I believe you are a tad naive, Cres. They stayed in Eastern Europe for practically half a century and without the counterbalancing force of the US Army would have had unfettered access to whatever lands they wanted practically without a fight.

I don't know how old you are but, just a touch of history. Half of the continent exchanged one tyrant for another.





"US occupation of the world". Really? Do the citizenry of Germany and Japan feel occupied or adequately defended.

Hey, I don't want to be the protector of the world. This isn't the same Europe as it was in 1946. Germany, England, S Korea, the rest of the EU, Japan and France can finance their own protection. I only want America to be the protector of itself and its interests. Really not interested in international dick swinging. Costs too much for little return.

If that means shoving Saddam out of Kuwait so our economy can prosper, so be it.

You might find Horse Soldiersby Doug Stanton an interesting read. A few well placed guys with some high tech weapons can do an awful lot of good.

Lol Canada.

Oh, I dunno, because their entire reason for existence was to forcibly spread a workers revolution to the globe? See: every country that got converted to communism.

I don't think anyone has ever argued this was not true, they occupied the countries they 'liberated' from the nazi's. and as almost all wars were to that time, land you took you kept. spoils of war belong to the victor.

none of that is a defense of Stalinism, nor is naive. its just a statement of fact. The Russians did have a fear of an enemy sitting on their border, who could have attempted the same strategy against them. So they maintained a buffer zone, which is the same buffer zone used by American doctrine for the last 6 decades. Make the fight happen away from your own shores.

And that is why the USA has lost almost all its standing throughout the world, its still trying to use an outdated world view.

so much comprehension failure again. or does your dictionary give the same definition to occupy and spread a political position.

sorry, thought you were misinformed, should have realized you're just another politard nit trying to score debate points to run up your imaginary score

Poles who had to live with 50,000 Red Army troops in their country for 45 years would also disagree with you but whatever, do your thing Internet Tough Guy(TM)

not trying to nit it up, as I posted prior to ww2 (and the return of land was a prime catalyst for ww2) land was won in battle, not in treaty rooms. And that land was not returned when some form of peace was reached, so yes it was occupied as happened to the Poles, the Ukranians, the Georgians......

The difference is the US has decided to occupy, by way of establishing treaties with dictators they supported, as opposed to holding the land they fought for. One way appears to be humane (to Americans anyways), while the other appears barbaric. Its all about perception.

As for the eastern countries post nazi germany, most thought the new despot would be better (which for a brief period they were correct), but in short order the same overbearing systems were back. Well the USA has done the same thing, but with less cruelty. see Iraq and Afghanistan.

my point all along is Americans have no interest in actually learning about the world, and instead think it should be as they choose. The rest of us don't really give a **** what you think, when you are in our homes. Just as you all do when a foreigner visits you. But there is that trusty dble standard again.

So what kind of jobs would be open for all the mass layoffs when you lay off most of the army let alone all the civilians and contractors that go with it.

That is not a defense to the spending or the size of the army I'm just asking you for ideas on where all these people should go ? I personally can't answer that ?

Guess the supply of mercenarys and hit men would go up I could problably hire someone to knock off the kid who bullied me in high school for lol 20 bucks

Yeah... we've lost our standing in the world til somebody needs something or needs their asses bailed out.

By that line of reasoning we should still own France, Germany, Italy, Japan, et cetera....et cetera, .....et cetera.

FYP

Defense contractors/soldiers gotta eat.

So what? If people are worried about how they are seen, they should go to the gym, not project their worry onto the international scene with mountains of waste and suffering.

Build mass transit, bullet trains, reforestation, windmills, more teachers and doctors, a drug counseling industry to replace criminalization, big brothers and sisters for all the kids at risk, gang intervention, high speed data networks, Peace Corp types to help other countries, urban agriculture, a new style of prison offering education and rehabilitation to any who want it, so many parks you can always find a grill and a baseball diamond, and a one mile high bungee drop just because we can.

Mexico, Spain, Philippines, Cuba, North Africa....

main problem with this is that the "international scene" would not be anywhere near what it is now without the U.S. acting like the U.S.