Off-topic post and reply removed.  

 

"South Korean lawmakers have said Washington is seeking up to $5 billion (3.81 billion pounds) a year, more than five times the amount Seoul agreed to pay this year.".....

 

So, they think being protected from their Northern "friends" as well as other not-so-friendly countries in their backyard isn't worth $5 billion a year? Really? They make so much more than that on the cars that they sell in the US. I'm so glad Trump is putting the US first and not offering military protection where the US loses money on the deal. Imagine trying to get a home security system and telling the company that you'll only pay 20% of the costs. How will that go over? Plus, with military protection the US runs the risk of losing lives of American heroes. Trump should be asking for far more than $5 billion but it's an improvement over what the career politicians have "negotiated" in the past.

18 hours ago, jany123 said:

Let’s see.... those divisive states and Russia partitioned Korea after world war 2, to suit their own agenda.

 

the southern half was given US support in this decision, which was mandated by external forces, to suit external agendas

 

in 1950 the northern part of the Divided area, took up arms in objection to the decision others took in dividing its homeland, for their own agenda, and as the stronger part of the now divided state, it set out to reunite its country, despite the agenda of other sovereign nations

 

then, at the divisive states request, the United Nations agreed to support a state that was created to suit their agenda.

 

and now, after 70 years of enforcing a division of territory... (territory that should arguably have become a united Korea, led by the North Koreans, as victors, if not for external interference)... you suggest that the South Koreans should pay for those externally made decisions.

 

And... to suit the agenda of those divisive states, the divisive states is determining the future of the two states by mismanaging the peace (a 70 year old conflict left unresolved is gross mismanagement!)

 

yall caused it to suit yourselves... y’all should pay the ongoing cost for orchestrating this conflict, which was a direct result of external forces interfering in domestic politics of another nation, which in turn led to a civil conflict in that nation.

 

This is the cost of engineering a proxy war in another nation... a cost that should be born by Russia (in small part, as their part was small) and the decisive states... China was arguably acting to defend its own borders when it sent its troops into North Korea after MacArthur decided to push past the 38th, so bear little blame for this mess.

 

uurrgh... those divisive states monetizing it’s military and turning the nation into a mercenary enterprise... way to MAGA!.... cause a war and profit by selling arms and supplying mercenaries.

 

the arrogance appalls 

So you think all those southern Koreans should be ruled by the monsters ( IMO ) in charge of Nth Korea. They might disagree with you.

 

17 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Whether or not the USA should have been in Syria is one issue. Whether or not he definitely backed down when Erdogan said he was going into Syria is quite another. He backed down and withdrew troops.

 

He also backed down after Iran shot down a US drone. Despite having sent a major naval force to the Persian Gulf, he actually thanked Iran for shooting down a drone instead of a plane with US troops aboard it. Whether that was a good thing or not is, once again, another issue.

 

He also did nothing when missiles damaged a Saudi refinery. A missile attack that the US blamed on Iran. The Saudis are now talking to the Iranians about reducing tensions. Once again, it may have been wise of Trump to do nothing, but it does send a message.

 

And of course there are his repeated excuses for and acceptance Kim's provocative behavior subsequent to the Singapore summit conference. Including when North Korea recently launched a missile from a submarine. 

 

There are also his comments suggesting the US wouldn't necessarily defend Nato members if Russia encroached on their territory.

 

So I would say those instances taken together send a pretty clear message to potential adversaries. 

Sooooo, you think the US should have gone to war with Iran because they shot down an unmanned drone. I'm glad you ain't the CIC.

 

I differ on Turkey, but I'd have given the Kurds the means to destroy any Turkish tanks and planes that attacked them.

 

Re Europe, why should the US protect countries that won't protect themselves? Any such country should be booted out of NATO, IMO.

14 hours ago, billd766 said:

BTW the S Koreans were also involved and had very large losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Casualties

 

Would that include all the British and Commonwealth troops, see the list below for the allied side.

 

South Korea
 United Nations[a]

 United States
 United Kingdom
 Canada
 Turkey
 Australia
 Philippines
 New Zealand
 Thailand
 Ethiopia
 Greece
 France
 Colombia
 Belgium
 South Africa
 Netherlands
 Luxembourg
Medical support[show]
Other support[show]
 North Korea
 China
 Soviet Union
Medical support[show]
Other support

I know, but it was their country.

 

Yes.

 

You appear to be claiming

 North Korea
 China
 Soviet Union

were on our side. LOL. Perhaps you should edit your posts more closely.

17 hours ago, jany123 said:

as the poster I was responding too (amongst others) held an opposing one sided and repugnant bias.

Repugnant to you.

Also not everyone would agree with your wish to condemn the Sth Koreans to be ruled by a tyrannical monster ( IMO ).

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So you think all those southern Koreans should be ruled by the monsters ( IMO ) in charge of Nth Korea. They might disagree with you.

 

 

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, you think the US should have gone to war with Iran because they shot down an unmanned drone. I'm glad you ain't the CIC.

 

I differ on Turkey, but I'd have given the Kurds the means to destroy any Turkish tanks and planes that attacked them.

 

Re Europe, why should the US protect countries that won't protect themselves? Any such country should be booted out of NATO, IMO.

 

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I know, but it was their country.

 

Yes.

 

You appear to be claiming

 North Korea
 China
 Soviet Union

were on our side. LOL. Perhaps you should edit your posts more closely.

None of what you claim to be the posters opinion was said or implied by them.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So you think all those southern Koreans should be ruled by the monsters ( IMO ) in charge of Nth Korea. They might disagree with you.

 

Irrelevant really.... the Divided States interfered in another nations sovereignty and in so doing, altered the balance of power.

 

good for the South Koreans. But now king don wants to start charging the South Koreans for the divisive states interference, which was not done to protect the Korean citizenry, but rather to suit the divisive states agenda.

 

what my post clearly indicates is not that I believe the northern portion should be in charge, but that the external forces that created the division of a sovereign nation should pay for the deb incurred to maintain that division.

 

north Vietnam defeated the divisive states and modern Vietnam is doing fine... should not that be an example to look towards? Is that not what was denied Korea by the interference?

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Repugnant to you.

Also not everyone would agree with your wish to condemn the Sth Koreans to be ruled by a tyrannical monster ( IMO ).

Let’s see... what did I call repugnant? Here it is...

On 12/19/2019 at 10:03 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

OK, they can have rent, as long as they agree to compensate the allies for the cost of saving their ass from the commies in 1950. About a million bucks for every allied soldier lost, compensation for the injured, and payment for all the equipment and every single bullet fired to defend them.

Yep... repugnant.... and the OP indicates that 96% of those South Koreans your worried about also think the trumps money grab is OTT.

 

paying a million bucks for each dead soldier.... for crissakes.... ok let’s look at that. Against US policy MacArthur crossed the 38th, intentionally drawing China into the conflict. The US should compensate ( war reparation) China for every Chinese life lost... that’s 600,000 million dollars.... now that sounds fair, right?

 

this was americas war... caused by american/ Russian interference... asking the citizenry of a country y’all decided to turn into a battlefield, for compensations, beggars belief, and the concept takes your war mongering for profit to a whole new level

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I know, but it was their country.

 

Yes.

 

You appear to be claiming

 North Korea
 China
 Soviet Union

were on our side. LOL. Perhaps you should edit your posts more closely.

Actually if you had looked at the link carefully at the top right where it say Belligerents to the right of the Allied side you would see which countries were on the other side,

 

Perhaps you should learn to read thoroughly and comprehend more clearly.

 

ROFMLAO ????

3 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Let’s see... what did I call repugnant? Here it is...

Yep... repugnant.... and the OP indicates that 96% of those South Koreans your worried about also think the trumps money grab is OTT.

 

paying a million bucks for each dead soldier.... for crissakes.... ok let’s look at that. Against US policy MacArthur crossed the 38th, intentionally drawing China into the conflict. The US should compensate ( war reparation) China for every Chinese life lost... that’s 600,000 million dollars.... now that sounds fair, right?

 

this was americas war... caused by american/ Russian interference... asking the citizenry of a country y’all decided to turn into a battlefield, for compensations, beggars belief, and the concept takes your war mongering for profit to a whole new level

It's not about me, and yes, it's your opinion.

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not about me, and yes, it's your opinion.

Shared by 96% of South Koreans.... and as I was commenting on your post/ opinion, it is about you.

28 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Shared by 96% of South Koreans.... and as I was commenting on your post/ opinion, it is about you.

If 96% of South Koreans don't want to pay up for the US to be there, then clearly the US should leave. I have been saying the US should leave for some time now.

Calling me repugnant is insulting and against forum rules. I suggest you stop insulting other posters.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If 96% of South Koreans don't want to pay up for the US to be there, then clearly the US should leave. I have been saying the US should leave for some time now.

Calling me repugnant is insulting and against forum rules. I suggest you stop insulting other posters.

I wouldn’t call you repugnant... heaven forbid... I’m sure your a prince amongst men. I believe I said “repugnant bias”

 

as to the US leaving, much as they did in abandoning their allied Kurds.... bravo.... alternatively, sign a peace treaty.... end the war and lift the sanctions that serve to encourage NK’s drive to ensure its survival thru military spending.... allow UN peacekeeper.... then by all means, leave South Korea and let the nation begin the healing process under Chinese and soviet oversight

 

or pay to play

Watch out Mr. President. The democrats will see this as another Quid Pro Quo.

No protection without more money. 

They will next accuse you of using "strong arm tactics".  Kind of like the Mafia does.

They will say you are in the Protection Racket. 

20 hours ago, jany123 said:

let the nation begin the healing process under Chinese and soviet oversight

On 12/20/2019 at 7:27 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, you think the US should have gone to war with Iran because they shot down an unmanned drone. I'm glad you ain't the CIC.

 

I differ on Turkey, but I'd have given the Kurds the means to destroy any Turkish tanks and planes that attacked them.

 

Re Europe, why should the US protect countries that won't protect themselves? Any such country should be booted out of NATO, IMO.

You still don't get it. Whether or not I approve of Trump's actions is irrelevant. What is relevant to potential adversaries reactions. You forget how belligerent Trump's language is before he faces an actual challenge. Trump's modus operandi seems to be "Talk loudly but carry a small stick." 

Just mention the word 'Trump' and watch the kids go crazy.

 

 

Trump should just start pulling troops out and see how fast they are able to come up with $5 bil.

18 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You still don't get it. Whether or not I approve of Trump's actions is irrelevant. What is relevant to potential adversaries reactions. You forget how belligerent Trump's language is before he faces an actual challenge. Trump's modus operandi seems to be "Talk loudly but carry a small stick." 

I'd rather that than nuclear missiles flying overhead. How did it go for the US soldiers the last time a US  president decided a war would be great? Still suffering, I believe.

Whatever the haters accuse Trump of he's never sent thousands of US soldiers to die in a war started on untruths.

16 hours ago, toast1 said:

Just mention the word 'Trump' and watch the kids go crazy.

 

 

Crazy with laughter of his stupidity. 

The US military is stationed in no place that does not benefit the US.  

22 hours ago, PhonThong said:

Watch out Mr. President. The democrats will see this as another Quid Pro Quo.

No protection without more money. 

They will next accuse you of using "strong arm tactics".  Kind of like the Mafia does.

They will say you are in the Protection Racket. 

Only if he asks for a favor first !!!!!!!

On 12/22/2019 at 8:41 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd rather that than nuclear missiles flying overhead. How did it go for the US soldiers the last time a US  president decided a war would be great? Still suffering, I believe.

Whatever the haters accuse Trump of he's never sent thousands of US soldiers to die in a war started on untruths.

Nor did Obama, nor did Clinton, nor did George H.W. Bush, nor did Reagan, nor did Carter. So what's your point? 

On 12/21/2019 at 9:02 PM, HuskerDo said:

Trump should just start pulling troops out and see how fast they are able to come up with $5 bil.

Well, looks like once again there's a big gap between what Trump should do and what he's actually done.

U.S. Buckles in South Korea Troop-Funding Talks, Chosun Says

 

Days before a troop-funding deal was set to expire, the U.S. has dropped its demand that South Korea pay five times more to host its military personnel after receiving assurances Seoul would purchase more American weapons, a newspaper report said.

The Trump administration also likely eased up after South Korea indicated it would step up its presence in the Strait of Hormuz, helping U.S. efforts to protect oil flows in the region, South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported Thursday, citing an unidentified diplomatic source. The increase now may be about 10-20% above the current level of nearly $1 billion, it said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-26/u-s-buckles-in-south-korea-troop-funding-talks-chosun-says?srnd=premium

I'm sure you'll be among the first to condemn him for backing down.

More promises made, more promises kept, NOT

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 7:23 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Isn't that called wanting to have cake and eat it too?

Hope Trump stands firm and leaves if they don't pay up.

Good idea, best they leave all foreign bases and stay home.

3 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Good idea, best they leave all foreign bases and stay home.

I agree. It's time countries like Australia and NZ had to make the effort to protect themselves. In the case of NZ, without the US protecting us, our only action would be printing signs in ( insert relevant language ) saying "we surrender". Seems to me our military has been reduced to providing observers in overseas conflicts. Far as I know we have no aircraft with weapons capable of stopping a Tiger Moth armed with a musket.

We used to have a real military when we were in Vietnam. Sadly those days are well and truly gone. I'd love to see them bring back National Service!

At least, whatever the dispute with the US about paying, Sth Korea does in fact have a pretty good military.

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At least, whatever the dispute with the US about paying, Sth Korea does in fact have a pretty good military.

So good that during the Vietnam war the ROK Tiger and Panther divisions were responsible for the Delta, no more Viet Cong after they burned a couple of villages to show they were the new sheriff in town 

On 12/19/2019 at 11:05 PM, PhonThong said:

Can't have it both ways.  I say, remove the U.S. forces and send the U.N. troops back in. Then the countries that are members of the U.N. can pick up the bill if they want forces stationed in S. Korea.

Well and good. Now tell USA not to meddle with other countries internal affairs and not send troops willy nilly.