politics

U.S. to shift most of its naval fleet to Pacific by 2020

78 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments
Login to comment

Is this to give out Chinese amigos a not so subtle warning????

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Oops!! Out?? No!! I meant our Chinese...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I hope they don't dock them all in the same place, as that hasn't worked out so well in the past. I also hope there are enough ships in the USA to defend the USA, since that is sort of the point in having a navy.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

And he insisted the switch in strategy was not a challenge to China, saying it was compatible with the development and growth of the fast-growing Asian power.

What? The U.S. still spends about 6 TIMES what China does on military spending. The Chinese still don't even have an aircraft carrier and they sure as heck are not going to harass American allies on bamboo rafts cobbled together overnight.

This is about money, and attempting to conjure a justification for out of control American military spending, as job security for arms manufacturers and dealers.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The Chinese still don't even have an aircraft carrier

Yes, they do.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

dont come here. US only knows how to create war. take it back to USA

3 ( +9 / -6 )

CowboyTed

What? The U.S. still spends about 6 TIMES what China does on military spending.

The Chinese military budget is not public record like the US and there is little to no transparency for independent/international bodies to accurately deduce their military expenditures. We have NO idea how much they're really spending on their ever expanding military.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

No country could ever even get near to U.S. military spending which is more than the national budget of many countries.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

China has operational aircraft carriers that they have purchased and they are building their own as well.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

China has operational aircraft carriers that they have purchased

Link please. Here is mine: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/china-aircraft-carrier-near-launch

Look at that rust bucket!

and they are building their own as well.

As dangerous as a half-completed Death Star? Oh dear! Hey, maybe when they get them built they will figure out how to land on them consistently in say, oh, five years?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Please. If you think China is nothing to be worried about, fine. However, to say they are not building their own aircraft carriers, when they are and to say they don't have operational aircraft carriers, when they do, is pretty silly.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

By the way, you did not happen to notice the photo you provide was from 2001, did you Mr. Observant? In case you have not noticed, the year now is 2012.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

By 2020 most of the American naval fleet will be comprised of the USS Minnow...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

never underestimate your potential enemies.............trash talk is good fun but when them bullets start flyin' you better get real serious. Remember those in black pajamas did ' beat " our modern firepowers once...............

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The hunt for red october Chinese copy :P

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Having been late for the last two world wars, the "Land of the Free" is making sure they'll be well on time for the next one!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It makes perfect sense for them to do that, Chinese already are making land grabs in the Phillipeans, south China sea, smaller island nations and other parts of Asian claimed territory. Which violates UN laws.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Put them in Guam.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

China also disputes with Japan some islands due to gas reserves found below.. the hungry dragon is eating up Asia..

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Another stupidity by the so called sole super power of the world! Two defeats (Iraq,Afghanistan) and one slap (North Korea) that has learned nothing from their lessons! Now they are provoking a true super power of the 21st century! Did Mr Panetta and those Pentagon hawks has no idea their satellites were easy prey in the skies? Did they really dont take China's space war seriously!?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

China has been very 'assertive' if you like to call back in 2001 when that EP3 spy plane has crash landing in Hainan island! What does China has to pay for looting every those so called 'secrets' on board! America was jealous the new world order as wealth transferring to Chinese leaving America after their wars against islam has failed!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

USNin japan2: The Chinese military budget is not public record like the US and there is little to no transparency............ We have NO idea how much they're really spending on their ever expanding military.

And does those information given by the pentagon about US military spending has 'nothing secrets', 'nothing sneaky' at all? If you do you are pretty 'naives' !

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Disputes had to be resolved through agreed-upon rules among all countries and based on international law, he said.

Nonsenses!! Remember the EP-3 incident ten years ago? There was nothing worth for discussion but only what Chinese told you to do and not to do! Not just at sea but also in the air! And the balance of 'fist' has greatly changed in last 10 years!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

'Depending on budget pressures' indeed. Not sure how much longer the American taxpayer will be willing or able to pay for this enormous military.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Jimizo; Oh sure they will! As long as america will engaging wars with Iran or maybe syria....they will keep dumping their money to their military industries regardles how rottoned their nation is going to be!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

China has taken that Scarborough Shoal already! So.....what next?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"And he insisted the switch in strategy was not a challenge to China,"

Which means "insisted the switch in strategy IS  a challenge to China,"

What does this guy think we are - idioits? :-)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

good news, US do not made satellite, space ships, it is only on the earth.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The Pacific is already the US Navy's ocean given the considerable network of Navel Bases they have throughout the area. China are still very much confined to a relatively small area, but as China grows, and it's military clout continues to develop, the Pacific becomes a very interesting theatre if they begin to pursue bases further afield than their own immediate shores. This is certainly a chess move by the US in response to an ever bolder China.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

U.S. gotta protect Taiwan too, as long as Taiwan votes not to be part of China. It's Taiwan's choice.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Having been late for the last two world wars, the "Land of the Free" is making sure they'll be well on time for the next one!

They'll probably start it, lol

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Thunderbird -

Having been late for the last two world wars, the "Land of the Free" is making sure they'll be well on time for the next one!

They'll probably start it, lol

That thought had occurred to me too!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

How abou they downsize the fleet to about half of what it is now and shift most of it to the coastal areas of the U.S.? That would save a ton of money.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How about moving all Yokosuka and Sasebo down to Okinawa??

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Iwakuni too!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

By 2020 most of the American naval fleet will be comprised of the USS Minnow...

I'm so relieved. Gilligan, the Professor, the Skipper, etc. will take care of the problem.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Single power giant domination was not a good idea, we learned that the last decade. Maybe letting China dominate in the pacific can cure that, even if that may not be good for my country. I'd say let China have the Pacific, for the sake of the global power balance. :p

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Single power giant domination was not a good idea, we learned that the last decade.

Is that what you've learned in the last decade? Hmm, well think I learned something a bit different.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The world is out of oil. China is making biillions of solar panels. Solar panels are the new energy money. Whomever first harnesses the sun rules the future. The silly US should learn to make solar cells, not war. China &Russia have agreed to not accept US dollars in trade. Germany will be the first 100% solar powered nation. Japan will be #2, if the unions push to replace nukes with solar

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Cuba defeated the US in 1962. I was a vet in that defeat. Vietnam defeated US in 1973. I was a vet in that defeat too. Now China has defeated the US with solar cells!

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Makes sense. China still needs some time to evolve.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is there something in the books that says no country except USA can be powerful? Is there some sort of monopoly? I can't think of any other country which has military in all four corners of the world. If the Navy is looking at the western Pacific, I hear Okinawa has space and is welcoming.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

IMHO China does not need war. They have more than enough money to buy half the world (thank you USA) and is soon acting as a magnet to the other strong emerging economies. The American dream is agonizing. US aircraft carriers will be of no help. That is just a fact. We need to adapt to a new worldwide balance with US as a piece of it but not anymore THE piece.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The US is broke. China loans money to the US, buying US bonds to keep the US military paid. China & Russia have agreed to not accept US dollars in trade. The US does not have the power to attack China & Russia. There is no oil in the Philippines. The US will lose this war too.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Why is the US military in Asia? US war ships should go home.

Japan does not want the US military. Opposition to restarting the nuclear power plants in Japan is growing. Opposition to the US military in Asia is growing. The world wants peace.

Please tell me, why did Obama win the Nobel Peace prize? For raping Libya? Afghanistan? Iraq?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I hasten to add there are several countries that could get on par with the US military spending. Just because the Europeans nations dont spend a fraction of what the US does does not mean its impossible. The US population and GDP is thr equivalent to the whole of Europe, the US being a very LARGE nation. China, and Russia to name two are equally big states that have the potential.

And think what might happen if the EUSSR succeeds -dread-, and thats from a Brit!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

U.S. to shift most of its naval fleet to Pacific by 2020

Personally speaking here the title is misleading, an increase of 10%, from a 50/50 balance to 60/40 is not "most". Using the word "most" implies a greater percentage than 60% as I see it.

China is also welcoming the increase, so long as the US does not become belligerent and interfere with China's interests. The US also does not want a confrontation with China near it's coastline and it's ship killing missiles either.

Hopefully a peaceful balance can be found!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The Brainwashed are saying China is very assertive. They haven't attacked anyone and they are threatening nobody. Remember that beauty of a Lie that killed more than a million based on the Lies of "Weapons of mass destruction"? That was Washington's Beauty. They still say believe us. Then there was Lybia a Big Fat Lie to steal Gadaffis Oil.The US spearheaded that under the cloak of NATO. 150,000 dead. Now Syria,then who Iran? THen Who China? Russia? The US hasn't actually won a War since WW2 and it was the Russians who stopped the Tyranny of Germany. 700 PLUS BASES in 140 Countries the US has. "They hate us for our Freedom" Right 911 was apparently Orchestrated by at least 14 Terrorists from Saudi Arabia. That Tyrannical Brutal Regime is in Bed with Washington and instead Afghanistan got attacked because they have PLENTY of Natural Resources. The US cannot threaten China or Russia in any way really. What are they going to do? Launch a Nuclear strike? We are all toast in that case and it will be the end of the Earth as we know it. Venezuela's President asked the US if they could build a base in Miami after the request from Washington to build bases in Venezuela was met with the same request. Washington was flabbergasted and rejected it. Can we not have any more of that Freedom dust Washington is forcibly spreading please.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yubaru - Personally speaking here the title is misleading, an increase of 10%, from a 50/50 balance to 60/40 is not "most". Using the word "most" implies a greater percentage than 60% as I see it.

MOST - determiner, pronoun, adverb Tthe biggest number or amount of; more than anything or anyone else.

Just 51% would qualify as the "most" warships being assigned to the Pacific.

"That will include six aircraft carriers in this region, a majority of our cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships, and submarines." The U.S. Navy currently has a fleet of 285 ships, with about half of those vessels deployed or assigned to the Pacific.

171 warships would be 60% 146 warships would be 51% 140 warships would be 49% 114 warships would be 40%

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What a magnificent fleet the US has, and yet they can't finance even the most crude form of universal healthcare. The mind boggles.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

China has one (1) 1980's Soviet era built ship that they are converting into what 'they' call an aircraft carrier. The SHI LANG has not even been commissioned as of June 2012. Interestingly, the Chinese 'aircraft carrier' doesn't contain a single catapult with which to launch most non vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. In addition to having 11 active Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups with another two more on order, one already under construction, the US fleet also contains 20 amphibious assault ships which all resemble aircraft carriers in design. Their flight deck is used to operate helicopters, VTOL aircraft, drones and others types of aircraft depending on the ship's size. That actually gives the US 31 aircraft carriers compared to the number two Russian navy with 1, in fact China and Russia combined will have 2 compared to America's 31. Just one verifiable fact on just one piece of American military power that helps explains why China nor Russia, individually or combined, can seriously or credibly oppose America's presence anywhere. Like Frodo's ring the ring of the greatest military power the world has ever known has begun to circle the finger and throat of China from Alaska down to the Philippines to Australia up to India and over to Thailand and many other places in between. There's probably a reason why the United States spends more money on its military than the rest of the entire world combined does and has done so for decades. It should be no surprise to anyone that at some points in time they're going to use it. In addition to its vast military power the US possesses all the information known to man as to how and why other great empires of the past has failed. The US has the answers to the test so those who speak of the fall of the American Empire are either ignorant of the facts or just simply wishful thinkers who choose not to concern themselves with the facts.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Pukey2 - Is there something in the books that says no country except USA can be powerful? Is there some sort of monopoly?

ANY country is free to build a large, modern military. If "they" chose to.

India, France, Australia, Brazil, etc. all have that choice. Why blame the U.S. for being powerful when it's the inactions of other nations that keep them less powerful?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

johninnaha - Having been late for the last two world wars, the "Land of the Free" is making sure they'll be well on time for the next one!

Hahahaha. The U.S. didn't prepare for either world war as European and Asian countries had. The U.S. reduced the size of it's military after WWI. Germany, France, England, Japan all went on a spending/building spree.

The U.S. taxpayer didn't see any reason to get involved in the constant warring between the nations of Europe or Asia. Let them kill themselves - as long as they leave the U.S. alone. Congress wouldn't spend the money to even bring the U.S. military up to treaty limits after WWI.

The U.S. was "late" because they only entered the world wars after they were dragged into it. After WWII, it became obvious that Europe and Asia couldn't be trusted to not start another world war and the large, standing, U.S. military became the norm.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Americans are bringing the forces where they are needed. The Russian Navy is just not a threat. Most of their ships can not leave port. The ships that can leave force are not capable of defending themselves.

About China, the Americans do not need to use nukes to attack them. In a war the Americans and their allies know where to hit them. There is no place for their Air Force to hide. The Chinese navy will take their place on the bottom of the Pacific. The massive Chinese army would be stuck in China.

I see a lot of American bashing and unlike so many others see the wisdom in their planning.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The problem that most non-Americans have is the fact that the US seems to think it has the right to tell countries what they can and can't do. Back off, Uncle Sam...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The US doesn't think it has the right to tell countries what they can and can't do. The problem is the other countries think they can tell the USA to obey their wishes by rushing into situations that they need to take care of. NK is SK, China and Japan's problem. China created the country and continues to support it. Syria and Iran are Europe's problem countries. The best news about the relocation of the navy is that the personnel are not stationed in foreign countries like SK and Japan and the American taxpayer is not paying for the families, schools, etc or the bail bond for "wild and crazy" people who commit crimes while off-duty. Unfortunately, the local economies will be impacted, but the same was true when buggy whip orders were canceled by the US military. Yanks come home.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@kevin o'murray

About the size of the chinese naval force, I don't know what you've been reading, but here is another view: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm

1 ( +1 / -0 )

CowboyTedJun. 02, 2012 - 04:03PM JST

As dangerous as a half-completed Death Star?

Did you even watch Return of the Jedi? The half-completed Death Star was fully operational!

Don't be so selfish, Japan. These US navy ships being moved are not only there for you. They are also there for the little guys in south east asia who need a counterbalance to China in the region. Have you seen China's claims in the south China sea? They're outrageous.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

the shoal in SouthChina Sea was not taken over, as in own it, i think they kept the their fishermen (no women i guess ) from being arrested and taken to the Philippines. < http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/travel/view/1204982/1/.html >

Last month Chinese travel agencies announced they had suspended tours to the Philippines, under government orders.

The suspension came amid a stand-off between Philippine and Chinese vessels at the shoal in the South China Sea, which is claimed by both countries.

The dispute broke out in April when Chinese government ships blocked Philippine vessels from arresting Chinese fishermen there.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

you have to see this, these guys and gals tell what a lie war is, about the money to make, not to fix anything listen to them.

< http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/28/memorial_day_special_us_veterans_of >

Monday May 28 2012

...the NATO summit. We hear the soldiers’ voices as they return their medals one by one from the stage. "I’m here to >return my Global War on Terror Service Medal in solidarity with the people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan," said >Jason Hurd, a former combat medic who spent 10 years in the U.S. Army. "I am deeply sorry for the destruction that >we have caused in those countries and around the globe." Scott Kimball, an Iraq war veteran, adds: “For all the >servicemembers and veterans who are against these wars, you are not alone!”

Click here to see the other parts of the 2012 Memorial Day Special

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What? The U.S. still spends about 6 TIMES what China does on military spending.

CowboyTed your also making a critical flaw with this argument, your assuming all costs, especially labor costs, are the same in both countries. Do you honestly think it would cost the same amount of money to make an M16 in China compared to the US? Do you honestly think an AK made in China would cost the same amount compared to it being made in the US? If I was to make an F-22 in China do you honestly think it would cost just as much to make an F-22 in China as it does in the US?

If you answered yes to all of those then why are companies moving allow of their manufacturing capacity to China if costs are equal?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ArrestPaul, the assertion:

"The U.S. was "late" because they only entered the world wars after they were dragged into it. After WWII, it became obvious that Europe and Asia couldn't be trusted to not start another world war and the large, standing, U.S. military became the norm." is simply not correct. Regarding the US entering WWII, especially, FDR was aching to involve the US. Books have been written that very clearly dispel the myth.

There is no doubt that FDR recognized early the need/inevitability of the US becoming involved in WW2, and that he was less than honest with the US people about our actions preparing for that day (and our less than wholesome "neutrality").

As for the ongoing occupations, your blanket statement is highly oversimplified at best.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

46 million Americans were receieving 'food stamps' or (SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition assisstance program) as of today and maybe even more, these hungry people relying food from their government to survives! Twice the populations of North Korea who was notorious of famine! In China, food stamps were cancelled since 1985 and rarely anyone is hunger! The people of America were in deep fruistration over their government and politicians, a social time bomb just like they describe the umpopularity of the North Korean communists! Now people who would China invade a brokened and rottoned so-called super power like USA? In fact it was a very good reason to see the US government and their pentagon hawks demonrizing China to mislead their people a WW3 with China is imminient! Dirty poltics is their motto! Please help yourself first, uncle sam! please for God's sake, feed your hungry people first before making wars with China! American people were dying in hunger!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

johninnaha - Having been late for the last two world wars, the "Land of the Free" is making sure they'll be well on time for the next one!

Hahahaha. The U.S. didn't prepare for either world war as European and Asian countries had. The U.S. reduced the size of it's military after WWI. Germany, France, England, Japan all went on a spending/building spree.

That's as maybe, but my point is that they REALLY made up for it in recent years. As Germany, France, the U.K. and Japan cut down on military spending, the U.S.A. went on a spending spree to end ALL spending sprees - Nukes - Aircraft Carriers - new aircraft, and tons and tons of new recruits and so much money spent on "defense" that the country is to all intents and purposes bankrupt and borrowing money from China, which is supposed to be a "threat!"

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

arrestpaul: The U.S. was "late" because they only entered the world wars after they were dragged into it. After WWII, it became obvious that Europe and Asia couldn't be trusted to not start another world war and the large, standing, U.S. military became the norm.

Yep. The US was isolationist up until the point where it was obvious the rest of the world wasn't just going to let us live in peace. After Pearl Harbor the US changed policy to create the ability to project power all over the globe. If those in Asia and Europe don't like it, then maybe they shouldn't have created our position for us.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Didnt india fend off the chinese few years back? China is not invincible either. US nor China is really stronger than the other. These are two powerful militaries and loses can be severe for both sides. This could just become another version of the cold war. All this bickering and trash talking whos strobger is better than an actual war happening

0 ( +0 / -0 )

*stronger

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please tell me, why did Obama win the Nobel Peace prize? For raping Libya? Afghanistan? Iraq?

Because the Peace Prize, and those who award it, have become nothing more then a big joke. He got it, not for anything he had done, but for what he might do. Turned out they were wrong. Afghanistan, Libya... So funny, and just makes them look as idiotic as they really are.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Molenir - Because the Peace Prize, and those who award it, have become nothing more then a big joke. He got it, not for anything he had done, but for what he might do.

Very true. There are only five (5) Norwegian Nobel Committee members and it would only require three (3) of them to decided to give the award to Obama only because they admired Obama's potential and not for anything he had accomplished to date.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

arrestpaul Jun. 05, 2012 - 07:44AM JST. decided to give the award to Obama only because they admired Obama's potential and not for anything he had accomplished to date.

Obama didn’t win for being president–he won for improving international diplomacy. And he did do that and that is what other countries say and think about Obama. You’ll see that the international opinion of America changed drastically for the better after Obama was elected. Obama won for his strong moves in foreign policy. You cannot say that about Bush.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

sfjp330 - Obama didn’t win for being president–he won for improving international diplomacy. And he did do that and that is what other countries say and think about Obama. You’ll see that the international opinion of America changed drastically for the better after Obama was elected. Obama won for his strong moves in foreign policy.

The Norwegian Nobel committee said the president was selected "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between people."

Obama said he wan't sure he "deserves to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honoured by this prize,"

Since you brought up the Presidency, Obama would have been in the White House for less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for that year's prize.

What extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy did Obama accomplish during those two weeks?

What extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy did U.S. SENATOR Obama accomplish during his four years in Congress?

The bottomline is that five (5) Norwegians (maybe less) were in love with Obama's potential and not for what he had actually accomplished.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

arrestpaul Jun. 06, 2012 - 02:22AM JST Since you brought up the Presidency, Obama would have been in the White House for less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for that year's prize. What extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy did Obama accomplish during those two weeks? What extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy did U.S. SENATOR Obama accomplish during his four years in Congress?

We are talking about prior to 2009 before presidentcy. In 2008, Obama put every effort in strengthening international diplomacy and wanted to make it a reality. Obama stated the main foreign policy goal was rebuilding alliances to meet the challenges of the future. Prior to Obama becoming a President, U.S. was trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we didn't like. U.S. looked arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it maded harder for U.S. to rally international support for leadership. Obama was willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He did the careful preparation necessary and U.S. was ready to come to the table, and that he was willing to lead.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

sfjp330 - We are talking about prior to 2009 before presidentcy. In 2008, Obama put every effort in strengthening international diplomacy and wanted to make it a reality. Obama stated the main foreign policy goal was rebuilding alliances to meet the challenges of the future. Prior to Obama becoming a President, U.S. was trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we didn't like. U.S. looked arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it maded harder for U.S. to rally international support for leadership. Obama was willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He did the careful preparation necessary and U.S. was ready to come to the table, and that he was willing to lead.

You're talking about "campaign" promises. What did Obama "actually" do to strengthen international diplomacy. Words vs deeds.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

arrestpaulJun. 06, 2012 - 05:27AM JST. You're talking about "campaign" promises. What did Obama "actually" do to strengthen international diplomacy. Words vs deeds.

What happened with the campaign promises about the war in Iraq? Were they just words or more like deeds?

.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What happened with the campaign promises about the war in Iraq? Were they just words or more like deeds?

Umm, why are you talking about Iraq? At the time Obama received the award, he hadn't even begun to formulate an Iraq policy. He had made a lot of campaign promises, but had done next to nothing. For that, he got the award. Quit trying to dress it up. The Nobel Peace prize, has become a joke. Giving it to someone who had done nothing, and accomplished nothing more then mouthing a few empty promises, and getting himself elected to office, does not, and should not be the standard by which an award is given. If it was, then every single US President who gets themselves elected should then qualify.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

North Korea might be an objective

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It sounds good to me. I don't see the South Koreans or Japanese successfully fighting off China.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

**A very wise and necessary decison on America's part. Military threats from other regions are minuscule these days with the exception of jihadists of course. The real problem is china's military build up.....like the tortoise it may be slow.....but still deliberate and unyielding in the long run.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites