> Considering that the leader of the free world
nit: I think you are referring to Trump, the president of the USA. But I doubt he is the "leader of the free world", whatever that means.
nit: I think you are referring to Trump, the president of the USA. But I doubt he is the "leader of the free world", whatever that means.
In a way you can think of this as a variant of the site guideline which asks:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
It's not what we originally had in mind when we added it, but "strongest plausible" can be taken to include "least flame-prone".
That is less true today but the term remains.
The sole thing presently keeping Russia from invading Eastern Europe and taking more territory, is the US military presence in Europe. The sole thing keeping North Korea from invading South Korea and attempting to annex it, is the US. The sole thing (maybe temporarily) keeping China from officially annexing Taiwan, is the US military presence in Asia.
Not Germany, not France, not the UK, not Australia, not Canada, not New Zealand, not Japan, not the UN.
Here are your realistic alternative choices: China, expansionist dictatorship with minimum human rights; Russia, expansionist dictatorship with minimum human rights. And then for 'free world' choices: Germany, UK, France, Japan - which of those has any kind of global power today, economically or militarily? None. Germany doesn't even have its own currency, and their military capabilities can barely push beyond their own borders, not to mention they have no nuclear umbrella capability to bring the rest of the free world under.
The US is all the world has on that side of the board in terms of an actual superpower. It's going to remain that way for the forseeable future. Like it or not. I fully understand why people don't like Trump and I understand why they'd wish for a different President to be in there. Nixon mostly sucked too (despite a few significant domestic & foreign policy accomplishments). The US will, from time to time, elect bad and or mediocre leaders. And then Trump's term will be over.
Nations operate in terms of centuries not 4 years.
I don't now about Taiwan, but I doubt it as the other points are utter nonesense. China is the only reason why NK still exists. And China 'protects' NK because the US wants it.
And I have no idea where you got the russian thing from. That makes simply no sense. It was true about ... 40 years ago? and thats stretching it. The economic sanctions from the EU had a way bigger impact on their last 'invasion'
> Not Germany, not France, not the UK, not Australia, not Canada, not New Zealand, not Japan, not the UN.
I agree on that front. None of them deserve that title. Nor does the US though. The position of 'leader of the free world' is - in my opinion - vacant at the moment.
The sanctions didn't hit until after that happened.
Japan, Taiwan, and SK the same. Just look at the numbers.
Here's military expenditures for 2017 if you'd like facts:
1 United States 611.2 billion
2 China 215.7
3 Russia 69.2
4 Saudi Arabia 63.7
5 India 55.9
6 France 55.7
7 United Kingdom 48.3
8 Japan 46.1
9 Germany 41.1
10 South Korea 36.8
One might be able to make a case for Angela Merkel or (metonymically) Brussels, Belgium, in it's role as headquarters for NATO and host of the EU parliament, but I'm inclined to believe the title is still awaiting someone worthy of it.