@JaiBharat

Why should we be financing the armed services and national protection of Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Eastern Europe, Israel, Canada, and parts of Western Europe.

I hate to pop your dream bubble but America isn't doing this out of altruism. Pakistan is a very strategically-located country (as well as a nuclear one) and if the US does not make attempts to appease/bribe Pakistani leaders, they will turn to other rival sponsors, namely China and the US will lose its most important foothold in South Asia.
As for Japan, America itself, naturally, dissolved the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy following their defeat in WWII and the American occupation. And ever since it has kept a permanent foothold in Japan to check potential aggression - and of course to prevent the Soviet Union (now Russia) from extending its sphere of influence there.
South Korea - the US hates those communists up north.
Etc.

Edited 3/24/2016 15:55:33

I think NATO should give everyone free chocolate every meeting. I think an increase of meetings would happen.

I hate to pop your dream bubble but America isn't doing this out of altruism. Pakistan is a very strategically-located country (as well as a nuclear one) and if the US does not make attempts to appease/bribe Pakistani leaders, they will turn to other rival sponsors, namely China and the US will lose its most important foothold in South Asia.

Its not strategic. You really think Pakistani leaders listen to the US government? That's laughable. If that was the case the US would tell them to stop sending ISI funded terrorists to India and would get them to stop harboring Al Qaeda operatives in their tribal region. China already has a closer relationship to to Pakistan than we do, even since the 1950s they have been strategic and military allies. China is Pakistan's largest arms supplier and its third largest trading partner. Who do you think gave Pakistan the technology and equipment to build nuclear weapons? According to a 2014 Pew Research Survey, Pakistanis had the highest approval or opinion of the Chinese. Pakistan is scamming the US by thinking they're our puppet, when in reality they're China's. That's why China owns a huge Pakistani port and supporters their claim to India-Controlled Kashmir. If the US really wants a foothold in South Asia maybe they should think about giving the middle finger to Pakistan and standing strong with India for a chance.

Edited 3/24/2016 14:56:28

Don't get so worked up. Now then.

1-The US gives aid to the Pakistani government (the large part of which goes towards the military), to prop it and have a say in how it is run. If Pakistan falls into chaos and radicals' hands, it would be extremely dangerous to US interests as it has nuclear weapons. Also keep in mind that little of that money filters down to the commoners. Most of the "economic aid" goes into the pockets of the elite.

2-This aid propels a continuous arms race cycle between India, China and Pakistan. If these three divert more and more money towards arms from other domestic sectors, their economic and political progress is slowed. By this, the US checks India's rise as a regional power and China's as a superpower as it obviously wants to retain its supremacy and to reduce potential threats so it can focus on Russia if it rises again.

3-The aid allows the US to have enough influence to prevent a catastrophic situation like Pakistan preemptively striking with atomic bombs at India, which could pull in China and thus send the world careening into chaos.

4-Pakistan's location is VERY strategic. Next to Iran, the Hormuz oil-shipping lane, the Central Asian oil and gas reserves, western China, Afghanistan and of course, India. Naturally the US wants to keep down hostility against it there so that it may benefit in the future from Pakistan's location.

There are lots of other reasons. Don't have time to list them all. Oh, the US does help India. It wheels and deals to keep a balance of power and its own interests secure, namely to check China's growth. Incidentally it also uses Japan to check China's growth.

What was your point actually? That the US is giving aid to Pakistan (and those other countries you mentioned) out of generosity?

Edited 3/24/2016 16:46:13

What was your point actually? That the US is giving aid to Pakistan (and those other countries you mentioned) out of generosity?

It doesn't really matter if they give aid to these countries out of generosity or strategic/military reasons. My point was that in addition tot withdrawing from NATO the US should cut the foreign aid budget to $0. The government has no right to take my taxpayer money to help line the pockets of corrupt Pakistani officials nor use it to build Israel's Iron Dome.

That is what worries me, teamguns. A centralized European army would be as warmongering as America was, and even more dangerous to stability.

Not sure major, I believe it'd be the opposite. Europeans aren't as akin as america to use their military strenght in large military operations. The population disaproves it, mostly because of europe's past of doing so.

The countries that are there right now and do make a lot of international interventions are France and Britain. I actually believe that if they'd merge with the other european countries in the military, they'd be unable to make such interventions anymore because of the democratic vote needed to ensure interventions of any kind. Their voices would be easily suplanted by the many non-interventionist countries in the union by vote.

Anyway, the Europe should leave NATO for sure, it's just controlled by the US and it does more evil then good. In 2003, when america wanted to invade the Irak and called for NATO support, 70-90% of European citizens were against the war, many countries did go because of their NATO engagements, while France for example was totally opposed to the war, and was free to do so, as it wasn't a member of the alliance.

http://www.eurocorps.org/

The Eurocorps isn't really an european army, but just a 5 european countries giving a few of their troops to it. It's still a bit of a joke compared to an united european army.

Indeed it is, just an embryo of what it could be.

by paying for the military of all those countries we put them under strong us influence, and it helps us. Also the military creates a lot of nice jobs we probably should with drawl most of are troops from Europe the nuclear deterrent I enough. Still are military pretty much protects half the world and in general is a stabilizing force. SO stop Bitching about the Millitary spending

The EU Army would just continue NATO's policy of expanding American influence east, but it would be it expanding European influence instead.

^+1.

It doesn't really matter if they give aid to these countries out of generosity or strategic/military reasons. My point was that in addition tot withdrawing from NATO the US should cut the foreign aid budget to $0.

Whatever is spent on military, should just as much be spent on repairing the terriblities done. That is only fair. If you want to reduce foreign aid budget to 0 $, abolish the military forces, then, too.

Not sure major, I believe it'd be the opposite. Europeans aren't as akin as america to use their military strenght in large military operations. The population disaproves it, mostly because of europe's past of doing so.

Population can be taught to approve it, or it can just be kind of not talked about (or fully denied). China in North Mali. America (still) in Afghanistan. Russia in Newrussia. Most wars in Europe were between European countries, but if Europe unites, that will be pretty powerful, neocolonists will rise again.

when america wanted to invade the Irak and called for NATO support, 70-90% of European citizens were against the war, many countries did go because of their NATO engagements, while France for example was totally opposed to the war, and was free to do so, as it wasn't a member of the alliance.

NATO did not war on Iraq, only governments in Iraq went there of their own accord. Only 4 countries invaded in 2003: America, Britain, Australia, and Poland.

by paying for the military of all those countries we put them under strong us influence, and it helps us.

Well, that's an antigeneven thing to do - if you want to get into intergovernmental law, then it's a violation of international sovereignty.

Also the military creates a lot of nice jobs

You (everyone) pays for the military forces, it's just a money respreading. It's a needless left organisation. But in case you are left, then still, there's far better public deeds to spend on that would be so much more useful. Scientific research, cheaper federal higher schools, cheaper federal healthcare, funding many binding public referenda.

Still are military pretty much protects half the world and in general is a stabilizing force.

I worry that there is propoganda about American military "protecting" countries. It shields only it's allies; basically NATO and several others. Since 1945, America has killed, directly or indirectly (f.e. blockades) estimating from 20 million to 100 million. That's just awful.

in general is a stabilizing force.

Is it, though? There have been several times where nuclear war broke out between the Soviet Union and America and both countries would be wrecked. Let's take a look at the latest 3 done American interventions.

Libya: Now it's in some heavy civil war, too.

Iraq: Ditto.

Kosova: Violently split Serbia and Kosova.