1. You need to follow what is going on more regarding Russia as they are the one country in Europe who are actively annexing other countries territories such as a part of Georgia and recently Crimea in Eastern Ukraine. This makes Russia an hostile and direct threat on Europes eastern border and need to be dealt with one way or another as you can´t allow Russia to be militarily aggressive without consequences. Its totally naive to think an Russia without an strong NATO presence nearby would be civilized towards their neighbours, they would likely try even harder to force old soviet states back into the fold. All empirical evidence shows Russia as the aggressors as they are the only country to expand their territory recently by force.
2. You need to study Chinese history and you will see how vicious and bloody the last 100 years have been in China though its been part Civil wars and internal struggle but also terrifying oppression over Tibet. Also i would advice you to read a bit about the Cultural revolution that Mao Zedong started which was absolute brutal towards political opponents and many others caught in it. Here is an standard article about some of it :
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...eed-to-know-about-chinas-political-convulsion
China and Japan have fought bloody wars in the last 100 years such as :
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/06/china-war-japan-rana-mitter-review this only "touch" the subject but can give an easy to read insight into some of the Chinese past. The animosity between Japan and China is still fairly big and mistrust is plenty even to this day so to say that China cares little about Japan is wrong as they see each other as rivals in Asia. China have only recently grown this powerful like in the last 30-40 years which is why they haven been very active militarily in internal matters as of yet. If Chinas economic growth continues the next 20-30 years and they become an equal rival to U.S.A you can expect them to get into wars especially if U.S.As power wanes a lot they will try to assert their political and military power just as any powerful nation have in the past. The Persians did it, The Greeks did it, The Romans did it, The Mongolians did it etc if anything history shows powerful nations on the world stage more or less gets stuck in eventually and often. China aren´´t exactly known to be kind to its own people either ( Its massively corrupt and the courts are more or less just the government own people which means there is little to no separation between the Parliament - Government - Courts and this is not likely to change anytime soon with a 1 political party system.
This means we are dealing with an group of people that values power and have no intention of giving that up in any way, so its naive to think they would not get more aggressive in the future if they get a very strong military as they are not exactly the champions of peace and cooperation generally speaking. This is why the USA needs to be present in the region so peace can be kept. As problematic as it is with USA being the world police and they have done plenty wrong i agree but that dosn´t mean they aren't needed today to keep nations such as Russia and China in their place to avoid current conflicts to spiral out of control long term. If USA went pacifistic it would give Russia and China far more power in international politics and make no mistake if you look at how their general populations have it, it wont be pleasant for the world.
The DPRK are a big threat as they are still in war with South Korea today and have shown no signs of wanting permanent peace as they want to reunite the Korean countries again by force if necessary. The Ruling class of North Korea acts crazy generally speaking and expecting them to behave rationally is very dangerous as this can lead to devastating consequences if you don´t prepare for the worst possible action they could decide to take. It´s better to be safe than sorry in this case. That USA used nukes on Japan to force them to surrender have nothing to do with this discussion and is an whole other subject.
3. " Hillary CLinton stating that she wants to rename the Pacific Sea the American Sea is psychotic at best, what does that really accomplish but feed her own ego. People are worried about Trump getting in power, I'd be more worried about what Clinton will do, look at the situations in Libya and Syria she helped create and continues to endorse by taking money from said parties who endorse ISIL (Qatar and Suadi Arabia). "
Its the sea that lies next to the American eastern sea coast so it isn't totally illogical and i don´t see how this make Hillary psychotic ? i think your grasping at straws to be honest, if you want to criticize Hillary there are many other topics to do that with. You mention Libya but it is a political fact that it is the republicans who refused to finance extra security measures at the American Embassies :
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/ The republicans had refused to properly fund USA embassy security which means this issue is not just an Hillary issue but also the GOP for refusing to finance all needed measures. The Republicans have a very selective memory on this matter and even after like 8 hearings they could not find Hillary at fault for anything.
The Syrian civil war erupted after Assad forces opened fire on demonstrators and not because of U.S.A starting anything. You cant blame Hillary for starting this , but you criticize her policies regarding how to deal with it but it is a very complex issue were many factions and neighbouring countries sticks their nose in, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia and both are as appalling as each other when it comes to respecting human rights. Again you´re mistaken when you say she has taken money from the Saudi Arabia as you make it sound like its for personal use and this is a false statement. The Saudis donated to the Clinton foundation which isn´t a problem per say unless you an prove she does something in return for that donation. She cant use any of it for personal use so its hardly a bribe!. My personal opinion is it would have been better to reject this donation in matter of transparency but there are no proof of wrong doing here and if you have proof i would love to see them and not just groundless accusations from very dodgy sources like crazy conspiracy sites.
4. You can´t just stop elections just because you don´t like the candidates unless you have proof of wrong doing though as that would damaging the idea of free and independent elections. People on both sides have voted for both of em to be the nominees as crazy as it sounds that is what we have to choose between in this election. The people have spoken and this is the problem with representative democracy that it is rarely the most qualified that gets nominated but those with connections and money behind them instead or strong charisma/personality or an mix of these.
