We outspend the next biggest military by 9 times. We have more nuclear weapons and allies with nuclear weapons than any other nation. Doesn't mean we can't get attacked - one nuke would be the end of a hell of a lot of us. It doesn't mean that we aren't the strongest in the world and nobody threatens that.

Maybe we should stop "peace keeping" then because the countries we keep peace in seem to hate us. Also, the US outspends China on the military by more than four times. China can try to gain influence in Africa, but that will never come close to the influence we have on Europe. And they're only succeeding in Africa because of years of US warmongering.

^That was to randomizer.

@bo_sox I doubt even North Korea would be insane enough to launch a nuke at the US; even Kim Jong Un has a sense of self-preservation. Only truly psychotic groups such as terrorists would pose a threat if they get their hands on a nuke.

Yeah, but Russia has proven that you can expand into neighboring countries without going nuclear. All you need is a good excuse and nobody willing to do anything about it that where they have to commit their own troops. They took Crimea away from the Ukraine with a questionable vote by the "residents." Now they are pushing for eastern Ukraine.

China is converting atolls in the South Pacific into military bases and pushing its neighbors out of the area. The US sends ships into the disputed area, but does anyone here think we're going to go to war?

It's creeping conquest where you inch into the area, but keep from going to a major war footing like Iraq invading Kuwait. Try to legitimize the dispute and drag it out until it becomes accepted.

China is going into Africa to secure raw materials for its industries. It doesn't need Europe at the moment and we're buying its products so it has a place to sell. The US has screwed up in so many places that China can easily take over.

I agree, leon.

"Maybe we should stop "peace keeping" then because the countries we keep peace in seem to hate us. " leon
Just to add, the US and some countries in Europe brought democracy to my country and it has never been worse. We were bombed and all the blame was thrown at us(Serbia) for the war(Yugoslavia civil war). And the result was that a lot of serbs hate the USA. The hate comes from the propaganda too. It's was the complete opposite situation on the Balkans(80%) from what they were saying on the TV(CNN,BBC etc.).

Also the same story with Iran and Irak. The soviet union invaded because of the oil. Irak and Iran hated them in that period. And after the soviet union fell apart the USA invaded those countries(brought democracy :D). Now they hate the USA and as you see, they are now leaning towards Russia and have deals with them.

The point is please stop bringing peace :D We in Yugoslavia were all living in harmony before the west got involved. If you guys don't believe me watch the film weight of chains 1(it talks about the west getting involved too, and it in english and its on youtube).

About the nuke subject if one nation starts its all over. Also a friend of mine is in some organisation which wants to ban nukes(which i think is a lost battle). But on my surprise, a big majority of UN nations agreed on banning it. So possibly in 20 years or so there won't be nukes. I don't believe in that but maybe...we will see.

China is trying to enter Europe's market too. They almost bought the biggest port in Greece, also the are building a rail in Serbia from Belgrade to Budapest and building freeways down to Macedonia from Belgrade and i'm not sure about projects in Macedonia. They are trying to make a route for export as cheap as possible, and cause of the shit the three countries are they are getting great deals.
China has also bought a steelworks is Serbia. The EU was angry about it :D

"Yeah, but Russia has proven that you can expand into neighboring countries without going nuclear. All you need is a good excuse and nobody willing to do anything about it that where they have to commit their own troops. They took Crimea away from the Ukraine with a questionable vote by the "residents." Now they are pushing for eastern Ukraine."

Ukraine is not the US, and their sovereignty does not affect our safety. Moreover, the Crimean citizens voted to be annexed by Russia after Ukrainian extremists deposed the democratically elected President, thus undermining the choice of East Ukrainians.

"China is converting atolls in the South Pacific into military bases and pushing its neighbors out of the area. The US sends ships into the disputed area, but does anyone here think we're going to go to war? "

Again, that still doesn't threaten us. It's none of our business. The US military is just spoiling for a fight with its pivot to Asia, hoping to provoke China to shoot first. In reality, the disputed islands in the South China Sea were historically and indisputably Chinese.

"It's creeping conquest where you inch into the area, but keep from going to a major war footing like Iraq invading Kuwait. Try to legitimize the dispute and drag it out until it becomes accepted."

You mean like the Israeli occupation of Palestine?

"China is going into Africa to secure raw materials for its industries. It doesn't need Europe at the moment and we're buying its products so it has a place to sell. The US has screwed up in so many places that China can easily take over."

As I explained before, African countries are only so open to China because of US warmongering in the region. Beefing up the military is counterproductive.

@ZoranBabic re: Serbia Agree completely. The justification for bombarding Yugoslavia was complete bullshit propaganda to cover up the blatant imperialism and opportunism, and it shows what would happen with an even stronger military complex.

"But on my surprise, a big majority of UN nations agreed on banning it. So possibly in 20 years or so there won't be nukes. I don't believe in that but maybe...we will see."

That doesn't matter. The countries in the security council get to decide, and they want to keep their nukes.

"China is trying to enter Europe's market too. They almost bought the biggest port in Greece, also the are building a rail in Serbia from Belgrade to Budapest and building freeways down to Macedonia from Belgrade and i'm not sure about projects in Macedonia. They are trying to make a route for export as cheap as possible, and cause of the shit the three countries are they are getting great deals.
China has also bought a steelworks is Serbia. The EU was angry about it :D"

That's an example of capitalism working whereas the socialist EU can do nothing to help them.

@leon1122 - "You mean like the Israeli occupation of Palestine?"

Do you mean territory captured in a war? Considering the US, Europe, Russia, and almost every other country that took over territory after winning a war has retained the land or signed a peace treaty that defined the returned land, Israel is no different. At this point only Egypt signed a peace treaty and got back the Sinai peninsula.

As a hypothetical - If the Arabs had succeeded in destroying Israel in 1948, would you demand that they give back the captured land to Israel?

"The US military is just spoiling for a fight with its pivot to Asia, hoping to provoke China to shoot first."

I really don't think the military is there expecting anyone to shoot at all. It seems to me like another extension of Obama's strategy - whatever you think of it aside - of preventing a fight at all costs while maintaining economic influence over a region, hence the TPP and China's exclusion from it. It's an adversarial statement without actually firing a shot at all.

"In reality, the disputed islands in the South China Sea were historically and indisputably Chinese."

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/67616000/gif/_67616829_south_china-sea_1_464.gif

Some, yes, but please tell me how from the point of view of other countries in the area besides China that that territorial claim looks non-aggressive, accurate, or at all justified. I don't disagree with you that it isn't our business but Obama is right to say that China and the surrounding area is where the world's economy is shifting and he wants to hold some influence over that area rather than sticking to yesterday's logic that whoever holds oil in the Middle East is the world's economic kingpin. I don't think it's going to work that way but I wouldn't be at all shocked to see Hillary continue to try.

"As I explained before, African countries are only so open to China because of US warmongering in the region. Beefing up the military is counterproductive."

This is true, but it pertains more to Europe-US relations than it does to the US exclusively.

Is anyone paying attention to Yemen?

"Is anyone paying attention to Yemen?"

That's a case where the US can get what it wants without the blame. Saudi Arabia has done almost every wrong thing that the US has done in the Mideast, but the world mostly doesn't care since it's Arab countries fighting it out.

Bomb a hospital, airstrikes killing innocent civilians, wrong targets, …, but hey it wasn't the US or Israel doing it and they don't have a major oil or other natural resource that anyone wants.

It's the US funding it.

Democrats don't like the military funding because it takes andisproportionally large number of poor people and ethnicities, teaches them discipline and strength, and for some random non-coinciding reason *cough cough* they become more conservative in values.

80% of the people going into boot camp for the Marines have some kind of drug problem, and it provides a great way for education and economic security


It's legitimately the only social program the Democrats WON'T go for, and ALL Republicans go for (I'm absoluting extraneously).


WHAT THIS PROVES???? Political parties are stupid. or corrupt. or both. probably both.

It's the ones that get dishonorably discharged from the military because they never should have been allowed to join in the first place that cause the problems.

For example, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber and his partners. I'd list all the one from the Aryan Nation groups, but I don't have names or want to Google search for them.

Just so you know, I'm in my 50s and have a right to be cynical after growing up while I still could have been drafted for the Vietnam Conflict. I've seen so many hypocritical politicians from both parties that I could crash the forum writing about them.

When has the US ever done peace keeping?

Like seriously. Taiwan is the closest thing i can think, and it is basically propping up a local government who is more friendly to the US than the alternative. Everywhere the US goes it promotes US power, sometimes that means keeping peace between two different governments which claim the same thing (like the People's Republic of Chine and the Republic of China) Other times it means punishing someone who dis-obeyed order (Saddam Hussein was a great friend of the US, invaded Iran for you guys, until he decided his just reward was Kuwait, and then there was war... cause an ally who wouldn't do what they are told isn't a useful thing, as anyone who plays diplomacy knows.)

I'm not saying Russia is any better, they have shown a willingness to project power into their neighbourhood and equally 'claim' in their propaganda that they were just keeping the peace. Crimea totally chose to return to Russian sovereignty. And Eastern Ukraine is just annoyed with the Fascists in western Ukraine (which may well be true, i don't particularly trust the EU's propaganda on this either, but the pro-Russian Ukrainians would likely not have started a civil war if Russia hadn't been will to give them arms and i suspect even troops.)

China has been in a two hundred year slump, it began falling behind in terms of gdp when europe and america was industrializing, but China has a long memory, over 2000 years long. So it is willing to take another 100 years to grow peacefully and not piss of anyone until it is ready to actually beat them.

Don't kid yourselves. Vietnam had every reason to go and support the communist ideology, they had suffered under French Imperialism for years, and after throwing the French out the US turned up... It is no surprise that they adopted the only anti-US and anti-Imperialist ideology going... and guess what, after beating the French, they beat the US, and then they beat the Khmer Rouge and the one of the first 'developing' nations to pull itself out of poverty...

In short, Vietnam was right to defend itself against the harmful ideology which had done so much damage (Imperialism) and the US acted like an Imperialist power by trying to subdue Vietnam.

Never the peacekeeper, always the Imperialist.

orathaic - You ust be **woefully** ignorant of the disposition of US forces around the globe.

The overwhelming majority of US troops are in peaceful locations...."keeping the peace", if you will.

Germany, Japan and South Korea would probably be the biggest examples of this -- where the US was in a conflict, stayed around after the conflict was over the help rebuild and support the new governments, and then, AT THE REQUEST of the host nations, have left troops behind to keep peace and support the NOW-Allied nation.

Just because this doesn't fit your narrative, and or is ignored by the Libtard left doesn't mean that it isn't true.

This, in fact, is a point of contention in the current Presidential race because Trump is interested in reshaping NATO in order to REMOVE the US from all the expensive "peace-keeping" tasks that we do and let our worthless NATO allies do the job of arming and protecting themselves so that we don't have to have troops all over the world doing NOTHING>

Re: the US military as a social program - If you do consider it a social program, it is perhaps the most inefficient social program in the history of the planet. There are 3.1 million active duty + national guard + reserve service men and women and we spend about $500 billion per year on the military. There are better and cheaper ways to reach 3 million at-risk citizens, teach them discipline and provide economic security. That's why democrats to like military funding. F*** the US military.

@"Germany, Japan and South Korea would probably be the biggest examples of this "

Ok, listen to yourself for one second.

"he US was in a conflict, stayed around after the conflict "

Your words. An Imperial power was in a conflict and left it's troops behind afterwards to ensure compliance from the local power. This has been the method employed by Imperial powers since year dot - so that " the NOW-Allied nation" no longer has a choice but to be an ally.

You've got troops already in their territory. It fits perfectly with my narrative. You can call it 'peace-keeping' all you want; but when you invade a country and it no longer has it's own military to keep the peace, then you start 'peace-keeping' - now Japan may have started the war with you, so i'm more than happy to be lenient there.

The US saw a threat against it, and defeated it. And not some imagined threat, the Japanese was an Imperial power trying to extend it's control over the whole pacific, and needed to get the US out of the way, so they bombed Pearl Harbour. Fine, it was not a defensive war, you went on the offensive pretty much immediately; but you were attacked by another Imperial power.

"This, in fact, is a point of contention in the current Presidential race because Trump is interested in reshaping NATO in order to REMOVE the US from all the expensive "peace-keeping" tasks that we do and let our worthless NATO allies do the job of arming and protecting themselves so that we don't have to have troops all over the world doing NOTHING>"

BS, NATO nations all have to spend roughly 2% of GDP on their militaries, so that they can afford to defend themselves and each other. Clinton wants to keep US army bases all over the world, because she understands the power they hold diplomatically. Trump disagrees because it is an easy target. Blame other NATO countries for your own Imperialism...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/homegrown-disaster?utm_term=.fvyMLD33wy#.xjpXDWll1M

Spot the US imperialism in this article.