Added: 1 year ago
From: TheYoungTurks
Views: 27,200
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (1,603)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I honor all of our brave men and women in the millitary but the middle guy is right. Especialy about korea. the south korean army is well funded well equiped and well trained i think they are capable of holding of a north korean assault.

  • @pitster110 i agree. not only that, japanese have strong alliance with south korea.

  • what us army should? they should be fucking executed for war crimes

  • Who the fuck are these guys? what a bunch of morons....this is a comedians point of view!!!

  • The captions are pretty fucked up.

  • USA is like the insecure bully on the playground, a capricious brat and all the other countries are much older boys and are more cool headed, they dont want that little brat throwing a tantrum and calling on "parents"

  • The army guys.. SHOULD TAKE AN ARROW IN THE KNEE!

  • Wes Clark Jr. has that unique blend of a privileged background with gritty experience that makes a person @#$! smart.

  • this fat Michale guy disgusts me.

  • if americans stand between north and south korea and the north attacks, then they are not only taking on the south but also the U.S. and NATO. if americans aren't there, then it's up to the U.S. and NATO to INVADE, which is less likely to happen, and if it did then Russia and China would attack the U.S.. seems pretty straightforward to me.

  • Idk.. A terrorist

  • Idk.. A terrorist

  • Im ganna laugh wen the military to do take troops out. and we get invaded cuz of this asshole!

  • @BloodyDirtBikeCrash1 By whom will this invasion be?

  • @BloodyDirtBikeCrash1 Bahaha. Invaded by a third world nation that has no army, navy, or airforce?

  • HOLY FUCK. Wes Clark Jr. is he running for office?! MORE COMMON SENSE VOICES LIKE THIS PLEASE

  • TYT can go screw themselves

  • Because they are our allies

  • According to Wikipedia, the US has military bases in Canada. Why?

    Geographical Positioning? No. The US has Arctic borders through Alaska.

    Are they making sure Canada doesn't invade the United States? No. Canadians have brains; we know not to invade.

    To protect Canada from invasion? From who? I don't expect Greenland or any other Arctic Nation to invade.

    Does anybody know why the US would have bases in Canada? Please explain why if you do.

  • @Crewie1039 cause overall USA is a country screwed in the head, paranoia will be it's downfall

  • "Most of mainland Europe would have been Communist, but it would have fallen anyway."

    I think he was dead-on with that statement.

  • North Koreas army would be fucked within a year. We have UK to help. And anyone would be willing to help fuck up North Korea. We would wreck them. End of story.

  • screw you

  • us miltery should blow up korea

  • @robloxpwnmaster3 your arrogant comments clearly show you are unaware of how your economy is being held up right now.

  • wow really i just found them today liked them till i seen this one that one guy was all like we was attacked once in like 250ish years ummm pearl harbor and 911 hover building come on really he is a dumb ass and the one thats like why do we have troops everywhere really has he never played risk? and also we got to have it so just drop it nothing he has said is in anyway smart unsub for me

  • @akacheta I can´t believe that that comment was written by a person who comes from a country that has a literacy rate over 90%. You just didn´t make any sense.

  • the americans want an empire!! its a struggle for power!! right now the US want the oil.

  • Too many idiots in the world...

  • im getting tired of the young turks...

  • Thats why we'er in your country right, we taken over.But we can't expand, with little countries like yours, just like Russia and China we're big enough to do so with countries that still fall under religion, becuase the urge for science is rising, it answers more questions than any bible can.But the fear of someone playing God prevents it, science is more powerful than any form of religon, can God figure out how to prevent cancer and other fatal diseases? No, but we can, in due time.

  • Thats why we'er in your country right, we taken over.But we can't expand, with little countries like yours, just like Russia and China we're big enough to do so with countries that still fall under religion, becuase the urge for science is rising, it answers more questions than any bible can.But the fear of someone playing God prevents it, science is more powerful than any form of religon, can God figure out how to prevent cancer and other fatal diseases? No, but we can, in due time.

  • typical Americans! you fucks are everyone and every god damn color/ nationality.. but yet still you guys talk crap about all nations..

  • So the soviet union fell, but now what about the other terrorist of the world... oh yeah 9/11 happened. yeah fucker we need troops out there.

  • We got nukes! Don't need troops!

  • This guy is a moron!!! He makes no valid points and has not backing for what he says. Its called "Ethos, Pathos, and Logos" look it up dip shit. O' and one more thing WWI started with Franz Ferdinand so yes on something like protecting Lithuania's independence could start a third World War. I don't know what party or group sent you to speak but I'm sure they are regretting it!

    "Let me tell you how the world works! "it's an evolution of systems?" it's not... shit just evolves"

  • oh yes he definitely knows how the world works everything he states is speculation and personal theory he seems to obsessed with his own opinion without the desire to keep an open mind. if he has that much of a problem with how the country is ran maybe he should immigrate to his beloved South Korea.

  • "Do we have to take a break here, or can I explain the way the world works?"

    That is why Wes Clark, Jr. should be on TYT more often.

  • We are the most powerful and the most hated, think we can have an army over night? if a threat comes, we crush it, if a threat sees our strength, they are hesitant to rise up. Our armies, our military is not the problem, its these fucks who hate them, who hate America. Real fuck up? Obamacare, not out fighters, our military. Open your gay fucking eyes. Bitches. Don't like America? Go be at home in a socialist country.

  • Liberals are spineless, pussies. Its true. Men are men, with liberals they are metro sexuals. Liberals are socialists, look at any ideology they hold dear. We shouldnt be in Iraq anymore, but Obama did say we would be out of it once he was president. We are still there. Even after we got Osama?... we defending America from these liberal idiots.

  • @Deadcrows1981 Liberals are socialists?? HAHAHAHAHAHA.. If you are a liberal then you are a liberal, you cant be a liberal AND a socialist. Metrosexual (its one word you moron) is a man carrying about his looks, its not a sexuality or paying young boys for a blowjob (like republicans do).

  • @Thelvin0 You mad brah? Look at all the ideologies of Liberals. Tell me they are not socialist.

  • @Deadcrows1981 Nope, I think you are hysterically funny. Not used too read crazy peoples views. Liberalism is an ideology (just one). You can be a socialist and vote on democrates, but it still doesnt make you a liberal. 

  • @Thelvin0 what is the Liberal ideals? What is at the core? Hmm? Redistribution of money? Take from those who risked everything to make it, to build something, and give it to those for votes? Whats the ideology? Name them.

  • ...(3)

    Yes, intervention does cause problems, but those problems are far, far less than allowing totalitarian regimes unlimited freedom.

    History has taught us that much, at least. Seems you want to re-live it.

  • ...(2)

    Politically, I am of the left, and even though I have concerns about the American political/capatalist system, 'even I can see the great sense in the Americans and allies keeping such regimes at bay.

    Also, you cretin, 9/11 was caused by religious extremists, for extremist religious reasons; such as allowing women the vote

  • jwhte67

    What an arrogant, selfish and short-thinking outlook.

    So, let's not do good and help others out, because it leaves us open to backlash from lunatic extremists?

    You moron. To leave some to their own devices, i.e. Iran, Nth Korea, Burma, etc., is allowing them to develop, unrestricted, nuclear arsenals and totalitarian regimes?

    Yeah, real bright...

  • @paulthew2

    Ohh myy GOD !

    Cant you retarded fuckheads finally SHUT THE FUCK UP ??

    Totallitarian? Like those the US supported allways? Like they supported Saddam? Then killed 100.000 civilians under false claims to gain again power in that area?

    What about Iran, as you just mentioned it? ? They had democracy there. WHO ENDED THEIR DEMOCRATY???

    OH YEA, THE UNITED F U C K I N G STATES . The CIA and the MI6 killed their president in a second as he didnt do what they wanted.

    Go fuck yourself

  • @shurednichso

    Oh my, now it's the Kennedy assasination?

    Loll!!!

    Don't tell me...9/11 was an inside job, too?

  • @paulthew2

    Kennedy? ? ?

    Are you fucking high, you retarded dumb shit?

    Iran . Mossadegh. Peration Ajax.

    Aknowledged by any historian and even serious right wing polititions.

    God, ignorant Americans. Know shit about their own history , but are smartassin.

    SUPRISE!

  • Comment removed

  • Yeah, let's just leave the Middle East to itself, North Korea to itself, etc.

    Idiot.

  • @paulthew2 Yes, because us occupying the middle east hasnt caused us any problems or bad blood whatsoever, no 9/11 or anything just good ol Americans keeping the peace protectin freedoms and leaving would cause more problems then staying.

    Brainwashed idiot.

  • middle guy is right!!!!!!!!!

  • this guy doesnt know what eh talking about, america s position in these countries deters other countries form attacking the inhabited country the military is in.

  • " when that next big threat appears you can rebuild an army?"

    Man did Wes ever get the impression that countries have been able to live

    next to each other in peace like that.

    Human history is filled with conflict. The US army is maintaining the peace and stability of the world! And every objective analysts will tell you that.

    And "rebuilding an army" ooh yeah that's very convenient.

    I've got an idea why don't we keep our army active.

    But at the same time cut wasteful defence spending

  • The problem that Wes doesn't get is.

    Alot of countries have become dependent on the US.

    And the US has in turn become a stabilising factor in the world.

    I don't want no hate respond on this comment because

    I don't know if you noticed the US has bases all over the world.

    And they didn't go and stay there for no apparent reason.

    The US shouldn't leave all these countries.

    We have the money to pay for it.

    But we should reduce defence spending by about 20%.

    1/5 not more

  • all right this guy is a idoit "we dont need troops all over the world", hu?????????... im not going to go into mutch detail, but we have them there as a "just in case"

  • The military have begun to get ready for entering the underground. First Los Alamos evacuated because of a created fire. Than Walter Reed hospital closes in Washington D.C. And than the last 'Shuttle mission' and the closing of NASA. In all over 25,000 american military not at work. Where are they going? And now two Illuminati sacrifices. Norway attacks and Amy Winehouse at age 27. To distract our attention. Date of Sept. world wide event seems to be accurate.

  • another impression, he is an asshole

  • first impressions on the guy in the middle is telling me that he is a total shit face motherfucker that doesn't get the more important reasons why we need U.S. military in other countries

  • If a third world country has oil, a first world country should have it. We're far too mellow in our methods, catering every weak nation that cries out for our help, yet makes no improvements when our hand is given. The leaders, the developed nations, have to lead the way now.

  • Fuck that middle guy he's a fuktard

  • @DontFUckWitUSA Hes not brainwashed with US imperialism, you should try learn the truth sometime.

  • your an ass. your right we have troops and a military presence in other places. this has pissed people off. if we weeken our military we loose the protection it gives. pull out, by all means but dont get rid of our military its the last thing amarica has that is better than anyone elses.

  • @BWPrivateRoad ROFL France? Are you smoking? The French military is pathetic. Germany has a pretty good army, but not close to the level of British troops. Not only is our technology better but we also have much more experience. Number of troops doesn't mean anything.

  • Die Hard!

  • I think the guy talking about taking troops out is an idiot he doesn't even know what he's saying

  • They should be dead.

  • We don't need America helping us in Europe. Britain hold down all of Europe. We by far have the strongest military in Europe and definitely one of strongest in the world.

  • @oodlesofosz Yes you do(im american) we are brothers man! But al queda did attack us and were going crazy now and we should stick together till the end!!

  • @gkale1 What do we need help for? We face no European threat. Who in Europe will attack us? I'm not saying we shouldn't be allies though.

  • @oodlesofosz I think i was trying to say that Yes you do have the strongest military in europe and that we work together very well and I hope we remain close allies for a long time to come.

  • We would crush the fuck of the N. Korean army! Not just defeat but crush the fuck out of it.

  • @lawgivah1 You're a moron. The US have rules to follow. NK don't. They won't hesitate to nuke anybody. Plus you are HUGELY under-estimating the power of NK's army. Have you seen them march? They are living under such strict conditions and undergo such intense training they have war on their mind 24/7. They are fanatics. America is struggling against mountain men in sandles with 25 year old guns, be real now.

  • @oodlesofosz I said nthing bout nukes dipshit. we aren't struggling against the middle east Both Iraq and Afghan fell the first week boots hit the ground. we're rebuilding their nations while a few angry citizens take shots at our troopers, & u over estimate NK . the whole country is starving troops 2. they don't have enough oil sources to do scheduled military exercises. In order to wage war sccfuly it will cost money/energy they don't have, China already sed if NK starts shit they won't help.

  • @lawgivah1 You don't have to? NK have nukes and they wouldn't hesistate to use them. HENCE you wouldn't "crush" them, nobody would, as they would do far more damage to you than you could to them as they have nobody to answer to (UN). You think the Iraq & Afghan war lasted a week?

  • @oodlesofosz Their Government fell in a week, the Guard fell in a week. It doesn't matter if they don't answer to the UN. Nobody does! When was the last time WE listened to the UN? what are they gonna do Sanction us? With their army? we R the UN, & NK so called nukes, can't even reach Alaska. Want's nuclear force is used the other nation is able to use theirs, tho realistically it wouldn't happen ne way. They are not capable of waging war, that's y they don't.

  • @lawgivah1 It took over a month for the Government to fall, about eight months to catch Saddam and the war went on for seven years. Are you saying America doesn't follow International Law? There are a handful of countries that don't and America isn't one of them. Nukes can't reach Alaska? What?

  • @oodlesofosz You don't know what your talking about it fell in weeks. Even if it took a bit more than a month (which id didn't) that's pathetic. Yeah there missiles can't reach Alaska. America rights the international laws, & dnt follow if they dnt wanna. The war has been reduced to rebels fighting against 'imperialism' not the gvnmt. NK can't evn feed there own ppl, USA sends aid every year of food & meds, and your telling me they could actually wage war? No they dn't have the resources.

  • @lawgivah1 How do you know their missiles can't reach Alaska? What would they even want to attack Alaska for? After 9/11 I wouldn't underestimate any group of people let alone a whole country - when they strike first. Yeah America WRITE international law, too bad they can't get the people on their payroll to follow it. How is Israel working out? Do you know how many UN leaders have been American? You have nobody currently in power at the UN. NK aren't trying to feed their people.

  • @oodlesofosz They don't have the capability to fire farther, I nvr sed they would want to either, they wouldn't fire on SK. 9/11 has nothing to do with NK. yeh Write thanks for the correction I nvr sed our past leaders did follow it that was my whole point actually, and the fact that NK isn't trying to feed their people? It's not about trying its can't. They don't have enough energy sources to keep the street lights on all month long what makes you think they could sustain a war with the USA?

  • @lawgivah1 You have no solid basis for any of what you are saying. This is pointless.

  • @oodlesofosz I do, if you just looked up half the shit you say. I mean read a book for once, or the economist or something! You have know idea what your saying.

  • @lawgivah1 The fact that you think that the US run the UN when they can't even talk about to Israel is funny.

  • @oodlesofosz There is a difference between can't and won't, It's bullshit yes, what Isreal is doing, but America won't say shit cuz Israel, politically, has us in there pocket.

  • I think our own rules are going to bring us down. That blows

  • fuck democrats all they do is throw money at there problems

  • what i say disband from the nato befriend russia and kill all the commies and terrorists thats what i belive

  • LMFAO, Turn on close caption (press the button to the left of the 360p quality button) at 0:41 "bob dole these countries want us there"

  • the only resone i want to join is to defend our country, and our famlies

  • the military industrial complex that Roosevelt warned about......

  • @SteveOzzy2112 Eisenhower, not Roosevelt...both Roosevelts actually aided the military industrial complex, and did not warn against it's dangers.

  • Bring all the troops home- Ron Paul

  • There is one ethical way to give foreign aid or military aid, either in disaster or genocide, or whatever...you have to collect donations into a fund, ask individual soldiers if they would like to volunteer for the mission, and use the fund to pay the volunteer soldiers, when the fund is exhausted, so is the righteousness of your cause. It shouldn't cost a taxpayer anything, as that's how they stole from me to pay for Iraq, and now Libya, Japan..etc. If not completely voluntary it's unethical.

  • @ProIndividual The troops are already payed volunteers, though. They can be deployed anywhere the commanders see fit.

  • @86THECRITIC Yeah, that's lie your govt feeds you. Do they ask troops if they want to go to Iraq? No. They sign up for Afghanistan, and go to a war of choice. Did they ask them individually if they wanted to go to Libya? No. Again, more tyranny and wars of choice? How about Kosovo? No. Maybe Japan after the quake? No. So, as I said, the only ethical way...(read the rest above). It's hard to go to war for anything but self defense when troops have a choice...LIKE DURING THE REVOLUTION! Ah, tyvm.

  • @86THECRITIC Most of our troops in the Revolution were come-asyou-please militia...no major draft, no major coercion. Justified wars, as it turns out, get volunteered for...no force needed. Crappy choice wars, as it turns out, relies on recruiting impressionable children in schools, and once you opt in, you may not opt out...NO MATTER THE IMMORALITY OR WASTE INVOLVED. You say they are volunteers, then admit they are ordered against their will...which is it? Orwellian doublespeak, that's what.

  • @86THECRITIC I do not think it is hard to find volunteers in the true sense (I'm decribing), in wars of self defense, foreign aid in disasters, or wars to stop genocide. It simply shows the true morality and justification of such an action...not letting people like yourself say it's moral, and then ordering children just out of high scholl to their deaths...because YOU think it's justified. How about the people doin' the dyin' make that call, k?

  • @86THECRITIC My stance is dependent on you not thinking force, violence, and coercion through orders to die for some collectivism, or taxes to fund it, are somehow moral or ethical. If you think those things ethical, you are a statist and a sadist. We just won't see eye to eye then. BUT, if you see the coercion in funding wars (or world welfare) you don't agree with, by borrowing from China today so your grandkids can pay for it later through theft (taxes), then my way should be clearly ethical.

  • @86THECRITIC Doing it your way is why war is the health of the state, and the cancer of the society...doing it my way, war is only practiced when, and insofar, as the people believe in it's morality, effectiveness, et cetera. How many wars would not be fought in this world if the government couldn't FORCE you to pay for them (regardless of their justification, I bet some Germans didn't like funding death camps too), and the troops did NOT have to go if it was not worth it in their opinion? Alot

  • @ProIndividual They know what they signed on for. War is war.

  • @86THECRITIC That's all you got? Really? Wow, what a rationalization, lol.

    They are mostly high school kids and poor people who signed up for college money, hoping to God no war would happen...so let's stop with the govt BS.

    War is war..I agree! Exactly why we need to be ethical, and do what I described...so these idiot wars don't happen. We are in Afghanistan, Iraq, bombing Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan...are you that blind you can't see my point? Quit waving your flag while kids die.

  • @ProIndividual Well, you're talking to one of them.

  • @86THECRITIC And that has ZERO to do with the ethics of the situation. If you're one of them, then wake up. I mean, can you say something of substance, or is all you got "derrr I'm a soldier"...cuz I don't think it's relevant to ethics. You are trying to tell me coercion is ethical, and it's unethical and not preferable to allow choice. Not to mention, the preventative nature of my suggestion in the case of wars of choice. Wake up, you're a nationalist, not a patriot. There is a difference.

  • @ProIndividual You sign on to the job, you know what you have to do. none of the guys my friends are with complain. I'm not going to complain.You know exactly why you are going to war when you are fighting it. We know we went to Libya to work alongside UN forces in a scope and time limited action. We know we were in Afghanistan to catch Bin-Laden. If you ask me from a tactical standpoint, we need to be pullling out of there soon.

  • @86THECRITIC Irrelevant. The ethical stand is mine. Your using logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum (appealing to the people's opinons, like polls). I have you in a corner ethically, and yet you keep asserting your immoral stand out of tradition. I don't care if you compalin, forcing you into a war you do not wish to go to, let alone some foreign aid project, is UNETHICAL. You want to volunteer for universal action? Then do it, quit forcing other people.

  • @ProIndividual You know what we do when you don't want to go to war? They get kicked out. If you join the military thinking you won't have to go to a war, then you are an idiot. Nobody wants to go to war. It's not fun. But It is what we are payed for.

  • @86THECRITIC What poarto f this don't you get...the WAR is immoral if it is not fought by 100% voluntary combat. You just skip over the real point. You shouldn't be kicked out for refusing, that's stupid. Just allow troops to choose, then only justified wars of self defense will occur. Your faith in the orders on-high leave these children to the whims of tyrants. I would join, almost did, but then I thought they might send me to a war that I didn't believe in. Wonder why recruitment is so low?

  • @86THECRITIC What part of this don't you get?*

    You aren't paid to go to war dude, you were paid to DEFEND this country. It'd be nice if even 50% of the time that's what our military did. It would mean easier recruiting, with higher standards, and less DEATH for those kids who don't need to be fighting wars for other countries who can afford it themselves. STOP WELFARING THE WOORLD OUR KIDS LIVES, AND OUR TREASURE. Thank you, statist.

  • @ProIndividual Allright, you win. I really don't care anymore. my gf of almost six years dumped me and I don't know why and I just don't care.....

  • @86THECRITIC Been there...lol. Soory to hear that.

  • @ProIndividual Oh dear God. False alarm. That was close. I hate it when women do that. But anyway, America's military is voluntary. Wars, are not. The volunteers from the military go to war. And exactly, like you said, if you are afraid of going to war, don't join. If they don't want to go to war, nobody will join.

  • @86THECRITIC LOL...even better.

    If you say the signing up for the military is voluntary, I'd say stop recruitment of children in schools other than college, and I'll agree. It does NOT make it voluntary though...and it should be 100% voluntary. I have found no ethical and reasoned point to dispute this assertion I am making. It in now way hampers DEFENSE, altough it kills state authority to order people to die for causes they think are bullshit...and thank God. We are not going to agree here.

  • @ProIndividual Yeah ikr... anyway they kind of have to target those people because they are the ages they need, but make of that what you will.

  • @86THECRITIC "Target" is the perfect word. Impressionable, foolish, and they think they're invincible.

    No way wars of aggression happen w/o the command of a State, where those commands are backed by penalty of law. The only ethical way to fund war is through donations, as tax if theft (esecially when funding wars of aggression you don't agree with). The ethical way to find soldiers is to ask for volunteers for the duty, not ALL duties (although you can volunteer for that too if you like).

  • @86THECRITIC The fact the govt only allows the one way to join that you currently like is why our recruitment levels are so low, standards for recrutiing has to be constantly lowered, and soooo many wars of offense, not defense, occur. Without this ability to steal as much as they need to fund the war (and borrow or print or the rest), and without the ability to coerce young people to their deaths, almost all non-defensive wars end. The righteousness of the cause is related to it's voluntaryism.

  • @ProIndividual Unfortunately, war is not ethical. Unless taxes pay for it, we will have no money to spend on a defensive war. Even then, it would be hard to get money from anyone, let alone start using it with the operational timeframe in question. I agree that they do try pretty hard to coerce you to join.

  • @86THECRITIC ...it does NOT make it FULLY voluntary...*

  • If you think the dangers facing the west are terrorists breaking into random people's homes and call someone a communist simply for disagreeing with you then you are mentally ill. Do you also think the terrorists hate America for it's freedom?

  • the guy on the left is so fucking stupid

    He just keeps proposing ridiculous situations. Protecting our allies? What does that have to do with Iraq or Afghanistan?

  • @FishscaleRaw Israel.

  • @86THECRITIC They have 200 nukes, non of the Arabs have any...we give them less foreign aid then all the arab nations combined...we are funding an arms war, not supporting allies. Support for a nation with 200 nukes of it's own, the best airforce next to ours, etc., is to GET the F out of the way. If we need to defend every ally, that means their kids are too good to die for their own stuff, and we are beneath them, as we will die for them. F THAT. And borrow from China to pay for it? Nope.

  • @ProIndividual Who do you think they got their nukes and air force from? ;)

  • @86THECRITIC Us, but who cares? TRhey have them, now what is your excuse? Did we sell them to the them just to do it? Or was it so they could defens THEMSELVES. Can you think for a second, or has the govt brainwashed you completely? Or is it religious brainwashing? The idea a nation with 200+ nukes can't defend itself at it's OWN expense of blood and treasure, against natiuons with no nukes, w/o our help, is straight up BS.

  • @ProIndividual We gain a lot from this treaty. Many politicians in our government are Jewish, and it is in their interest to help those of their brothers who have been persecuted for centuries. They got the nukes from us. There has got to be a lobby for Israel in Washington, don't you think? Said politicians make money off of this. Why wouldn't they give aid to Israel. Golan heights is a great example of the hatred the arab league has against these people.

  • @86THECRITIC You're making excuses for borrowing money from China on your great grandkids backs to welfare a military to Israel...when they have thewir own, a great one, and all the nukes they need to defend themselves without our money or blood. Are you worried about Israel's interests more than ours? Lobbying is legal bribery when in monetary form. We fund the arabs with more aid combined than we give to Israel, we are funding an arms race. Stop welfaring to the world on our posterity's backs.

  • @ProIndividual We gave them their military. It isntt welfare. We get stuff out of it too.

  • @86THECRITIC No, we don't. We have a net loss on our books every financial year. We give them money and weapons, they give us less cash than those things are worth, so we lose money. We borrow that money from China, on our grandkids backs. You want to welfare them a military and aid, which just funds an arms race with arabs we fund more altogether, on unborn Americans backs, for some codependent relationship today. Stop welfaring to the world out lives and fortunes! We have a NET LOSS for this.

  • @ProIndividual Well if you want that to stop, yell at the politicians.

  • @86THECRITIC No... I'm yelling at you, a statist who supports this coercive evil immoral unethical policy, which BTW, leads the sophist politicans to continue the policy. I need to change your mind, statist, not theirs...they only do what get's them re-elected.

    This is the failure of demcracy...the masses are almosy always wrong.

  • @ProIndividual Like I said, I don't mind, but you can voice your opinions at them.

  • @86THECRITIC That makes no sense. Your opinion is the issue, not theirs. They have no pinion of their own, they do what the masses want, and the masses think slavery is freedom.

  • Also, this notion that the US is still the biggest military power? Don't think so. China has an army that rivals the US in numbers and almost in resources, except for Nukes. Europe too. Which is precisely the reason nobody needs "protection" from good old US of A. The fact that the US army is stationed almost everywhere is actually a reason for other nations to fear the US more than any other possible "threat" in the world.

  • Ok. The guy on left is A dumb-ass. Guy in the middle knows his stuff. Guy on the right seems to bee willfully ignorant.

    Even some of the most liberal Americans I know seem suffer from this kind of self-importance when it comes to the affairs of the US in other nations. Other nations don't need "protection" and have never needed it. NO, also not during WOII. If it would have been about protection the US would have froze all oil export to Nazi Germany during that time, but they didn't.

  • @spider879 I don't think the Chinese really have that kind of power over NK. If they would, NK wouldn't have detonated those nukes. China wants to be the only legitimate nuclear power in the area.

    Besides, India is enough to balance the power against China in Asia.

  • @APPLEPIE978 Georgia is not a member of NATO!

  • @hairysteed. Sure it wasnt the "only" reason but it was in my opinion the decisive point. In reality Finland wouldn't have lasted much longer but ofc Soviet Union wasn't happy on the war that had already dragged on so long. In the end ofc Soviet Union got 10% of Finlands area. But i don't really know how your going to argue about the brits threat not being a major factor on Soviet Unions decision.

  • @Mamonuth It is believed that the main goal for the Anglo-French expeditionary force was not really to come to Finland's aid but secure Swedish ore mines in Kiruna. That was the reason Sweden didn't allow their transit through Swedish territory. Göring had urged Finland's leaders to accept any peace terms and told that Finland would regain any lost territory with interests.

  • @Hairysteed Even if you think the anglo-french wanted to secure the mines does it really have to do with Soviet Unions decision? Anyway i don't see it that way since Germany was doing bussiness with Sweden (buying minerals or w/e) and pretty much controlling it since the Swedes just went along the flow. And Göring.. well again, how does that affect the decision Soviet Union made? I mean ofc for sure German was probably saying "you'll get it all back with extra" to Finland but yeah..

  • @Tuuliska So NATO is just a bluff and a paper tiger?

  • The dude in the middle is obviously a Ron Paul guy... woot woot

  • @andord123 VC was pretty much defeated in South Vietnam through Phoenix and Chieu Hoi programs as well as their failure of the TET offensive. This allowed for "Vietnamization" - to shift the responsibility to ARVN and to bring American troops home. Problem was that after years of fighting a counter-insurgency war they weren't prepared to fight a conventional war and the NVA succeeded where VC failed!

  • @kamijk So the people living there would just have to deal with it? Imagine if the mainland Americans would've just said "aww screw the Hawaiians!" after Peal Harbor!

  • @Dayoman10 If it weren't for the thee T:s (Taiwan, Tibet, Tienanmen square) I would have no problem with the Chinese!

  • @Greginda11 Why would China invade South Korea? They have more trade with the South than they do with North!

  • @Hairysteed china already tried to invade South Korea. why trade when you can own?  Look at the korean war there were chinese offensives in hong kong, and on the korean front. The same war happening again is unlikely but if N and S korea go to war America as an Ally must defend them, otherwise aggrements like NATO mean nothing. USA isn't the only one, Canada, Germany, UK, they are also allies of S Korea, and allies don't sit on their wands when theyr ally is being invaded.

  • @Greginda11 China joined the war only when North Korean defeat seemed inevitable. They weren't going to let American troops come right at their doorstep. Besides, although far from being a modern pluralistic democracy, China is no longer the Maoist hostile nation it used to be.

  • @Hairysteed Still, it would have been better if China just let North Korea collapse back than, and we would not have to deal with kimmy now.

  • @acdc30450 ...sure, but back then China WAS that Maoist hostile nation on a quest to destroy capitalists

  • @Hairysteed China is still not 100 % trust worthy. And north korea is even more hostiale than ever

  • @Chnamanjx You can't secure territory with nuclear missiles.

  • @REVAN2338 Outdated?! ROKAF just recently received a batch of F-15K Slam Eagles, which are far more advanced (and expensive) than USAF F-15E Strike Eagles! The only thing more advanced the USAF has is the F-22! That's no small feat considering that even the old F-4E Phantoms they replaced would be enough to shoot down anything the NK has!

  • @Hairysteed airfoce maybe, but explain the use of the m16a1, and the Patton tank...............they would be destroyed in open war.

  • @REVAN2338 Oh, the M48 Patton and M16A1 rifle... prime examples! Why not ask about the K2 Black Panther and the K11 rifle?

    What can't the M16A1 do that newer more expensive assault rifles can? The M48A3/A5 can hold its own against the bulk of Korean People's Army tank force (Type59s, T55s, T62s). The bulk of ROKA tank force on the other hand consists of K1 and K1A1 that can make short work of whatever north has! Besides, that older equipment will obviously be issued to the reserve forces.

  • @Hairysteed you never have handled a m16a1, have you it has a idiotic amount of jamming, parts breaking, a lack in stopping power, and yes they will of course be issued to the reserve units, witch is 80% of the Korean land forces. and at this point not many k11's are being used, also 400 black panthers will have no chance against 5000 tanks the NK army has . The south Korean army is fucked, I would love to see them win, if war comes, but by them self's there fucked.

  • @REVAN2338 Actually, I have shot with an AR-15 (civilian version of M16 -semi-auto, no forward assist). Most of the reliability grievances of M16 in Vietnam were due to older ball powder being used in the cartridges which was dirtier than stick powder. This was worsened by the fact that no cleaning kits were issued. The A1 solved much of the reliability issues and featured a forward assist. The claim about lack of stopping power is plain bogus!

  • The KPA has 4500 main battle tanks 3400 of which are outdated Type59s, T55s and T62s that can't punch a hole in a K1 unless it's within 1000m never mind the K2! 1000 tanks are of locally produced Chonma-ho tanks which are little more than T62 with ERA and laser rangefinders. The only tank that could probably knock out a K1 would be the newest Pokpung-ho of which there are only a hundred or two... still no match for the K2! None of these tanks have thermal sights!

  • ROKA has more than 1000 K1s, about 500 K1A1s 500 M48A5s, 400 M48A3s (M48s to be replaced by 400 K2s) and 35 T80Us totaling to about 2000 tanks all fitted with thermal sights and state-of-the-art fire control systems enabling them to see and hit any NK tanks before they can get close enough to retaliate. You can't beat scissors with three papers!

  • @REVAN2338 By the way, how big a portion of those 4500 tanks do you think the KPA can keep rolling when virtually uncontested ROKAF air dominance keeps harassing supply lines?