4 ms·

>If by defensive you mean isolationist, both WW1 and WW2 were started because of US isolationism, and ended when the US became offensive and occupied Europe and

>If by defensive you mean isolationist, both WW1 and WW2 were started because of US isolationism, and ended when the US became offensive and occupied Europe and Japan This is a truly impressive level of American exceptionalism. Wars only start if we let them, and then stop when we take an interest. >However, the CCP and Islam are ideologies that believe they can win against the West. Xi is doubling their nuclear weapon count from 200 to 400, and nuclear technology is proliferating throughout the Islamic world. Pakistan is the only Islamic nuclear power with no other country actively attempting to become one. Iran's "program" has always been overblown, and at best would not enable an offensive war. Meanwhile, China's doubling should take into account the US's 6000 weapons, 3000 active, and I think still growing. China's program is still primarily defensive as well. >Mao started a cold war against the US in the 1950s, which the US never took seriously until now, "Hide our strength, bide our time." And Xi is using Mao's playbook. The US refused to acknowledge China's existence until the 70's, and are the ones that barred most of the world from trading with China. Even in the Korean War, the United States invaded before China got involved. Much of the rest of your post is also drawn straight from US propaganda. Other countries do things out of their own self interest, not out of some desire to attack America.

robin21 6y ago
> Wars only start if we let them, and then stop when we take an interest. The US wasn't always a powerful military force. It became this way after WWII. So no, it wasn't the case then, but yes, it is pretty much the case today. Every country knows that they cannot win a traditional war against the US - so the OPs point is correct here. It's just lucky that the US is not imperialistic. Imagine if China was the most powerful militarily. > China As reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_... There was certainly a cold war between the two nations via other conflicts. If it's a question of who was the initial aggressor, that's hard to say because there was no direct conflict.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >It's just lucky that the US is not imperialistic. Imagine if China was the most powerful militarily. Another jaw dropping example of American exceptionalism. Look at your link, notice how we call the start of the PRC the "loss of China?" Any country not under our economic and political dominion is labeled the enemy
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > notice how we call the start of the PRC the "loss of China?" The PRC was literally the "loss of China" - the Cultural Revolution destroyed most of China's customs and history. > Any country not under our economic and political dominion is labeled the enemy The CCP is not just ideologically opposed to the US, but has been in an undeclared cold war since Mao in the 1950's. The CCP is our enemy - just look at their refusal to allow outside corona investigators to visit Wuhan for a year, or the large-scale spying in Western countries, etc. Why are you shilling for the CCP, who harvest organs from religious group members on an industrial scale for export?
  - robin21 6y ago
    Lost to communism. And what happened next under Mao involved a lot of loss shall we say. I think a great many Chinese would have preferred America intervene if they knew what that 50s had in store for them.
redis_mlc 6y ago
Actually I study WW2 primarily, but I'm familiar with WW1 and to a lesser extent other wars. You're very un-informed: - in WW1, there was trench warfare stalemate until the US entered and used combined arms to route the Germans. The British and French did not have the resources towards the end of WW1 to win, and that's one reason they failed to occupy Germany, leading to WW2. - in WW2, the US built about half the arms for both Britain and Russia. The US even designed and built many factories for Russia, which is not well-known. - Pakistan does not have a stable government. They were unable to address the rise of the Taliban for fear their own low-level government and military members would defect from the official leadership if they did. Trusting Pakistan with nuclear technology is foolish with a shaky government. - Iran is a regional industrial power, as capable as N. Korea. They build their own tanks and fighter clones, and have the capability to build nuclear weapons - unlike any other country in the region. - Mao didn't care about not being acknowledged by the US - he cared about ruling the world from an ideological perspective. He even asked Russia at least twice to jointly declare war on the US, but Russia laughed him off. China and Russia to this day are not close because of a 7-month war fought in 1969, and the current threats by Xi to reclaim territory from Russia. There's a weird attitude in the West that China is some big panda, but the CCP has no problem starting wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict - China has the world's largest navy. That is a sign of global ambitions, not self-defense. Japan did a similar thing pre-WW2. The US has a large nuclear arsenal because most of the Western-aligned nations, including an ungrateful Europe, are under our defense umbrella. (Because of the CCP's ambitions, Japan will likely have to go nuclear shortly.) You really don't know what you're talking about. Some advice for Europeans: if you want to feel proud, do something to be proud of. Being ingrates to the US and cowering in fear of Germany for the past century is nothing to be proud of, which is historical fact. You can start by paying for your own self-defense, which means increasing spending from 1.5% of GDP to 2.0 to 3.0%. Until then, stop pretending you're superior in any way to the US - your opinions simply don't count without the means to back them up. > Other countries do things out of their own self interest, not out of some desire to attack America. The history of warfare is not about starting wars out of a logical calculus, but primarily a leader with ideological or emotional goals. The US is currently the main target because they're also the most capable (and only superpower) to stop a usurper like the CCP.

robin21 6y ago

> Wars only start if we let them, and then stop when we take an interest. The US wasn't always a powerful military force. It became this way after WWII. So no, it wasn't the case then, but yes, it is pretty much the case today. Every country knows that they cannot win a traditional war against the US - so the OPs point is correct here. It's just lucky that the US is not imperialistic. Imagine if China was the most powerful militarily. > China As reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_... There was certainly a cold war between the two nations via other conflicts. If it's a question of who was the initial aggressor, that's hard to say because there was no direct conflict.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>It's just lucky that the US is not imperialistic. Imagine if China was the most powerful militarily. Another jaw dropping example of American exceptionalism. Look at your link, notice how we call the start of the PRC the "loss of China?" Any country not under our economic and political dominion is labeled the enemy
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > notice how we call the start of the PRC the "loss of China?" The PRC was literally the "loss of China" - the Cultural Revolution destroyed most of China's customs and history. > Any country not under our economic and political dominion is labeled the enemy The CCP is not just ideologically opposed to the US, but has been in an undeclared cold war since Mao in the 1950's. The CCP is our enemy - just look at their refusal to allow outside corona investigators to visit Wuhan for a year, or the large-scale spying in Western countries, etc. Why are you shilling for the CCP, who harvest organs from religious group members on an industrial scale for export?
- robin21 6y ago
  Lost to communism. And what happened next under Mao involved a lot of loss shall we say. I think a great many Chinese would have preferred America intervene if they knew what that 50s had in store for them.

redis_mlc 6y ago

Actually I study WW2 primarily, but I'm familiar with WW1 and to a lesser extent other wars. You're very un-informed: - in WW1, there was trench warfare stalemate until the US entered and used combined arms to route the Germans. The British and French did not have the resources towards the end of WW1 to win, and that's one reason they failed to occupy Germany, leading to WW2. - in WW2, the US built about half the arms for both Britain and Russia. The US even designed and built many factories for Russia, which is not well-known. - Pakistan does not have a stable government. They were unable to address the rise of the Taliban for fear their own low-level government and military members would defect from the official leadership if they did. Trusting Pakistan with nuclear technology is foolish with a shaky government. - Iran is a regional industrial power, as capable as N. Korea. They build their own tanks and fighter clones, and have the capability to build nuclear weapons - unlike any other country in the region. - Mao didn't care about not being acknowledged by the US - he cared about ruling the world from an ideological perspective. He even asked Russia at least twice to jointly declare war on the US, but Russia laughed him off. China and Russia to this day are not close because of a 7-month war fought in 1969, and the current threats by Xi to reclaim territory from Russia. There's a weird attitude in the West that China is some big panda, but the CCP has no problem starting wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict - China has the world's largest navy. That is a sign of global ambitions, not self-defense. Japan did a similar thing pre-WW2. The US has a large nuclear arsenal because most of the Western-aligned nations, including an ungrateful Europe, are under our defense umbrella. (Because of the CCP's ambitions, Japan will likely have to go nuclear shortly.) You really don't know what you're talking about. Some advice for Europeans: if you want to feel proud, do something to be proud of. Being ingrates to the US and cowering in fear of Germany for the past century is nothing to be proud of, which is historical fact. You can start by paying for your own self-defense, which means increasing spending from 1.5% of GDP to 2.0 to 3.0%. Until then, stop pretending you're superior in any way to the US - your opinions simply don't count without the means to back them up. > Other countries do things out of their own self interest, not out of some desire to attack America. The history of warfare is not about starting wars out of a logical calculus, but primarily a leader with ideological or emotional goals. The US is currently the main target because they're also the most capable (and only superpower) to stop a usurper like the CCP.