Top U.S official: There's no way to stop Iran's nuclear program

[Peikko 1,575]

You do know why Japan doesn't have an effective military force? Hint, it's not because they want to sponge of the US.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You do know why Japan doesn't have an effective military force? Hint, it's not because they want to sponge of the US.

It's what the US dictated at the end of WWII. They wanted to make sure that Japan and Germany would never threaten the world again.

[Peikko 1,575]

The US forces in Europe were originally deployed to protect everyone from the mighty Communists. That they are still there is less to do with protecting Europe and more to do with US self interest, but hey, carry on, bring them home. I don't object, I simply object to this idea that the world has been begging for the US to look after them. That's just silly.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Yes they put it in their constitution that they will never rearm. Well too bad for them. They should be easy pickings for a couple countries near them that may covet them. They can change their constitution or perish or maybe the aforementioned countries will respect their neutrality. It is a gamble but who knows.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The US forces in Europe were originally deployed to protect everyone from the mighty Communists. That they are still there is less to do with protecting Europe and more to do with US self interest, but hey, carry on, bring them home. I don't object, I simply object to this idea that the world has been begging for the US to look after them. That's just silly.

A major injustice was letting Russian force communism on the countries they "liberated" on their drive to Berlin.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Yes they were put there and it has cost the U.S. tax payer a lot of many over many decades too. It is a very expensive army and protection that we have afforded Europe. Money that we could have used back here in our own country. It is way past due to bring them home. Just imagine the savings. The self serving reasons now is just for power.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Yes they put it in their constitution that they will never rearm. Well too bad for them. They should be easy pickings for a couple countries near them that may covet them. They can change their constitution or perish or maybe the aforementioned countries will respect their neutrality. It is a gamble but who knows.

They were forced to do that, more or less. That is what the US wanted and they were in no position to argue.

[luckytxn 2,265]

The US forces in Europe were originally deployed to protect everyone from the mighty Communists. That they are still there is less to do with protecting Europe and more to do with US self interest, but hey, carry on, bring them home. I don't object, I simply object to this idea that the world has been begging for the US to look after them. That's just silly.

A major injustice was letting Russian force communism on the countries they "liberated" on their drive to Berlin.

Yes it was and thank you Germany for antagonizing everyone and forcing the U.S. to go into partnership with Russia to defeat Germany. We pretty much armed Russia at our expense so they could rumble into Europe and enslave Eastern Europe.

[Peikko 1,575]

As I understand it, the soviet union was part of the allied force because, rightly it was recognized that the allies could not win against the axis powers without their support. Post war, it was therefore somewhat difficult to then insist that the soviets should not control the territory that they had captured. Another example of the world not conforming to a black/white model.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes they put it in their constitution that they will never rearm. Well too bad for them. They should be easy pickings for a couple countries near them that may covet them. They can change their constitution or perish or maybe the aforementioned countries will respect their neutrality. It is a gamble but who knows.

They were forced to do that, more or less. That is what the US wanted and they were in no position to argue.

Dix points.

It's really an example of the 'if I wanted to go to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here' doctrine.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The US forces in Europe were originally deployed to protect everyone from the mighty Communists. That they are still there is less to do with protecting Europe and more to do with US self interest, but hey, carry on, bring them home. I don't object, I simply object to this idea that the world has been begging for the US to look after them. That's just silly.

A major injustice was letting Russian force communism on the countries they "liberated" on their drive to Berlin.

Yes it was and thank you Germany for antagonizing everyone and forcing the U.S. to go into partnership with Russia to defeat Germany. We pretty much armed Russia at our expense so they could rumble into Europe and enslave Eastern Europe.

Bingo, although I don't think enslavement was part of the initial intent.

[luckytxn 2,265]

You do know why Japan doesn't have an effective military force? Hint, it's not because they want to sponge of the US.

It's what the US dictated at the end of WWII. They wanted to make sure that Japan and Germany would never threaten the world again.

Actually read many books on this to try to understand if we had or what made them and they came up with this on their own. We did insist on them giving the woman suffrage and some other stuff but the Japanese insisted on refuting war forever. Mac Arthur thought it was nice of them and allowed it. Since that time we even pay them for the use of bases there. They have since then been able to have a token police force with some militarization and the rest can be funneled into a nice Socialist network. Very smart of them.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Everything I also had read showed me they expected the Russians to do what they did. They did hope that Russia would pretty much go back home but have influence in the countries overran but from what I had read they also knew Russia would probably do most of what they eventually did.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Found this real quick bu a google search.

the source of the pacifist clause is disputed. According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara, who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."[1] Shidehara perspective was that retention of arms would be "meaningless" for the Japanese in the postwar era, because any substandard postwar military would no longer gain the respect of the people, and would actually cause people to obsess with the subject of rearming Japan.[2] Shidehara admitted to his authorship in his memoirs Gaikō Gojū-Nen (Fifty Years Diplomacy), published in 1951, where he described how the idea came to him on a train ride to Tokyo; MacArthur himself confirmed Shidehara's authorship on several occasions.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Everything I also had read showed me they expected the Russians to do what they did. They did hope that Russia would pretty much go back home but have influence in the countries overran but from what I had read they also knew Russia would probably do most of what they eventually did.

Patton was right. He wanted to fight the Russians while we had our army over there. He wanted to kick their a$$es so far into Russian that they would never come out.