In 2025 what country do you think american troops will be fighting in?
To the peace-niks out there, listen up: war is the norm for humans, not peace. If peace were the norm, we'd have let the other animals of the world eat us up before we even evolved to humanity. Wanting peace is the aim of war. Paraphrasing Sun-tzu, the people who truly, TRULY love peace are willing to die for it, and become the best warriors, because they are fighting, killing, and dying for peace. Because of human ignorance and misunderstandings, there will always be strife and war. It's Darwin. Making the world livable by enforcing peace is the only proven way to peace. But that path also destroys liberty. So the nations of the world try their best to pick and choose their fights between the two extremes. Personally, I don't think the US military will be anywhere off US soil in 2025, because I think the US military will be fairly benign by then. By 2100, the official language of the US will be Mandarin or Arabic.
Don’t tell me, you’ve listened to Trump’s speeches right?Well, maybe you should take a look at these two very important factors:Direct funding contributors of NATO in 2017In case you lack the time to study the percentages properly, I’ll just explain. Most of the major European countries on the list contribute disproportionately to NATO, if we go by the size of their economy. Germany, as an example, contributes 14% of NATO’s common budget, while the US contributes 22% The American economy is about six times the size of that of Germany2.Article 5 has only ever been invoked once. You’d think that was the weak Europeans calling on their big brother to help them against those darned Russians right? Well, no, it was the US calling on the European countries to help invade Afghanistan as retribution for 9/11.3.NATO was created by American diplomats in the aftermath of the Second World War as a means of protecting their hegemony in Europe from Russian influence. They didn’t mind the Europeans being attacked as much as they minded them shifting their allegiance to the communist bloc to the east. Really, this is basic history. I’m not criticizing the US for it, but it’s obvious that this was the reason.Edit 19.6.17: Achilleas Vortselas has drawn my attention to the fact that my answer doesn’t really touch on why Europeans do not want to raise their military spending. This is of course an important question, unfortunately not one that is so clearly stated in the question.But I’ve decided to add an extra bit to my answer. It’s important to realize that most Europeans do not have a very positive view of foreign interventions, which is unfortunately the only thing that NATO has been used for, as of yet. Most of them do not expect a major invasion any time soon, and consider their current militaries strong enough to ward off Russia, with the help of the US.In general, Europeans are content with allowing their economies to grow, while the US receives the benefit of becoming the world’s global military hegemon, without contest from any European bloc. Of course, this mutually beneficial system might very soon be smashed by the orangutang currently inhabiting the White House.
ISIS is not just a group of crazy warlords like generally portrayed. ISIS has an entire ideology behind them. The ideology that the world is against Islam and that anyone who isn't following them (even Sunni Muslims, who are what they claim to be) are apostates and should be executed. Sending an invasion force would prove their message and bring even more people to join in. Before destroying ISIS, we need to weaken it by removing this ideology from the minds of youth worldwide, and this is up to the governments of the respective countries and their educational systems, which should work to remove extremism and inaccuracies from their curriculums to promote moderate behaviours and anti extremism. At that point no one wants to join ISIS and they become unpopular within their target demographics of uneducated, desperate youth.Then the fun part...BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF THEM!!!
Will the United States intervene between Turkey and Syria?
The most that will likely happen for the United States is a Libya-style operation that winds up costing relatively little (Libya cost the US a couple billion dollars - pocket change), alongside our allies in Turkey, France, the UK, and the rest of NATO, plus several of the Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE). US ground troops are highly unlikely to enter Syria except for special forces and, if the worst happens, US chemical troops to clean things up. Really, we should have been in there six months ago - thousands of Syrians have died and radical elements have not only entered the country but are winning support among the Syrians because they're willing to fight, while we're showing that we're not. Unfortunately, because of the election, the government is effectively paralyzed.
WHAT? Why?What would Russian troops be doing in North East India? India shares no border and hence had no border dispute with Russia. India and Russia have good relations from a long time and I can not think of a single reason why the Russians would want to invade us. Even if they do decide to do so for some crazy reason, how would they get there. They either have to come through China and the Indo China border is heavily gaurded. Or they have to pass through Myanmar or Bangladesh.I would really want to know why do you think Russian troops would want to come to north east India.