Bush Is Back (part 2)!

That's not true - Bush has increased spending year or year by more than any other president in the last fifty years.http://www.marktaw.com/...ure_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html - look at section two.

America spends an absurd amount on it's military; you could halve your military spending and still have the highest military spending of any country on earth. Hell, you'd then be spending only as much as the next FIVE highest spenders combined - at least two of whom would almost certainly be backing you in any conflict. Compared to countries that might, conceivably, get involved in a war with you it's even more over-sized - Iran and North Korea, for example, spend less than an eightieth of what you spend. See here for numbers (scroll down a bit)Your military is bloated, over-funded, unnecessary and ill-suited to the tasks that it actually faces. You're still (much like us, in fact) funding a military set up to fight the cold war in a world where that war is never going to happen. And now you're wasting even more money on a missile-defence program that simply will not work (see the November issue of Scientific American for a discussion of why).

The biggest reasons we won:1. Hitler got involved in wars on too many fronts (probably the biggest reason).
2. The Russians were on our side (Russia's role in winning the war was far greater than America's).
3. Hitler racism deprived him of valuable scientific knowledge, and the whole holocaust thing was a massive waste of effort and manpower.
4. The Germans shelved their nuclear programme after one of their leading scientists declared it impossible, had this not happened Hitler would probably have had working Nukes in early 1944 and won the war in a landslide.
5. America was on our side.
6. Us Brits broke their codes.
7. Blind luck.

Your assessment of your ability to neutralise their nuclear threat is almost certainly overstated. China could, almost certainly, successfully strike several American cities with nuclear war-heads in the case of war.More seriously, having air, land and sea supremacy is not enough to secure a country - China has a billion people, meanwhile your troops and ours are struggling to maintain order in a country of a few million people.But, yes, America could easily defeat China in a conventional conflict; although if China could hold on long enough their autocratic ruling model could keep the fight going longer than your democratic one.

In JesusFreaks defence, which is admittedly something I find it unlikely that I'm doing, I don't think he intended the term as disparaging; just as a colloquial or nick name - in the same way as we might refer to an Australian as an 'Aussie' or someone from Scotland as a 'Scot'. These terms are complicated, I've met blacks who refer to themselves as 'niggers' and Jews you refer to themselves as 'yids' - but I would never use ever and would, no doubt, cause offence if I did. Tangentially, I would refer to a Chinese Restaurant as a 'Chinkie' but I would never call someone who was Chinese a 'Chinkie'.

1. You do not yet have a missile shield
2. While the missile shield might provide some defence, the proposed mid-flight defence strategy can be easily and cheapily overcome with easy-to-produce counter-measures (see the November issue of Scientific American for details). America is far more likely to attack China than China is to attack America; China has had more than a few occasions in which America has taken actions which would form a clear-cut "act of war" justification for an attack (launching multiple missiles at the embassy and flying warplanes through their airspace to name two).