More than half of China’s citizens expect their country to be at war with Japan in as little as six years, according to a new public opinion poll that finds a widening sense of mistrust and hostility between the two countries.
About 53% of Chinese respondents and 29% of Japanese respondents expected a war to break out by the year 2020, according to a joint survey conducted by newspaper China Daily and Genron, a Japanese NGO.
Each country’s favorability rating of the other remained at historic lows: 93% of Japanese respondents reported having a negative impression of China, the worst rating in the survey’s decadelong history, while 87% of Chinese responded negatively to Japan, a slight decrease from last year’s record high.
Tensions between Japan and China flared in 2013 over disputed islands in the East China Sea, and diplomats from both countries accused one another of behaving like “Voldemort,” the evil wizard from the Harry Potter fame. The rhetoric has cooled slightly since then, but public resentment evidently is still running deep.
China could easily steamroll Japan since they are clunmped together and have little population. But if Japan gets direct USA support, then CHina is fucked beyond repair, leaving Russia as the only rival to the USA left. Again.
Can you picture the shitstorm if China attacks Japan and the US does NOTHING ABOUT IT?
Because we all know the US are a bunch of spineless pussies and Japan is toothless with their "Self defense force" that's regulated into the dirt. So Japan would fall in a few hours without America around to prop them up.
>>35560552 >Implying that China will start war with Japan without direct involvement of Russian Federation
Do you even lift? > The two countries have been unable to sign a peace treaty after World War II due to the Kuril Islands dispute >72% of Japanese people view Russia unfavorably, compared with 22% who viewed it favorably, making Japan the most Russophobic country surveyed
Russia would for 100% help China to rekt Japan especially that they need China alive. If USA will help then we will go WW3 then
>>35560561 Japan from 1930 to 1945 was a compleetly militarized society. It all started after fucking Millard Fillmore decided to shock an entire isolated civilization into a rapidly industrializing and encroaching world. That kicked off the Meiji restoration, propelling Japan into a state of militarized aggressive theocratic rule. Now japan doesn't have the hardcore school run genocidal indoctrination or sun god for a ruler. They even lost their right to expand their military. They would sadly get reked. Although I believe that if china were to be the aggressor in any violent conflict. The US would do whatever it could to rally the people to war. It's all about keeping the Chinese from taking the USD from reserve currency status.
America has been playing with war the last 70 years. Thats the country's national sport. If Japan doesn't receive direct US aide then they would lose in a war with China. They don't have the same spirit as in the 20th century. They dont have an industrial basin that can compare with China nor can they sustain massive losses. This leads them to always play it safe while China can absorb massive losses going through with any plan they think of.
You people are seriously deluded if you think Japan would be alone in this. If any major conflict was against it the US would come to the rescure. Not to mention that the JSDF is heavily militarized. Have you even seen their air carriers?
In this VICE news story/documentary that is very recent shows the US training in the pacific Ocean with China, Japan and a lot of other countries.
One part I found concerning was where the an American higher ranking officer went over to give a talk to the Japanese which stated:
"I look you in the eye right now and what I see are warriors and I see that the Bushido code is alive and well in the Japanese warrior. The day is coming. Be ready for that fight; And we will stand together and defeat any foe."
Why would he seem so sure a war is about to break out in the pacific unless they are actually planning something?
>America letting its Asian butt buddy's aka: Their forward staging point in the Asian theater that isn't S Korea get invaded. >America letting one of their largest trading partners get invaded >America/Russia/India letting China grow larger
>>35560552 On the other hand, with the way China is structured, relatively little retaliation could have major impacts.
Imagine if a waring nation managed to destroy the Three Gorges Dam? Either from the flooding, or the loss of power, that would not be good times for China.
Having so many people crowded into their big cities is also a huge "send bomb here" flag. Imagine even a half-assed bombing going down in one of the megacities, where it is a literal sea of people milling around in the evening?
Japan's population, size, etc. make it look like China has the clear upper hand, but that doesn't mean that Japan can't give them a good skunking in the process.
China is a paper dragon. They're surrounded on all sides by little countries who all have mutual defense agreements AGAINST china. The only thing between them and India being the Himalayas and their only other natural defensive barrier being the Gobi desert.
With the majority of China's industry and population centers being densely populated in the river basins they could be easily disrupted by bombing key locations like Dams.
According to wikipedia, 1,12 boys are born for every 1 girl in China and for children under 15 there are 1,17 boys for every 1 girl. China is going to have a problem with male virgins with rage in the future.
>>35564563 That was before US conquered Japan, and made it it's vassal state. If China would launch limited military campaign on to get Senkaku Islands it would get them without an issue. Problem is however international relations China cannot risk international backfall at the moment. In six years situation will be different.
>>35560086 >time.com >diplomats from both countries accused one another of behaving like “Voldemort,” the evil wizard from the Harry Potter fame. The rhetoric has cooled slightly since then, but public resentment evidently is still running deep.
If you are from a family benefiting from growing middle/upper class, you probably have it alright, as you are in demand by all the males looking for a wife, and are both rare and well-off enough to be picky. The guys know that those girls are calling the shots when it comes to deciding who they will date/marry.
However, this overabundance of men also have the unfortunate side-effect of desperate guys paying criminals to kidnap them a Chinese woman to be their wife. This includes Chinese women that -aren't- even in China. In this instance, it's pretty much irl bad-end.
>>35564691 > Problem is however international relations China cannot risk international backfall at the moment. In six years situation will be different. China is pants-on-head retarded diplomatically. They claimed all of South-East Asia was de jure Chinese territory a few years back and enraged Vietnam-SK-Japan into signing defense agreements.
>>35564768 Yeah, how's it going to do that? China doesn't have diddly squat in terms of amphibious landing training compared to the US or Japan, both of whom practically invented its usage in modern warfare.
Not to mention China lacks the transport capabilities. It's the same situation as operation sealion
>>35564730 I covered that possibility. If the Three Gorges is destroyed, the flooding would be catastrophic, and there would be a notable shortage of power to the supplied areas (assuming they aren't in the path of the flooding).
>>35564951 You think the China of today was anywhere near as scary as America's pacific might in 1944-45 as it was gearing up to invade Japan?
China doesn't have the logistical capabilities to support such an ambitious landing. Even if the entire Chinese maritime and commercial fleets were scrambled it wouldn't be enough and they'd be sitting ducks for the Japanese navy.
China vs Japan is in the same situation as Germany vs Britain in WW2. Operation Sealion was infeasible.
>>35564742 Yes, but as long as West is not involved it's ok. It's not like that alliance is tightly knit either. Japanese still think Koreans as second class citizens and Koreans hate Japanese for Occupation. Vietnamese on the other hand are just afraid China will make them satellite state, which they most likely will nonetheless. If china offers something good for Korea and Vietnam quite sure alliance will be a paper-tiger.
>>35564951 You seriously think you could conquer a nation of over 100 million with just thousands of soldiers? Japan has an available manpower pool of over 20 million, about a quarter million active personnel, modern weapons technology, and the advantage of fighting at home on an island. You'd need millions of men to take them in a conventional war.
>>35564884 >hurr durr what is playing defense Doesn't take much to get the US to reassign assets. It's the world police after all, it goes where it looks like people are getting uppity. Next you'll tell me shoring up defenses against Iran proves it's some sort of credible threat.
>>35565048 South-Korean/Chinese relations are still kind of out of the question because of North Korea.
If Korea were a unified state I could easily see China getting SK on it's side because they've always been ingrateful fucks towards the US even after we built up their economy from Sub-Saharan Africa tier.
>>35565031 Britain was economically ruined by the German blockade.
You continuously assume Japan needs to be occupied by millions of soldiers, whether that's based on the retardation of the US in Iraq or Afghanistan it does not matter it is still a retarded assumption. War is far more efficient that what it was 70 years ago. What took fleets of aircraft and ships now takes squadrons. If the Chinese open up war with Japan it will be multi front multi strikes to pin down and destroy or delay the ability of the enemy to intercept the assault.
But for the Chinese to do that they need Israel tier drilling and quite frankly there's nothing to that effect happening. Which means the Chinese are either incompetent or the more likely case not planning an attack. Or maybe they are but nobody is letting the cat out of the bag yet...
>>35560160 If hobos started squatting in your backyard, would you fight over this "worthless" area you aren't even living on anyway? It doesn't matter if your back yard could house a whole fucking town, it's yours. Meanwhile these islands also hold oil and gas reserves.
>>35565246 Japan is just not a pretty country to invade, man, then again that's assuming the Japanese would resist. If they did it would be hell considering how mountainous Japan is.
Also China IS incompetent. I don't know if you've read up on or have kept up with their military scandals but they've got one of the most corrupt militaries in Asia. They sell out military license plates to the wealthy/middle class and if you have those plates on your cars you're entitled to free gasoline and you can put flashing lights on your car to make traffic part like you were a police officer.
>>35565100 China would want to be careful about it. They could either play it up as "the enemy knows no decency, and are vile bastards," but if they fuck up, that might just tip an upset populace over the edge, for "failing to protect the people."
Chinese leaders are probably already worried with all the dissent over there right now. They remember seeing the Soviet Bloc fall ~25 years ago, and remember seeing former leaders being jailed at best, if not just strung up. And when things do eventually go to hell in China, it is going to be a top-tier fuckfest.
People in China probably hate the Japanese, but I'd think the average person would rather have a job, have food, and make some money, than go to war.
>>35565283 We would be best served by instituting a policy of deterring international aggression. Especially towards first-world nations. If China is an aggressor, that means it is in our long-term interest to oppose them, even if it hurts us in the short term.
>>35565283 Why would we want to help them over something like these stupid island disputes that haven't and won't be recognized by an international court of law? We kind of fought them to a standstill in Korea 60 years ago.
Gooks and Chinks are all so butthurt over Japan's little island holdings like the Senkaku/Tsushima islands even though they wont take it up with the Hague
>>35565101 Well, they can fix that if they want to. Senkaku is only an issue because China wants those possible Oil&Gas fields. US military&politics might look entirely different in 6 years. There have been some massive fuck-ups such as F-35 etc. So if China plays right, there won't be a need to to take Senkaku via limited military campaign. Also you have to keep in mind that Chinese play long-term game unlike west.
>>35565378 Japan would have no problem mobilizing its available manpower for defense, given that they already live there. China, to invade, would need to be able to land and supply a larger force to take the islands. And that's just not practical.
Like I said we don't know whats being planned but if this keeps up we probably will see a war. The Japanese are running around rounding up allies, the Chinese are bristling. One feels they are doing god's work the other is insulted they would even think of standing up to China. This will not end well. Keep an eye out on Chinese drills that will probably be the clue for something.
>>35565641 Say hello to the Dong Feng-21D, friend.
Russia was reported as speculating that outside of electronic countermeasures, the damn thing is just too fast to defend against, and one could probably sink an aircraft carrier.
To add to the problem, compare the cost of a DF missile to the cost of a fucking naval ship. If one really can sink a ship on its own, and if it really is too fast/hard to intercept, that is a terrible fucking monetary loss for the navy.
Do people just not understand strategy? Or using tools that work for the job? The Pacific is riddled with unsinkable aircraft carriers that the US is allowed to use as-is. We even have cute names for them like Guam, Hokkaido, and the Philippines.
>>35565947 You mean stationary targets that can in the worst case, just be nuked. >b-but they wouldn't use nukes No, it's pretty well known that you can get away with nuking some bases, just as long as nothing touches the US mainland, no nuclear counter attack is going to happen.
>>35565901 Correct. But it CAN reach naval ships that get too close to China, or neighboring lands where the missiles could be deployed. Which makes dealing with China via Navy intercession a little more complicated.
I wouldn't use Taiwan, actually. Too densely populated and too easily assailable from the mainland, no matter what the propaganda tells you. It'll be a good fortress to attack Chinese ships and subs from, though.
>>35565999 The US navy has been in full panic over it. They know it's credible. http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon
>"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."
If they can't manage to not feed their own people food laced with all sorts of dangerous shit, and have half of their reserves outfitted with knock-off nerf guns, I can't imagine them having too much to be afraid of other than sheer numbers, and potential backing from Russia.
>>35566016 > problematic 5% of GDP is the level of military spending considered the threshold of economically sustainable over the long term. The US military budget is ~3.8% of GDP and was above 7% in the 1980s. There's nothing financially burdensome about it.
>well they got this stereotype and that stereotype >hence it's impossible for them to touch us based on those stereotypes that have no connection with each other >dont worry go ahead my calculations are impeccable
>>35565999 It costs a few million for China to make one of those missiles. It takes a few billion to make an air craft carrier. If it works as advertised, then China pulled of the equivalent of blowing up a Bentley with a fucking BB gun.
>>35560160 >Fucking sovereign nations fighting over some tiny, near worthless islands. Its assertion of power that's being tested. The way potentially hostile states view eachother is similar to the way inner city youth (and antebellum southerners) treat eachother: if one party doesn't stick up for its honor/property, then the other power is seen as being superior.
That's why you don't go into the inner city of Detroit and scream racial slurs (if you're white) at the residents since its obvious that they will defend their honor by kicking your ass or killing you since not doing so would, in their eyes, justify your insult and attack on their honor. Do the words cause physical or psycological pain? No, but they do create a need to protect one's honor.
When it comes to countries, disputes of this kind warrant confrontational actions since the act of not doing so inevitably leads to further consessions and ultimate domination. In Ukraine, we saw this with Crimea. Whether you agreed with Russia or Ukraine, the fact is that Russia was only able to take Crimea because Ukraine was unable to protect their national 'honor' and thus their borders.
With China and Japan, both countries need to assert their ownership over those disputed islands since the act of not doing so would warrent further encroachments. Japan could start demanding Manchuria back or China could try justifying invasion of Japan in order to "bring it back into the fold" and make it subservient to China like in the way way way old days.
>>35566233 You're assuming that the Chinese missiles work in the first place, which is a pretty big assumption, and that the capabilities are even approaching what they claim they are.
Given that it's China, the country that got caught filming its space walks in a pool and releasing transcripts from space missions before the missions even launched, I can't see it as a credible threat.
Nah, the government knows what needs to happen, and it's going to happen, it's just going to happen after an election because it'll cheese off the retirees. Literally every politician in Congress knows exactly what changes need to be made in order to fix the budget, they're just unpopular as fuck.
>>35566415 >I dont know whats worse that the US is egging Japan on to stir shit up or China for getting uppity about every slight. Why the fuck can't we just get money and fuck bitches? Simple: Prisoner's Dilemma
>>35566409 Oh but please tell us more how a country that is struggling economically, is being dragged back into other engagements around the world has the budgetary capacity to open up a front with a country that may or may not fuck up your military assets such that if you win you're badly mauled and the world will be for the poorer and if you lose all hell will break loose.
Oh wait you can't you're just talking out of your ass to hide the fact everyone in the world is fucked up.
>>35566604 Oh trust me, I want to believe that when China starts getting serious, it will activate like something right out of an 80's mecha anime, where it's eyes light up, it holds its arms aloft, and flies into action.
>>35566491 >War will not benefit the everyday man at all. Wrong, it will.
Imagine if the United States surrendered to the world. Imagine if we put all our guns, nukes, tanks, planes, and ships in a big-ass dock in Oakland CA or NYC and said "fuck it, we want peace". What would happen? I'll tell you what would happen and why: America would be almost instantly invaded, looted, and her people killed. This would happen because EVERY OTHER COUNTRY would be competing over the assets and/or the people. This would cause people to take what they can grab either out of selfishness or to deny rivals the loot (UK would rather NYC burn than let it fall into the hands of the Chinese, Russians, or Germans).
What would happen to the people? They would mostly be killed off since no one would be able to feed many of them or incorporate them into their economies without over-taxing the infrastructure. Scorched earth strategies would be employed by virtually everyone and America would be carved up and raped by all (except those too weak to risk being stomped on). Even countries that love America would be just as ferocious in their attacks against America as everyone else.
>>35566758 Are you suggesting the only other alternative to the situation you just proposed is to go to war with China, then stay in a state of perpetual war because war is great for people? Really now?
>>35565148 > load chinks into transport. > get consistently btfo by gook subs against which you have no defense > lots of tuna food on the seafloor > price of tuna dwindles > gooks multiply > grorious Nippon once against rightfully rules the far east > much comfort, wow
>>35567350 There is no -12, 0 MAD made sure every option but co-operation was -12,-12 Instead what you now have is a grind a grind because nobody wants to be the one to start the -12,-12 so when shit blows up rest assured it will be -12,-12 everybody is too committed to win to afford to lose.
>>35566835 >Nah, what would actually happen is world trade would collapse and we'd enter a dark age from America not protecting the global shipping routes. Didn't say that wouldn't happen.
>Our most important asset isn't our troops, tanks, drones, planes or nukes it's our NAVY. We keep the channels protected and open so people are able to send cargoships out freely. Yes and no. Or navy is like our heart whereas our other forces are like our lungs: each one is useless without the other. If all we had was a navy, then anyone with any brains would just invade from Canada or Mexico and take over our country while the Navy sits by with their thumbs up their asses because all they can do is protect port cities (that is, of course, until SAMs start being set up).
>Not going to war is not the same thing as surrendering and disarming yourself. Not really. If you refuse to fight, over seemingly trivial things, you end up loosing your legitimate control over your own assets. We own the oil trade (via OPEC and the Petrodollar) but we loose that right if we don't bomb the shit out of anyone trying to fuck with it. Its just like if you own private property and people walk all over it and you don't tell them to go away or set up a 'no trespassing' sign; you end up loosing the right punish people for acts that you let happen. If we didn't bomb Saddam, other countries could start selling oil in Euros without expecting retribution.
>>35566897 >Are you suggesting the only other alternative to the situation you just proposed is to go to war with China, then stay in a state of perpetual war because war is great for people? Really now? Nope. The best solution is to ALWAYS punish aggressors but never try to incite war. This way, you don't end up having to go to war with anyone since they won't have the balls to attack you in the first place. China won't attack America since they know that even touching a single tiny-ass island of ours would result in a war that wouldn't end until 1 country surrenders unconditionally. We've proven that fact by destroying/defeating anyone who ever fucked with us (Japan, Iraq, Bin Laden, etc) with very few exceptions (vietnam and Korea).
If you aren't willing to go to war with a country like China over some islands, then you don't deserve to have a country. That's not the same as saying you should go to war with china pre-emptivly.
>>35567478 True, but the results were more like -8, -12 (America vs Russia) since America *could* survive whereas Russia would loose no matter what (nation-state vs multinational state).
MAD works well until non-state actors get involved. Also, MAD only works when you're fully willing to stand by EVERY mutual-defense treaty you have. If we renege on a single treaty and China invades Japan, we won't have the authority, in the eyes of the people and of foreign countries, to help Japan since we already proved that treaties aren't binding and fighting China, a high priced engagement, wouldn't be justifiable to us whereas China would have the incentive to attack Japan because they can always say "well, America has already broken promises in the past therefore they won't help Japan due to the price"
The only thing MAD can stop is wars between 2 powerful states since 3rd party states are still fair-game once either of the major states reneges on their assurances ANYWHERE. MAD, therefore, becomes obsolete since nukes can't be built/maintained for free once a nation becomes isolated like DPRK.
>>35567825 No, it won't. Unless America gets so bogged down that non-state actors are able to prove to the world that we can't abide by our treaties, there's not a chance in hell that China will get bigger unless it is at the expense of other countries we hate (Myanmar, Russia, Iranistan, DPRK, etc)
>>35567756 You obviously never heard of Black Lotus
The Black Lotus unit was formed from a need to attack the enemy on a different field than just combat. Each is extremely proficient with any IT technology, to the point that they can subvert enemy buildings and disable vehicles.
When serving under General Shin Fai, Black Lotus agents received additional training that made them hack faster, gain veterancy and could disable buildings as Hackers can. The agent 'Black Lotus' was renamed Super Lotus and normal hackers were turned into Super Hackers that can also disable vehicles.
If she is successful in infiltrating a base she can capture important buildings for the Chinese. Her vehicle hack ability is useful to temporarily shut down important vehicles, such as artillery or heavier tanks, either during an assault or defense.
>>35568021 >Unless America gets so bogged down that non-state actors are able to prove to the world that we can't abide by our treaties, there's not a chance in hell.... Forgot to mention: this is the VERY REASON the war on terrorism is so vital to our country's survival. If we don't fight terrorists that attack our allies, then we loose our ability to hold mutual-defense alliances with our allies and, in turn, we loose our ability to keep Russia, Iran, China, and other shitbag countries encircled and handicapped.
This is why we MUST kill every terrorist around and, if we don't, we MUST rain nuclear hell on Russia and China(although I think we should just do that now instead of waiting).
Case in point: in the aftermath of the 2011 Japan Earthquake, the japanese public were renowned for relative calm, and self discipline during the distribution of aid. Meanwhile in China, riots took place as chinks scramble to buy up salt, which they erroneously thought would defend for the imminent radiation.
>>35568339 That's because: A) The Japanese government cares about ALL its people whereas China would just as soon force 1/2 their population to marching into the sea if there was a strategic gain. B) The Japanese always have America to help them out if their government can't whereas the Chinese only have a shitty government to help them out and that government would probably lose all of its aid to corruption before it would help its own citizens.
Japan is actively working on a 6th get fighter and it's predicted to go into mass production in 2027. China is struggling with 5th gen.
Japan was the first country with AESA equipped fighters, almost 20 years ago.
They have the second strongest navy on the planet and are playing around with carriers disguised as helicopter destroyers now.
They have the most advanced MBT on the planet right now.
For China to conquer Japan they would need to get through the air force and navy first. Japanese air force is stronger than Chinese air force, and once they get their 70 F-35's it's going be in a completely different league. Not to mention chinese planes would be acting in japanese air space, in range of ground AA batteries. And Japan has on of the most advanced AA networks on the planet.
Gigantic land army means shit when you are attacking an island.
>>35567284 well, you can still be opposed to the New World Order while creating an economic sphere that's independent. it's empire-building all over again. Hitler wanted to get Europe out of foreign finance, to turn the world's money system on its "axis"
to use that phrase that sounds like NWO is fucking stupid
>>35569196 >one of the most costly and brutal civil wars in history >THE EVIRR JAPANESE RAPED AND MURDERED A MIRRION BABIES AND GIRLS IN NANKING! It's just pushing away China's own horrible crimes against humanity on its own people and pointing the finger at another.
>>35569196 >>35569252 I don't actually care. Japs were fucking ruthless against the countries they conquered, compared to nazi germany and other western countries. I kept hearing about stories from south east asian countries of how japs forced their labors to dead and why they prefer white colonization compared to japanese.
>>35569758 >What does it say about America's chances to win against China and not just "win"? 1) They didn't have nukes at that time. 2) We 'courted' them to be on our side. 3) While it was obvious they were directly helping in Korea, they were only using Vietnam as a proxy and were on our side by the end thanks to Crackle-voice.
Now they have nukes, are threatening an ally of ours which we WILL defend, and they can't be reasoned with. There's the difference.
>>35567736 >vietnam >not completely rekt to ashes USA and Nixon lost the war against the internal commies aka shillary clinton's hippies. USA actually won every wars against vietcongs but the jew media didn't tell us so, because they wanted them to lose.
>>35570005 As far as I know, we didn't have a mutual-defense treaty with the Vietnamese so I don't think we reneged on any treaties by pulling out. Exiting Vietnam wasn't 1/100th as bad as neglecting Japan if they got attacked.
>>35570146 >Can America be reasoned with? Yeah, don't attack us or ally with people who support people who attack us.
Ally with Russia and you're fucked but ally with the UK and you'll be fine.
When you look at all the different people who we crushed, they all have 1 thing in common: they were against us either directly or indirectly.
Just think of the 100+ countries who we aren't blowing the shit out of. Most of them wouldn't last a day against us but we don't hurt them because they're either on our side or they're neutral. Hell, even Mexico deserves an invasion but they're too strategically friendly to justify invading (until Russia starts backing one of the cartels, that is).
i chuckle a little every time an idiot pulls out this argument. uyghurs are like around 1% of the population and they're all concentrated in xinjiang. the government has been moving han chinese into the area to dilute them out since decades ago. not to mention they are easy to distinguish from the average han chinese and the only weapons they have access to are knives. if they try to get guns from towelheads then the government will get their justification to have the entire province on lock down. uyghurs simply can't do shit.
>>35566758 you dumbass, nobody said you have to destroy your army and force the whole congress to smoke weed and dont give a fuck. Just dont fucking start useless wars that only cost shitload of money and human lives, and in the end, everything is even worse.
There are no countries that love america, only countries that exploit america. Europeans exploit american huge army that protects them by cutting their armies to the point of irrelevance and instead dumping military money into their own countries. Gulf states and israel exploit america to destroying their enemies in the region. This creates a lot of enemies to America, but the supposed "allies" will abbandon the US the first day they stop receiving excessive amount of support (whether financial, military or diplomatic) and will sneer at you once you ask them do to anything for you
>>35570716 >Ukraine turns into WWIII >China hops with Russia and tries to take Japan while Europe goes to war with Russia >500 years later WWI, II, and III are considered three acts of the same war of ideologies
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.