incompetently as now under Ban Ki-moon.

So I don't think writing the whole UN off is the way to go. There is much in the principles of the UN which is worth building upon and trying to make work as it should.

I think we need to see how we can fix the UN, starting with replacing Ban Ki-moon with someone a lot better, such as Condi.

and I wouldn't be caught dead in one of their "bases" overseas,

It doesn't take rocket science to build a secure base. This should be basic military engineering but it looks like they got a "cowboy builder" in to build it.

This UN compound had a "watch tower" which looked like it was made out of plywood and one of the Afghan mob climbed onto the compound wall and simply pushed the watch tower over!

the UN headquarters is probably easier to over run than the girl scouts.

Hmm. The UN HQ is where Ban Ki-moon and all the representative of the rotten regimes hang out. The dictators of the world want an ineffectual UN abroad but they want their own representatives safety assured.

I bet the UN HQ base in New York, with UN security guards, backed up by NYPD is probably one of the safest UN bases anywhere. Safe enough for rotten dictators like Gaddafi and Mugabe to visit anyway.

The Taliban could certainly host an Al Qaeda training camp that could train for an assault on the UN HQ in New York. They have attacked New York before as we know.

So I don't say the UN HQ is 100% safe but for Ban Ki-moon, the safety of the people who appointed him and who work in the UN HQ is likely to be his priority. Ban Ki-moon wants to save his own ass - it is other people's ass in Afghanistan he is not so good at saving.

There are scouts in Afghanistan but I am not sure whether they are targeted by the Taliban. I would not put it past the Taliban to target the scouts, especially if they were educating girls on how to look after themselves.

My point would be we should not ask civilian scouts to do the military job of defending the UN workers and their bases.

Welcome to the boards Pete, you should be quite at home here the board is quite lenient and as long you don't personally attack people you will be fine here. Personally I agree 100% on everything you said about the UN, I do think the UN can still be useful but the thing about it is, the UN is basically as useless as tits on a punching bag if the UN isn't backed up with adequate Military force. China and Russia have good Militaries but they do nothing on the UN but bitch and moan, veto resolutions and refuse to do anything, I can't remember the last time Russia or China sent in troops on a UN mission, China and Russia only go to war when it serves their interests. Basically for a UN Military effort to be effective you have to give it some teeth, basically troops from countries like the UK, US, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia etc. these countries to me seem to have the finest Professional Militaries out there capable of combat. Countries like Germany, Italy, France, Denmark etc. never send their Military into Combat Operations so when they end up in those situations, they struggle with it. In Afghanistan Germany, Italy and France have specific orders in place that prevent their Soldiers from engaging in Combat, which is ridiculous, this is Afghanistan not Disney World! A Humvee full of French Soldiers was ambushed in Afghanistan a few years ago and they were all killed and the Taliban stripped their uniforms, took their guns and paraded around taking pictures with them, you can see them on the internet its disgusting, thats what happens when you have a whole lot of inexperienced troops left alone in a combat zone. I know France sent in troops to the Ivory Coast recently and from what I hear their Military isn't so bad and they are highly trained, but I need to see more from them before I put them up there with combat capable troops like the US, UK, Australia etc etc

I was being sarcastic about the UN headquarters being less secure than the girls scouts camp, but I bet you the girl scouts headquarters was more secure than that shanty town UN compound in Afghanistan! I am sure the UN headquarters in New York is secure, the big wigs and head honchos always make sure they are squared away.You are right I saw the footage of the Afghan protestors pushing down the watch tower, that was pathetic and it shows the structure was extremely lacking and completely inadequate to be a secure compound of any kind. I don't have much experience with the Gurkhas myself but I will take your word for it, the thing is their hands are tied with the ridiculous rules that UN has them chained down with, the UN forbids them from firing on protestors of any kind, violence or not, so the security detail could basically do nothing as the Afghan mob destroyed the compound. I wouldn't mind Condoleeze running the UN or maybe Tony Blair, the UN needs to be able to slap people around if it needs to and the pacifists running the show now don't have the will to do that.

 

[High_Gravity]

Peter you are correct, the Afghan POLICE ARE not going to go balls to the wall and kill dozens of protestors to save the lives of foreigners in their country. From what I heard, the Afghan police stood idly by while this happened and the Afghan mob even stripped them of their weapons! From what I hear the Afghan police are more useless and corrupt than the Afghan Army, and that saying something because the Afghan Army is maybe 1 level above useless. So yes Afghans guarding the UN headquarters is out, they have no vested interest in and are not going to turn guns on their own people to defend the UN. I was in the Military for 7 years, US Air Force, I was trained in force protection and how to properly protect a base overseas, I never had to use my training but its pretty straight forward and its not rocket science. Typically guards at a US Military installation overseas are armed with M-16 rifles, there are watch towers where there are more guards with M-16S and M-60S, Machine guns basically and even more guards with Military assault shot guns. If a protest breaks out, the protestors have to stay a certain distance back from the entrance gate, I forgot how far that is exactly, if the protestors try to breach the entrance or turn violent, you have permission to open fire. If this Afghan mob tried this at a US Base, they would have got lit the fuck up point blank. Mobs in Afghanistan and Iraq have tried to sieze US Military bases for years and they haven't been able to do it once, this Afghan mob knew that and they targeted the UN compound because they knew the security there was severely underequipped and tied down the bullshit UN rules where they could not fire on them, they knew if they tried this with a US or NATO Base it would have been a failure. The UN needs to toughen up, this compound was in Afghanistan for fucks sake, not Hollywood Boulevard, the whole country is basically a war zone. The UN is so worried about offending the Afghans, that they are ok with their own people getting beheaded instead of protecting them, thats fucking sick.

It was good talking to you Pete if you reply to this I will be out of town until Tuesday on vacation, I will get back with you on my return.

 

[Peter Dow]

Peter you are spot on about everything you posted,

Thanks HG. I often have "spot-on" scathing criticism of the rotten leadership we suffer from but my outspokenness rarely gets me any thanks and more often gets me banned from places here in Aberdeen and from internet forums too.

Welcome to the boards Pete, you should be quite at home here the board is quite lenient and as long you don't personally attack people you will be fine here.

Thanks for the welcome HG.

What about personally attacking Queen Elizabeth and family, is that allowed? That's got me more bans and warnings than anything.

Some boards have strict rules like you can't quote this, or you can't link to that. Here I need 15 posts before I can link to anything. I'm nearly up to 15 and if I make a few short posts in reply to yours, I will probably get to 15 today.

 

[Grace]

Oh my. Why would you be banned for bashing QE? Everyone is pretty much free game here.

Dont know ya.
Dont know if Ill regret it later.
But.
Welcome to USMB.

 

[Peter Dow]

Peter you are spot on about everything you posted,

"Everything" I posted? So you agreed with my dig at the King of Norway's Nobel peace prize too? You know Obama got that, right?

Condi doesn't want to "chirp" at Obama but I don't see why not. I mean, the elected President of the United States (Obama) bowing to the Saudi King - that is just plain wrong! Perhaps, that is as bad as President Bush holding hands with the Saudi King.

Personally I agree 100% on everything you said about the UN, I do think the UN can still be useful but the thing about it is, the UN is basically as useless as tits on a punching bag if the UN isn't backed up with adequate Military force.

In a war zone like Afghanistan there is a need for military force for sure.

There are some UN missions in some parts of the world which are not war zones where the risks are much less and the need for military force protection is less, and where civilians can manage themselves OK perhaps where a military attache and 4 professional soldiers would be plenty protection.

The thing is, the UN as an organisation ought to be sure it has competent military and security experts advising them who need to be able to know the difference between the two different kinds of missions - war zone missions or peace zone missions - and plan accordingly.

It just is unacceptably poor performance when the UN leaders don't seem to appreciate the extreme dangers of war zones.

This is by no means the first time the UN have gone unprepared for likely attacks.

In 2003, there was a UN base in Baghdad which was bombed and many killed including the UN's chief envoy to Iraq.

How can they not know about the likely dangers?

I mean, if it had been 7 innocents who were naive aid workers working for a small civilian charity with no military or security role who went to Afghanistan and got themselves killed, that is not too surprising.

But this is the United Nations, the great global organisation, with an important role in world security matters, combining the expertise of the governments of the world, supposedly.

The UN has every advantage of funding and high profile to able to recruit the very best staff in the world.

Is this the best the world can do? It can't be!
So why have we got such useless people running the UN?

 

[Peter Dow]

This is a primarily a problem of lame security at the UN compound: badly constructed, probably poorly located, insufficiently guarded, guards insufficiently armed. Poor organisation from start to finish.

All that is needed is to be better armed and trained than the attacking mob, as this video from the movie "Zulu" illustrates.

Zulu - Final Attack (YouTube)

You need to have enough defensive fire power to stop as many as keep attacking

OK now that I have 15 posts, can I now link to that video?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI"]Zulu - Final Attack (YouTube)[/ame]

 

[Peter Dow]

Thanks HG. I often have "spot-on" scathing criticism of the rotten leadership we suffer from but my outspokenness rarely gets me any thanks and more often gets me banned from places here in Aberdeen and from internet forums too.

Welcome to the boards Pete, you should be quite at home here the board is quite lenient and as long you don't personally attack people you will be fine here.

Thanks for the welcome HG.

What about personally attacking Queen Elizabeth and family, is that allowed? That's got me more bans and warnings than anything.

Some boards have strict rules like you can't quote this, or you can't link to that. Here I need 15 posts before I can link to anything. I'm nearly up to 15 and if I make a few short posts in reply to yours, I will probably get to 15 today.

NO promotion or advertising in signature.

There you go HG. There's the land of the free for you.

 

[Peter Dow]

US message board - where your views count, but links in your signature are not allowed.

Oh gas me now mein fuhrer, it is the waiting I can't stand.

 

[Peter Dow]

That's right 7 UN workers dead but if you can save 7 others with a link in your signature, too bad because US message board cares nothing about anything but its petty little rules.

 

[Peter Dow]

Funny country the USA. I have seen videos of Nazis, yup Nazis, in full Nazi uniform marching in Washington, with swastika flags, sieg heils, the lot.

So that's allowed. Nazis are no problem.

What is a problem in the good old US of A's messageboard is a link in your signature to a freedom fighters website.

 

[Peter Dow]

Hey USA, your messageboard is rigged!

Why do you live with such peanut brains in charge of your message board?

Is this why the UN sucks, because the Americans will put up with messageboard moderators who also suck?

 

[Peter Dow]

I guess if you have half-wit fools in charge of your messageboard, it figures that you would be OK with similar half-wits in charge of the UN in New York, right?

You are ruled on the internet by clowns so why not have clowns ruling the UN? You don't know the difference, right?

 

[High_Gravity]

Thanks HG. I often have "spot-on" scathing criticism of the rotten leadership we suffer from but my outspokenness rarely gets me any thanks and more often gets me banned from places here in Aberdeen and from internet forums too.

Welcome to the boards Pete, you should be quite at home here the board is quite lenient and as long you don't personally attack people you will be fine here.

Thanks for the welcome HG.

What about personally attacking Queen Elizabeth and family, is that allowed? That's got me more bans and warnings than anything.

Some boards have strict rules like you can't quote this, or you can't link to that. Here I need 15 posts before I can link to anything. I'm nearly up to 15 and if I make a few short posts in reply to yours, I will probably get to 15 today.

You should be able to personally attack the Queen all you want, people make fun of Barack Obama everyday here.

 

[High_Gravity]

"Everything" I posted? So you agreed with my dig at the King of Norway's Nobel peace prize too? You know Obama got that, right?

Condi doesn't want to "chirp" at Obama but I don't see why not. I mean, the elected President of the United States (Obama) bowing to the Saudi King - that is just plain wrong! Perhaps, that is as bad as President Bush holding hands with the Saudi King.

Personally I agree 100% on everything you said about the UN, I do think the UN can still be useful but the thing about it is, the UN is basically as useless as tits on a punching bag if the UN isn't backed up with adequate Military force.

In a war zone like Afghanistan there is a need for military force for sure.

There are some UN missions in some parts of the world which are not war zones where the risks are much less and the need for military force protection is less, and where civilians can manage themselves OK perhaps where a military attache and 4 professional soldiers would be plenty protection.

The thing is, the UN as an organisation ought to be sure it has competent military and security experts advising them who need to be able to know the difference between the two different kinds of missions - war zone missions or peace zone missions - and plan accordingly.

It just is unacceptably poor performance when the UN leaders don't seem to appreciate the extreme dangers of war zones.

This is by no means the first time the UN have gone unprepared for likely attacks.

In 2003, there was a UN base in Baghdad which was bombed and many killed including the UN's chief envoy to Iraq.

How can they not know about the likely dangers?

I mean, if it had been 7 innocents who were naive aid workers working for a small civilian charity with no military or security role who went to Afghanistan and got themselves killed, that is not too surprising.

But this is the United Nations, the great global organisation, with an important role in world security matters, combining the expertise of the governments of the world, supposedly.

The UN has every advantage of funding and high profile to able to recruit the very best staff in the world.

Is this the best the world can do? It can't be!
So why have we got such useless people running the UN?

I don't know much about the inner workings of the UN but I can tell you this, I work for the government here in the US and there is alot of red tape and checks and balances, so when you have an organization like the UN that consists of several different countries with such different views and policies, I can imagine it is a cluster fuck to get things done. I think the UN was a good idea at one point but its totally fucked now, I agree with you new leadership would be a good start, maybe Condoleeza Rice or Tony Blair.

 

[Peter Dow]

China and Russia have good Militaries but they do nothing on the UN but bitch and moan, veto resolutions and refuse to do anything, I can't remember the last time Russia or China sent in troops on a UN mission, China and Russia only go to war when it serves their interests.

Well of course the Chinese have fought the UN forces in the Korean War.
Korean War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chinese back then and still do have a large conscript army which allows for massed infantry attacks but force of numbers alone is only very useful in attacking when the defenders are not equipped appropriately to repel an large infantry attack.

Even a seemly suicidal massed infantry assault against machine-gun position can overwhelm the defenders as the Chinese often overwhelmed UN forces in the Korean War if there are not enough machine guns or the defenders run out of ammunition or the machine gun barrels over-heat and can't be cooled or swapped fast enough.

Therefore although the Chinese many times defeated US forces in Korean War battles I do not think they were particularly "good" in those days, more that US forces were not properly equipped or didn't have the best leadership to defeat a very large infantry army which could afford enormous losses and still keep attacking.

In the olden days of the British Empire, the British army had some fearsome water-cooled machine guns, made by Vickers, which could keep firing all day. So no matter how many enemy infantry or tribes-people tried to assault those gun positions the attackers could all be cut down as long as the ammunition lasted.

Such a robust defensive attitude of being well-prepared to machine gun down any and all who attack a UN or NATO-ISAF position is the security, safety and military leadership we need in Afghanistan.

Some enraged mobs or armies can't be negotiated with, they can't be warned off with shots over their heads, they can't be stopped by killing a few to make an example. The only way to stop such fanatical attackers is to machine-gun them down in huge numbers.

I favour bases on higher steeply-sloped ground so that the dead bodies of attackers roll down the hill away from you clearing your firing line so you can keep shooting at the next wave of attackers.

Of course the Chinese military these days are increasingly well equipped and in combination with the large size of the Chinese military makes them useful friends or dangerous foes.

You are right, HG, the Chinese like to keep out of wars these days. Perhaps they are biding their time until they are the most powerful army in the world? The Chinese are catching up fast.

The Chinese could overtake everyone else if the west doesn't get its economic and military strategy right.

With the US economy in its present shape, if the US wanted to build up its military by spending trillions of dollars to keep its sole military superpower position in the world into the future, the US might have to go to the Chinese to borrow the money to raise military spending that much.

Somehow, I don't think the Chinese bankers would be too happy to loan more money to the US to increase military spending. Rather I think the Chinese bankers will be asking the US to cut back on military spending to pay off the interest the US owes China.

If I was running the US I'd be tempted to tax the US rich and invest in a home-grown economy not dependent on Chinese loans and Arab oil and gas but that's just some friendly advice.