Cambodia Expats Online: Forum | News | Information | Blog

I was a little surprised the UK wasn't on this list but it only goes to #6. While I think we (the US) need a strong(ish) military, I personally think we spend way too much on it. the numbers here are a bit difficult to understand. it notes we have 800 bases in 70 country's. I question if this is really necessary.....or that useful. lots of folks seem to stir up plenty of trouble with much smaller budgets. I also think the euro country's should pony up more for NATO--even if we gave up some of the authority. (Russia's gotta go through them first, right? )

Newly appointed Defense Secretary James Mattis spoke Tuesday with NATO's chief to discuss military spending and international anti-terror tactics under President Donald Trump.
Trump, who took office Friday, has criticized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), calling the international military alliance "obsolete." He also wants other NATO countries to increase their contributions, as the U.S. is by far the largest financial backer.
Pentagon spokesperson Jeff Davis said Mattis and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg discussed "shared values." Stoltenberg's office said they "agreed on the fundamental and enduring value" of the treaty.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us- ... ailsignout


just sayin'


Bertros

Why the hell would the UK be anywhere on that list? You thought the British empire still existed or something? British society and and the UK's influence as a whole have diminished significantly from the 50s to 70s and the place is now of similar importance to countries such as Canada, Australia and Italy... Any Brit who tries to tell you otherwise is living in the past.

why would any cuntry need such a big military anyway? just mind your own business and shut the hell up, if ISIS wanted an islamic state let them have it, let those muslim kill among themselves, good riddance i would say.

Total isolationism doesn't work. Tried it in the past - result was 2 world wars. So policy was reversed. World wars since 1946? Zero.

(...I think we (the US) need a strong(ish) military, I personally think we spend way too much on it. the numbers here are a bit difficult to understand. it notes we have 800 bases in 70 country's. I question if this is really necessary.....or that useful.)

--If you bought a Lamborghini would you leave it in a Walmart parking lot?
The embassy is our Lambo and the country is our garage. Of course they are not needed. They are there to say "we won" "we are here" "now what?"
Just how we are wired.

JDMPRO777 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:15 am
The embassy is our Lambo...

Why is Jamie an embassy?

JDMPRO777 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:15 am

--If you bought a Lamborghini would you leave it in a Walmart parking lot?
The embassy is our Lambo and the country is our garage. Of course they are not needed. They are there to say "we won" "we are here" "now what?"
Just how we are wired.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Why are you buying Italian embassies?

Bertros wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2017 11:28 pm I was a little surprised the UK wasn't on this list but it only goes to #6.

UK is ranked fifth!

The strongest armies in the world: 2017 edition

5. United Kingdom

This powerful nation dates back to the 17th century when it was still named the English Army. In fact, the name ‘British Army’ was coined in 1707. As a big part of the nation’s formation is Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, which the soldiers are proud to be part of. It is unique in the sense that Queen Elizabeth II actually acts as the Commander-in-Chief. There are 150,000 active personnel in the British Army and around 180,000 in reserve duty. The British Military has recently fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, and is currently carrying out bombing missions in Syria.
http://www.worldation.com/opinions/stro ... 7-edition/