Time for the US to pivot away from Asia.

This is extremely well reasoned.

The same logic applies to Japan.

http://www.conservativehq.com/node/17092

namelessfly wrote:This is extremely well reasoned.

It´s selfserving garbage propaganda.


Not to mention how the writer and yourself seems completely unable to understand international politics.

It´s funny though how the people most in love with USA as an empire(wether they´re honest about it or not) are the ones making it crash and burn.

They really believe that USA is entitled to something just because it´s USA.

Just like the worst of bad old European nobility. Which adds another level of irony.

Regardless, the US can't be everywhere all of the time. All these deployments cost money, money which America can ill afford given the state of it's Federal finances.

The UK learned a painful lesson Post-Suez - if you haven't got the dosh, you can't keep yourself as a military super power.

If America pulls it's horns in, it might give convince our political overlords that the teats running out of milk.

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:Regardless, the US can't be everywhere all of the time. All these deployments cost money, money which America can ill afford given the state of it's Federal finances.

I know.

Michael Riddell wrote:The UK learned a painful lesson Post-Suez - if you haven't got the dosh, you can't keep yourself as a military super power.

If America pulls it's horns in, it might give convince our political overlords that the teats running out of milk.

Mike.

Thing is, USA running around trying to look like the good guy is also what provides it a LOT of leeway and political clout internationally. If too much of that is lost, if other nations no longer has a reason to give USA preferential treatment, when other nations dumps the dollar as reserve and petro-currency...

Worst case, the fall of the Roman empire is going to look like a jovial tea-party in comparison.

The irony is that it is the much maligned TEA Party that has been warning about the perils of massive government spending with the inevitable deficits. Obama's $Trillion + deficits have been the result of massively increased wealth transfer spending, not military which has become a small fraction of the budget. Since the Europeans, Asians, Australians and even the Israelis were so elated by his election and hostile to US conservatives, it is poetic justice that they loose the US security guaranty. This idiocy of the Arab Spring then the Ukraine coup are the inevitable result of allowing others to provoke wars we have to fight. No more.

Michael Riddell wrote:Regardless, the US can't be everywhere all of the time. All these deployments cost money, money which America can ill afford given the state of it's Federal finances.

The UK learned a painful lesson Post-Suez - if you haven't got the dosh, you can't keep yourself as a military super power.

If America pulls it's horns in, it might give convince our political overlords that the teats running out of milk.

Mike.

The real issue for the United States is South Korean leaders such as Roh Moo-hyun and his predecessor who vigorously opposed preemptive military strikes to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Given the distrust and hostility towards the United States that motivated this policy that enabled North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons, the United States should renounce it's alliance and treaty obligations to South Korea and compel them to deal with the problem themselves. If South Korea ends up getting nuked, it should be their problem, not ours.

Obama's $Trillion + deficits have been the result of massively increased wealth transfer spending, not military which has become a small fraction of the budget.

Have more than a little problem with reality?

Yes you do. Except it´s not little.

Since the Europeans, Asians, Australians and even the Israelis were so elated by his election and hostile to US conservatives

Anyone sane would react like that after president shrubbery.

From this I assume that you believe it is morally right to use preemptive military strikes on a country that you suspect may be developing nuclear weapons? So does that mean Pakistan, India, and Israel should have been toasted? For that matter we invaded Iraq because we suspected it had WMD, but the world knows the US has WMD so should we all gang up and invade?
I agree that North Korea is a horrific basket case, but maintaining International Law and the moral high ground is more important than beating up the little guy.

namelessfly wrote:The real issue for the United States is South Korean leaders such as Roh Moo-hyun and his predecessor who vigorously opposed preemptive military strikes to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Given the distrust and hostility towards the United States that motivated this policy that enabled North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons, the United States should renounce it's alliance and treaty obligations to South Korea and compel them to deal with the problem themselves. If South Korea ends up getting nuked, it should be their problem, not ours.