Trump hikes price tag for US forces in Korea almost 400% as Seoul questions alliance

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Same Issues, Nov 15, 2019.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) I believe that although the nukes were on Ukrainian soil - they were controlled by Russia
    2) Russia did not really invade - and if we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons by Russia just giving them to Iran - perhaps we should not be messing in Russia's back yard by giving sophisticated military equipment to Ukraine.
    3) We were not going to war with Russia - on its own turf - and it does not matter if it is Obama in Power or Trump.

    Part of the conditions of Ukraine's release from Russia was that Russia would control the Port in Crimea. In the second article I linked to (which was long .. I know) it talked about how Ukraine was threatening to violate that agreement. You mess with the bull - you get the horns.

    Russia was not giving up control of its port in Crimea - I know it, you know it , the US and all other NATO leaders knew this, and Ukraine should have known this.

    The vast majority non Russians in Crimea voted to succeed from Ukraine.

    It is in the billions no doubt.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  2. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When a nation sends armed forces into another nations territory and plants its flag I think it is an invasion. Again, it is hard to blame Putin for taking what was, in effect, offered up on a platter. The Russian annexation was entirely foreseeable. I find it odd that exactly nothing of any significance was done to prevent it.

    If the nukes were controlled by Russia and the USG negotiated with Ukraine to give them up what does that tell you about the USG negotiators?
     
  3. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have heard that the total during the Obama years was in the low $millions. Which seems incredible. I thought you might know. Will try to check it out.
     
  4. Rush_is_Right

    Rush_is_Right Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3,873
    Likes Received:
    4,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Jesus.
     
  5. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,824
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We should cut all aid to foreign nations with the exception of natural disaster to zero until our deficit is paid down to reasonable levels.
    Start with these:
    upload_2019-11-17_16-50-19.jpeg
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Think it was a few soldiers - I could be wrong but don't recall it being much. I don't blame Putin.. and his reaction - that he would defend a significant Russian Strategic interest - was no surprise.

    I don't find it odd that nothing was done - this too I viewed as predictable.

    If the nukes were controlled by Russia - would not Russia have been involved as well ?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  7. Observing

    Observing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,321
    Likes Received:
    910
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do I care if north korea invades South korea. They will wreck the economy and open up world markets for American Goods. Look at Vietnam. 50,000 dead and the country is better of now than they would have been under our lackeys.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  8. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was the aggressive use of military force to invade another nation.
    Yes, it was predictable, and there was nothing odd about it.

    If the nukes we negotiated with Ukraine to remove were actually controlled by Russia both the negotiations and our public foreign policy regarding Ukraine were a sham.
     
    Giftedone likes this.
  9. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,222
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds good to me. What is your objection? You think we should pledge US lives and treasure out of charity?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  10. eschaff

    eschaff Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    We should pledge US lives and treasure in the pursuit of our strategic interests.
     
  11. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,222
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what are our strategic interests? Indeed, what are our national goals for which we develop any strategy?

    The Constitution enumerates the goals as "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

    How do US troops in Korea further any of these goals?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  12. eschaff

    eschaff Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2019
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    I think that an argument could be made that having troops and equipment forward deployed in various spots around the world is contributing to the common defense. It also may be securing the blessings of liberty such that having the troops deployed may be a deterrent against aggression.
     
  13. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    South Korea would be obliterated and Seoul would be a smoking ruin within a couple hours from the artillery.

    The South Korean army might be able to eventually push them back, but all of South Korea would be a smoking crater.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  14. Ernest T.

    Ernest T. Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2019
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Security isn't cheap.
     
  15. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We can leave SK. Let them defend themselves.

    They need to man up.
     
  16. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,222
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Or perhaps an invitation to aggression. The presence of US troops in Korea might inspire the Norks to attack the US mainland with nukes. Perhaps it was meddling in the ME which inspired 9/11.
     
  17. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,222
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I argue that US deployment overseas is buying insecurity by provoking foreigners who see it as interfering with their own strategic interests.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  18. Ernest T.

    Ernest T. Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2019
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    43
    They won't be THAT provoked knowing they'll suffer heavy losses should they act. I guess its the tried and true "Peace Through Strength" idea. (Wasn't Reagan great!)
     
  19. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If it came to a real war our troops would be most certainly be targets in that opening volley. So what's the point again? A deterrent. No more than a deterrent.
    https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...as-north-builds-up-weapons-that-can-reach-it/
     
  20. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,222
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It seems to be cheaper not to provoke them in the first place.
     
  21. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,222
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  22. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You really gonna nuke N. Korea over S. Korea?
    Assuming you would. What difference does having 30,000 US forces there make?
     
  24. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, we'd nuke them for attacking our troops.

    A 50 year armistice.
     
  25. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you agree. It's like I said it's only a deterrent.
     

Share This Page