It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker
Many of the worlds other superpowers that aren't allied with US (NATO) or a Proxy are also arming in response to the US buildup since the 80's under Reagan. They have to keep up or die. But they aren't doing what the US is currently.
For instance Russia is bombing in Syria, but not because Russia is trying to subvert or take over Syria, because they are helping the Syrians put down the US backed insurgency. Same thing in Vietnam. The Chinese and Soviets helped defeat the US military. And in the Korean war and Cuba as well.
They are responding to US aggression, arming to defend themselves and their allies, big difference.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
In the Reagan era, no one would bother massive military build-ups. it would cost a fortune and they'd still get slobber-knocked!
So spare us the usual anti-U.S. diatribe.
What you miss is we are fast approaching the ingredients that led to the two world wars. Multiple power that are roughly comparable, militarily,with an increasingly isolationist U.S.- no troops of worth involve in the ME and only one of many in the bombing of Isis- add in leaders who think they might just pull off land grabs and territorial expansion and we've never been closer to a WWIII.
This would not be the case if the U.S. had maintained it's overwhelming military edge.
a reply to: Aazadan