North Korea government endorses Trump

[gabosaurus]

North Korean state media has praised US presidential hopeful Donald Trump, describing him as a “wise politician” and “far-sighted candidate” who could help unify the Korean peninsula.

An editorial in DPRK Today, an official media outlet, welcomed the Republican presidential candidate’s proposal to hold direct talks with Kim Jong-un, saying he could help bring about Pyongyang’s “Yankee go home” policy.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/north-korea-praises-trump-and-urges-us-voters-to-reject-dull-hillary

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u=http://www.dprktoday.com/&prev=search

[Atticus Finch]

not officially from Pyongyang...so maybe the headline is a bit of a stretch.

[pete311]

not officially from Pyongyang...so maybe the headline is a bit of a stretch.

Pyongyang is in 100% control of the media

[Elessar]

Anything coming out of North Korea is 100% Horse Shit.

Anyone who believes that little fat wannbe dictator is a fool.

[fj1200]

“Trump said he will not get involved in the war between the South and the North, isn’t this fortunate from North Korea’ perspective?”Analysts said that although the editorial was not officially from Pyongyang, it was sure to reflect thinking inside the regime.
“This is very striking,” said Aidan Foster-Carter of the University of Leeds.“Admittedly it is not exactly Pyongyang speaking, or at least not the DPRK government in an official capacity. But it is certainly Pyongyang flying a kite, or testing the waters.
“For the rest of us, this is a timely reminder – if it were needed – of just how completely Trump plans to tear up established US policy in the region.”
The editorial referred to Trump’s speech in March (https://www.nknews.org/2016/03/s-korean-media-experts-refute-trumps-u-s-withdrawal-remarks/), in which he suggested he would withdraw US military forces from Seoul if South Korea did not increase spending on defence.
“Yes do it, now … Who knew that the slogan ‘Yankee Go Home’ would come true like this? The day when the ‘Yankee Go Home’ slogan becomes real would be the day of Korean Unification.”
The article urged Seoul not to increase defence spending so as to prompt a US withdrawal, and urged American voters not to choose the Democratic hopeful, Hillary Clinton.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/north-korea-praises-trump-and-urges-us-voters-to-reject-dull-hillary

Who's with trump on this one?

[gabosaurus]

Anything coming out of North Korea is 100% Horse Shit.

Anyone who believes that little fat wannbe dictator is a fool.

Kim Jong-un is no less of a little fat wannabe dictator than Saddam Hussein. And look what happened to him when he started mouthing off. :rolleyes:

North Korea has nukes. Iraq did not.
Of course, Kim Jong-un is not a Muslim. So I suppose he is OK. :rolleyes:

[Noir]

Hopefully Robert Mugabe will endorse Clinton and then we can have a 'worst endorsement face off' subplot to the election.

[Gunny]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/31/north-korea-praises-trump-and-urges-us-voters-to-reject-dull-hillary

Who's with trump on this one?

Force projection. The problem is, it's like any other deal with the Useless N. The US was not at war with North Korea. The UN was. But we provided all the money and manpower for that force and have since. I have no problem with other members of that pointless organization ponying up.

Why is it always us that foots the bill in money, manpower and materiel for some place nobody wants to live any-damned-way? Korea sucks. I hated the place. It isn't necessarily that I agree with Trump since I've held this position LONG before he decided to be a politician. I side with common sense. How much do we spend on other countries? We can secure their border but not ours?

[gabosaurus]

Force projection. The problem is, it's like any other deal with the Useless N. The US was not at war with North Korea. The UN was. But we provided all the money and manpower for that force and have since. I have no problem with other members of that pointless organization ponying up.

Why is it always us that foots the bill in money, manpower and materiel for some place nobody wants to live any-damned-way? Korea sucks. I hated the place. It isn't necessarily that I agree with Trump since I've held this position LONG before he decided to be a politician. I side with common sense. How much do we spend on other countries? We can secure their border but not ours?

I totally agree. The U.S. should remove ALL of its current military forces outside our borders. This includes the Middle East. Why should our country be pouring money and lives into protecting a worthless rat hole that even the occupants don''t care about?

[aboutime]

I totally agree. The U.S. should remove ALL of its current military forces outside our borders. This includes the Middle East. Why should our country be pouring money and lives into protecting a worthless rat hole that even the occupants don''t care about?




Wow gabby. How very NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN of you. Sounds like you would endorse the OBAMA theory of allowing ISIS to have total control of the places YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS died for?

Of course North Korea would endorse TRUMP. They fear him enough to believe using REVERSE psychology on the American people...making them believe the LITTLE FAT PORN STAR in N.K. likes Trump.

[Gunny]

I totally agree. The U.S. should remove ALL of its current military forces outside our borders. This includes the Middle East. Why should our country be pouring money and lives into protecting a worthless rat hole that even the occupants don''t care about?

Deal with the here and now. It's too late for that Monday Morning QB crap. Regardless who you want to blame, we're there. Finish the job. I don't know how O-blah-blah has kids the way he likes to pull out before the job is done.

I hate that kitty litter box too. Here's the paradox: We have the natural resources to not need them. YOUR party won't let us use them. Sh*t or get off the pot.

[gabosaurus]

Deal with the here and now. It's too late for that Monday Morning QB crap. Regardless who you want to blame, we're there. Finish the job. I don't know how O-blah-blah has kids the way he likes to pull out before the job is done.

I hate that kitty litter box too. Here's the paradox: We have the natural resources to not need them. YOUR party won't let us use them. Sh*t or get off the pot.

There is no way to "finish the job." You can bomb the land and destroy people and property, but the weeds will still be there. Should we invade Saudi Arabia? How about Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan? You can't do it.

We do have the natural resources to not need them. But you can't tell that to Big Oil. They are not going to get out of the Middle East until you force them. The U.S. doesn't need oil to run the country.

[Gunny]

There is no way to "finish the job." You can bomb the land and destroy people and property, but the weeds will still be there. Should we invade Saudi Arabia? How about Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan? You can't do it.

We do have the natural resources to not need them. But you can't tell that to Big Oil. They are not going to get out of the Middle East until you force them. The U.S. doesn't need oil to run the country.

You're kind of reading more into what I said than I said. I'm saying clean up the mess. Who started it or why is irrelevant. We live in the here and now and have left a job unfinished. Do what it takes to get them squared away. Finish the mission and you can stick your politics. The Iraq War and the Afghan war are the only two wars in over a century Republicans have started. The rest were all started and inefficiently run by Dems. And when Dems started running them, we started losing them.

How fair do you think that is to me? Or namvet? Elissar? AT? CSM? Or any other vet? You Dems send us off to fight wars and won't let us win. We don't need you. You need us. Y'all couldn't fight your way out of a wet paper bag. You'd try talking it to death then back down to it.

I'm not for starting any wars and that's a BS argument. The last person that wants a war is a combat vet. Y'all sit home and do all your damned talking. Why don't you come out on the line and man it?

And when you make a mess, you clean it up.

[gabosaurus]

You're kind of reading more into what I said than I said. I'm saying clean up the mess. Who started it or why is irrelevant. We live in the here and now and have left a job unfinished. Do what it takes to get them squared away. Finish the mission...

This is my concern. What exactly do you mean by "finish the mission?" Or "clean up the mess?"
In the past, the U.S. has been faced by an identifiable enemy. There is no identifiable enemy here. There is no singular, identifiable face of Islamic terrorism. The serpent has so many heads that no one can name all of them. Most are not linked to each other.
If your enemy is operating from 20 different locations, which one do you attack? And how.

Gunny, I know you are a man of honor and valor. You want our country to finish what it started. But what if that is not possible? What if the mess has gotten too large and wide spread to successfully clean up?
We live in the world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation predicted by author George Orwell in his book 1984. It is amazing how well Orwell was able to see the future in a book published in 1949.

[Gunny]

This is my concern. What exactly do you mean by "finish the mission?" Or "clean up the mess?"
In the past, the U.S. has been faced by an identifiable enemy. There is no identifiable enemy here. There is no singular, identifiable face of Islamic terrorism. The serpent has so many heads that no one can name all of them. Most are not linked to each other.
If your enemy is operating from 20 different locations, which one do you attack? And how.

Gunny, I know you are a man of honor and valor. You want our country to finish what it started. But what if that is not possible? What if the mess has gotten too large and wide spread to successfully clean up?
We live in the world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation predicted by author George Orwell in his book 1984. It is amazing how well Orwell was able to see the future in a book published in 1949.

There's an identifiable enemy. Y'all just won't face it. Radical Islam is the problem. And I am up to speed on who is what.

I agree with your last and have said so many times. Too many people are making a business out of war. At the same time, Islam has been a menace since Charles Martel stomped their asses. They're like ants. The just won't quit spreading. You put them in check or just surrender, All they know is force. It's what they use. And it's the only thing that will defeat them.

Thing is, they've been going for centuries while we have the attention span of gnats. We won't go for the long haul anymore and it's leftwing thinking that is the reason.

Ask me ... we wouldn't be over there. Then again, who made us dependent on Arab energy? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[fj1200]

Force projection. The problem is, it's like any other deal with the Useless N. The US was not at war with North Korea. The UN was. But we provided all the money and manpower for that force and have since. I have no problem with other members of that pointless organization ponying up.

Why is it always us that foots the bill in money, manpower and materiel for some place nobody wants to live any-damned-way? Korea sucks. I hated the place. It isn't necessarily that I agree with Trump since I've held this position LONG before he decided to be a politician. I side with common sense. How much do we spend on other countries? We can secure their border but not ours?

That's all well and good but doesn't necessarily address the question. I think Koreans like Korea so is it a valid US policy to demand that they pay more or we pull out keeping in mind that they are currently in the top 10 of all countries in total, % GDP, and per capita defense spending (if my information is correct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures))?

[Gunny]

That's all well and good but doesn't necessarily address the question. I think Koreans like Korea so is it a valid US policy to demand that they pay more or we pull out keeping in mind that they are currently in the top 10 of all countries in total, % GDP, and per capita defense spending (if my information is correct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures))?

Think you missed my point. They should be defending themselves and we shouldn't be there. Sam argument I make about the Middle East. We're taking in these Syrians. Just what we need. More losers that won't fight for what they have and expect someone else to bail them out.

There is no strategic value to North Korea. It's a waste of money and resources.

[fj1200]

Think you missed my point. They should be defending themselves and we shouldn't be there. Sam argument I make about the Middle East. We're taking in these Syrians. Just what we need. More losers that won't fight for what they have and expect someone else to bail them out.

There is no strategic value to North Korea. It's a waste of money and resources.

I didn't miss your point. It just didn't answer the question that was posed more to trump supporters.

[Gunny]

I didn't miss your point. It just didn't answer the question that was posed more to trump supporters.

Well you just KNOW I'm one of them. :laugh2:

In this instance, I don't disagree with Trump. These countries, the Useless N and NATO need to pony up. We're footing a bill with money we don't have.

[fj1200]

Well you just KNOW I'm one of them. :laugh2:

In this instance, I don't disagree with Trump. These countries, the Useless N and NATO need to pony up. We're footing a bill with money we don't have.

Of course you're not. :slap:

Do we have strategic interests or do we not? I don't think the UN and NATO have much bearing on our defense expenditures.


In the most recent agreement, announced in early 2014, South Korea said it would pay (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140112/s-korea-pay-8666-mn-2014-host-us-troops) $866.6 million that year to support the U.S. presence. That was 5.8 percent higher than the 2013 amount, and that could grow by as much as 4 percent annually through 2018.So is this "practically nothing compared to the cost" of a U.S. military presence, as Trump argues?
Calculating the South Korean financial burden on a percentage basis is tricky, because it’s difficult to determine how much it "costs" the United States to station military personnel in South Korea. Do you include the annual salaries and benefits for the troops in question, or do you also include their equipment and past training?
If you look at the most straightforward amount -- salary and benefits for 28,500 troops, which according to experts is roughly $100,000 a head -- then South Korea’s payments account for slightly more than 30 percent of U.S. costs in 2014.
"It's hard to argue that more than $800 million annually is ‘peanuts’ or ‘next to nothing,’ " said Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University.
Beyond that, several experts said Trump’s apparent premise -- that the United States is giving a growing, affluent country what amounts to a charitable gift -- is wrong. The United States itself benefits from the military investment in South Korea, they said.
"U.S. forces are no longer there strictly to defend South Korea," said William W. Stueck, historian at the University of Georgia. "They are there to enhance regional stability as well. The point is that we have vital interests in East Asia and the Western Pacific, so why shouldn't we pay part of the bill for our force presence?"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-mostly-wrong-we-get-practically-nothi/

[Gunny]

Of course you're not. :slap:

Do we have strategic interests or do we not? I don't think the UN and NATO have much bearing on our defense expenditures.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-mostly-wrong-we-get-practically-nothi/

I'm not sure about NATo but I know we basically fund the majority of the UN budget. Not sure which particular purse it comes from. What I CAN tell you is THIS:

Less than a quarter of a military force are actual combat troops. The rest are support for us. Besides feeding us, maintaining our stuff, and all that junk we like, they have to do it for themselves as well. It costs a lot of money to keep a force in the field.

[Drummond]

Just a reminder ... the Guardian (one of Gabby's links) is a British, LEFTIE, paper. I'd caution you all to take that into account when considering whether or not anything they disseminate is worth giving the time of day to.

[Gunny]

Just a reminder ... the Guardian (one of Gabby's links) is a British, LEFTIE, paper. I'd caution you all to take that into account when considering whether or not anything they disseminate is worth giving the time of day to.

I think the thread title is BS, myself. North Korea gets concessions out of Democrats, not Republicans. What Kin Jong Chump think he's going to do if we leave? Invade? Norht Korea is like a clock. They start acting like babies when they want something. I'd as soon blow them off the map.

The REAL reason we are there aside from the notion of "stopping Communism" during the Cold War is to protect Japan.

[fj1200]

I'm not sure about NATo but I know we basically fund the majority of the UN budget. Not sure which particular purse it comes from. What I CAN tell you is THIS:

Less than a quarter of a military force are actual combat troops. The rest are support for us. Besides feeding us, maintaining our stuff, and all that junk we like, they have to do it for themselves as well. It costs a lot of money to keep a force in the field.

I don't that there is much of an actual NATO budget, mostly a treaty requirement to spend 2?% of GDP on defense. The UN apparently depends on a variety of factors; from 22% of the regular budget to the vast majority of the peacekeeping budget among other things. link (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/us-pays-3b-un-more-185-other-countries-combined)

But still no trump supporters weighing in. :confused:

[aboutime]

There's an identifiable enemy. Y'all just won't face it. Radical Islam is the problem. And I am up to speed on who is what.

I agree with your last and have said so many times. Too many people are making a business out of war. At the same time, Islam has been a menace since Charles Martel stomped their asses. They're like ants. The just won't quit spreading. You put them in check or just surrender, All they know is force. It's what they use. And it's the only thing that will defeat them.

Thing is, they've been going for centuries while we have the attention span of gnats. We won't go for the long haul anymore and it's leftwing thinking that is the reason.

Ask me ... we wouldn't be over there. Then again, who made us dependent on Arab energy? You can't have your cake and eat it too.




Gabby is just like Obama, and Hitlery. Neither of them are willing to SAY WHO the real enemies are. They have to constantly pretend (for themselves) that they refuse to INSULT people who are genuinely OUR ENEMIES, which is why OBAMA has taught people like GABBY to apologize for being an American (loosely speaking, IMO). Some pretend Americans only say they are WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THEM. Selfishness, Ignorance, and Misery are their TRAITS.

[hjmick]

Kim's pissed because Hillary stole his wardrobe...

[Gunny]

I don't that there is much of an actual NATO budget, mostly a treaty requirement to spend 2?% of GDP on defense. The UN apparently depends on a variety of factors; from 22% of the regular budget to the vast majority of the peacekeeping budget among other things. link (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/us-pays-3b-un-more-185-other-countries-combined)

But still no trump supporters weighing in. :confused:

Why would Trump supporters weigh in? Just to get into a pissing contest? None one talks to me about Trump anymore. Way it is. You got to know what you're fighting for. I've made no bones about my position on Trump. I'm addressing the idea, not the man.

We can secure another country's border at our expense but we can't secure our own? Brilliant. IMO, it's just another check he's written he'll never cash. But in this case, I think he has a valid point.

[fj1200]

Why would Trump supporters weigh in? Just to get into a pissing contest? None one talks to me about Trump anymore. Way it is. You got to know what you're fighting for. I've made no bones about my position on Trump. I'm addressing the idea, not the man.

We can secure another country's border at our expense but we can't secure our own? Brilliant. IMO, it's just another check he's written he'll never cash. But in this case, I think he has a valid point.

Why indeed? It doesn't take a pissing contest to say "I agree/disagree." :dunno:

I think every R POTUS candidate had the same point.

[Gunny]

Why indeed? It doesn't take a pissing contest to say "I agree/disagree." :dunno:

I think every R POTUS candidate had the same point.

You can say that, but you are the one instigating here. The Trumpies must have their own private club we're not allowed in because they quit arguing about him. Or maybe they just got tired of arguing about him? I did. Doesn't matter which side of the fence you're on. I don't want to fight over something that doesn't matter. And N Korea doesn't matter. They play the same game Saddam did. Every time they want something they start rattling their sabres. Threatening to blow up the world, yada, yada yada.

The Cold War is over. We didn't defeat communism. It defeated itself. North Korea is nothing more than a despotic, military dictatorship. The difference between N Korea the other countries we stick our noses into is N Korea does nothing for us. And we created this problem thinking we're going to save the world from itself. If the left wouldn't keep blocking any chances of us using our natural resources, we wouldn't need the Middle East. But if you ever saw any of these countries, they don't have an EPA and could care less.

If there's nothing in it for us, why be there? And I'm not really isolationist, but we need to save our own damned country first and it's circling the bowl right now.

[Noir]

Just a reminder ... the Guardian (one of Gabby's links) is a British, LEFTIE, paper. I'd caution you all to take that into account when considering whether or not anything they disseminate is worth giving the time of day to.

-Reads press release from North Korean State Media, warns about British leftie newspaper-
Fantastic :laugh:

[CSM]

-Reads press release from North Korean State Media, warns about British leftie newspaper-
Fantastic :laugh:

Aren't they one and the same?

[fj1200]

You can say that, but you are the one instigating here.

Asking a question is instigating now? My how debatepolicy.com has fallen.

[Gunny]

Asking a question is instigating now? My how debatepolicy.com has fallen.

Nope. It's not what you ask. It's WHO you ask. You know who you do and do not set off on this board. You seem to have a penchant for engaging those you DO set off. The board is the same old board and my opinions are very consistent.

And don't assume. I'm speaking for me, not the board. And I don't defend Trump. But I'm not going to get into some meaningless pissing contest with those that support him. My opinion of him hasn't changed, but I'm certainly not getting into an argument over something I agree with.

[fj1200]

Nope. It's not what you ask. It's WHO you ask. You know who you do and do not set off on this board. You seem to have a penchant for engaging those you DO set off. The board is the same old board and my opinions are very consistent.

And don't assume. I'm speaking for me, not the board. And I don't defend Trump. But I'm not going to get into some meaningless pissing contest with those that support him. My opinion of him hasn't changed, but I'm certainly not getting into an argument over something I agree with.

I asked no one in particular. I ask questions to generate discussion. If we can opt out of protecting South Korea we can opt out of trying to control the Middle East.

[Gunny]

I asked no one in particular. I ask questions to generate discussion. If we can opt out of protecting South Korea we can opt out of trying to control the Middle East.

Been both places. No argument on the opting out part. However, some stupid rules have to change. We made ourselves dependent on the Middle East because we won't use our own natural resources. We honestly don't need them.

Kind of too late now, though, isn't it? Their religious fanatics are invading the west by hook or crook. They've been trying to do it for centuries. We beat them back and they breed like roaches then try again. Got to given tthem credit for staying power. We sure as Hell haven't finished a war since WWII.

As far as Korea goes? Screw 'em. Nothing there worth having I ever saw.

[fj1200]

Been both places. No argument on the opting out part. However, some stupid rules have to change. We made ourselves dependent on the Middle East because we won't use our own natural resources. We honestly don't need them.

Kind of too late now, though, isn't it? Their religious fanatics are invading the west by hook or crook. They've been trying to do it for centuries. We beat them back and they breed like roaches then try again. Got to given tthem credit for staying power. We sure as Hell haven't finished a war since WWII.

As far as Korea goes? Screw 'em. Nothing there worth having I ever saw.

I'm pretty sure the ME will sell us oil if we're not there. But that's the problem with extrication once we decided we needed to be there in the first place.

[Gunny]

I'm pretty sure the ME will sell us oil if we're not there. But that's the problem with extrication once we decided we needed to be there in the first place.

We're there because they kept ending up on the wrong side of wars. That's how it was back then. And you're missing my point. We don't need their oil. We have our own. Get rid of some stupid liberals and this "what about our grandchildren?" mentality and let's use -- not abuse -- our own resources instead paying ransom for the crap.

[fj1200]

We're there because they kept ending up on the wrong side of wars. That's how it was back then. And you're missing my point. We don't need their oil. We have our own. Get rid of some stupid liberals and this "what about our grandchildren?" mentality and let's use -- not abuse -- our own resources instead paying ransom for the crap.

Who is "they"?

I'm not missing your point. But we shouldn't be afraid to use ME oil. They're the current low-cost provider.

[Gunny]

Who is "they"?

I'm not missing your point. But we shouldn't be afraid to use ME oil. They're the current low-cost provider.

WTF are you talking about now? I didn't say "afraid of". I said "don't need". What we shouldn't be afraid of is to use OUR OWN damned oil. "They" is the former Ottoman Empire. They got their butts kicked in two world wars. They lost their crap. Too bad. In that time period -- context -- the US, Great Britain and France carved the place up. Again, too bad. You lose, you forfeit.

[fj1200]

WTF are you talking about now? I didn't say "afraid of". I said "don't need". What we shouldn't be afraid of is to use OUR OWN damned oil. "They" is the former Ottoman Empire. They got their butts kicked in two world wars. They lost their crap. Too bad. In that time period -- context -- the US, Great Britain and France carved the place up. Again, too bad. You lose, you forfeit.

Since you brought it up I'm talking about avoiding an isolationist mindset. And I wasn't sure which "they" you were referring to but as you point out "we" carved them up and have been there ever since so what makes us think our continued presence makes things better? If Korea can sink or swim then the ME can sink or swim. With the understanding of course that we'll act in our defense.

I think we are perfectly able to trade with varying regions of the world without bases in every part of the world.

[Black Diamond]

Since you brought it up I'm talking about avoiding an isolationist mindset. And I wasn't sure which "they" you were referring to but as you point out "we" carved them up and have been there ever since so what makes us think our continued presence makes things better? If Korea can sink or swim then the ME can sink or swim. With the understanding of course that we'll act in our defense.

I think we are perfectly able to trade with varying regions of the world without bases in every part of the world.

The UN carved them up. We didn't want Japan isolated economically, so we fought for south Korea. China wanted a buffer between them and capitalism so once we kicked North Korea's butt, they got involved.

Chosin Reservoir.

[jimnyc]

NK and the little guy are funny. Why am I supposed to care who he wants to win? Same as if David Duke or whoever does the same. Why do I care? What if Hitler were alive and said he liked Trump the best? No one can stop assholes from choosing someone. NK choosing someone means jack shit either way, just a manchild thinking that his opinion somehow matters.

[fj1200]

The UN carved them up. We didn't want Japan isolated economically, so we fought for south Korea. China wanted a buffer between them and capitalism so once we kicked North Korea's butt, they got involved.

Chosin Reservoir.

If we're discussing the end of the Ottoman empire then were discussing the 20's which well predates the UN and probably means Sykes-Picot which means Britain and France. I don't think WWII changed the maps much. But it boils down to the question of do we need to be there? Are we a positive force in any region?

[fj1200]

NK and the little guy are funny. Why am I supposed to care who he wants to win? Same as if David Duke or whoever does the same. Why do I care? What if Hitler were alive and said he liked Trump the best? No one can stop assholes from choosing someone. NK choosing someone means jack shit either way, just a manchild thinking that his opinion somehow matters.

He wants trump to win because trump has suggested removing US troops from South Korea if they don't increase defense spending. Should we remove US troops if SK doesn't increase defense spending?

[Black Diamond]

If we're discussing the end of the Ottoman empire then were discussing the 20's which well predates the UN and probably means Sykes-Picot which means Britain and France. I don't think WWII changed the maps much. But it boils down to the question of do we need to be there? Are we a positive force in any region?

UN chopped up Korean peninsula.

[fj1200]

UN chopped up Korean peninsula.

I think more accurately the Allies did. We probably should have told the Soviets to pound sand.

[jimnyc]

He wants trump to win because trump has suggested removing US troops from South Korea if they don't increase defense spending. Should we remove US troops if SK doesn't increase defense spending?

In theory, I agree with him. But I think the final answer depends on what the generals on the ground think. Personally, I don't think it sounds like a good idea... but I also don't think spending forever over there is an answer either. If they are benefiting from us being there, then I feel they should contribute more. We can't just stay forever if they refuse to contribute more. If they should contribute more, then negotiate with them.

[Black Diamond]

I think more accurately the Allies did. We probably should have told the Soviets to pound sand.

Yeah but wasn't it the UN who created the nations North Korea , South Korea, North Vietnam, South Vietnam

[Black Diamond]

It would explain why those asswipes called the Korean War a UN police action.

[fj1200]

Yeah but wasn't it the UN who created the nations North Korea , South Korea, North Vietnam, South Vietnam

It doesn't sound like the UN had much involvement in either of those.


It would explain why those asswipes called the Korean War a UN police action.

That was after they had already been divided it would seem.

[Black Diamond]

It doesn't sound like the UN had much involvement in either of those.



That was after they had already been divided it would seem.
Yes it was after. Their division was being challenged.

[fj1200]

In theory, I agree with him. But I think the final answer depends on what the generals on the ground think. Personally, I don't think it sounds like a good idea... but I also don't think spending forever over there is an answer either. If they are benefiting from us being there, then I feel they should contribute more. We can't just stay forever if they refuse to contribute more. If they should contribute more, then negotiate with them.

Why would it matter what they think? They already have higher than average defense spending and contribute close to $1BB to cover our costs. By that reasoning though we should be prepared to pull back from most parts of the world.

[Black Diamond]

It doesn't sound like the UN had much involvement in either of those.



That was after they had already been divided it would seem.

Wiki blames the UN. :Cool:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea

[fj1200]

Yes it was after. Their division was being challenged.

Right, after the war started not when it was divided.

[Black Diamond]

Right, after the war started not when it was divided.

Division happened in 1948. North Korea challenged division two years later.

[fj1200]

Division happened in 1948. North Korea challenged division two years later.

Another early example of the UN mucking things up. But I think the UN was just the vehicle behind the US and Soviets.

[jimnyc]

Why would it matter what they think? They already have higher than average defense spending and contribute close to $1BB to cover our costs. By that reasoning though we should be prepared to pull back from most parts of the world.

Fine, if they spend and can afford things themselves, then we should pull back. If they can afford things themselves, and can defend themselves, then why be there wasting our money?

[Gunny]

Since you brought it up I'm talking about avoiding an isolationist mindset. And I wasn't sure which "they" you were referring to but as you point out "we" carved them up and have been there ever since so what makes us think our continued presence makes things better? If Korea can sink or swim then the ME can sink or swim. With the understanding of course that we'll act in our defense.

I think we are perfectly able to trade with varying regions of the world without bases in every part of the world.

I've already stated I'm not an isolationist. I AM however for not being dependent on others. Try thinking tactically. Why would I want to give questionable people leverage over me if I don't actually have to?

This why our continued presence is necessary, yet pointless currently: WE made the damned mess. We need to clean it up. We wouldn't be there at all if up to me, but that's not an option in the here and now. We knew back in 91 that taking Saddam out was going to the problem that taking him out has caused. A power vacuum in Iraq between the Sunni and Shia. Yes, he was POS despot, but he was an equal opportunity secular one. Now we've got terrorists all over the ME and Europe, and Obam's going to let them in here.

Their goal is to win by any means necessary. Convert or die. An enemy that isn't afraid to die to take you with him is the most dangerous of enemies. We've been beating these goofballs back since the 7th century and they just won't quit. THEY are a menace to Western society.

North Korea on the other hand is contained. What are they going to do? Declare war on Russia or China? And I personally could care less what happens to S Korea. We get nothing of any substance I know of out of them. They cost us. In THAT regard, I agreed with Trump before Trump agreed with Trump. Pony up. When we went into Kuwait we were paid in gold and some cozy oil deals to do it. South Korea has been hiding behind our skirt since 52.

[Gunny]

Yeah but wasn't it the UN who created the nations North Korea , South Korea, North Vietnam, South Vietnam

Quite correct. We were in Vietnam as a UN force. We relieved the French after the asswhipping they took at Dien Bin Phu. The incompetence there was as bad as Custer's. Facing a numerically superior enemy who had artillery and bunch your troops in a valley. Fish in a barrel.

It was actually not "our" war until Johnson put boots on the ground in 65. Rumor has it Kennedy was ready to pull out when he went and got himself killed. And it was Eisenhower that got us involved, not JFK or LBJ. We were there as a UN peacekeeping force. And apparently, only military people learned a damned lesson from that.

How did we win the Cold War? Money, not bullets. We bankrupted the Soviet Union and they fell apart. They couldn't afford their satellite countries anymore.

[Gunny]

It doesn't sound like the UN had much involvement in either of those.



That was after they had already been divided it would seem.

Incorrect. We just took up the majority of the burden; which, is the underlying point of this thread. Why are we paying for everything and providing most of the manpower?

We were part of SEATO during Vietnam. There were Aussie units, New Zealand units, and we flew out of Thailand. I don't know right off the bat all the countries involved in SEATO. Believe it or not, when I was in grade school they taught us all this junk as it was a current event.

[Gunny]

Why would it matter what they think? They already have higher than average defense spending and contribute close to $1BB to cover our costs. By that reasoning though we should be prepared to pull back from most parts of the world.

By that reasoning, we need to completely rethink everywhere we are. Our lines are STILL Cold War lines. Our alliances are STILL Cold War alliances. That isn't being isolationist. It's called updating an antique. Why are we even in Europe at all? We're fighting a two-front war in the Middle East, not Europe.

It's all about the Benjamin's.

[Gunny]

Fine, if they spend and can afford things themselves, then we should pull back. If they can afford things themselves, and can defend themselves, then why be there wasting our money?

If you ever ran into a ROK Marine you'd wonder just who is protecting who. Those are some badA$$ MF-ers. And trust me when I say they ain't like us. "Mercy" is NOT in their vocabulary.

[fj1200]

Fine, if they spend and can afford things themselves, then we should pull back. If they can afford things themselves, and can defend themselves, then why be there wasting our money?

Either we have interests or we don't. I just disagree that our national interests are dependent on how much another country may contribute.


I've already stated I'm not an isolationist. I AM however for not being dependent on others. Try thinking tactically. Why would I want to give questionable people leverage over me if I don't actually have to?

This why our continued presence is necessary, yet pointless currently: WE made the damned mess. We need to clean it up. We wouldn't be there at all if up to me, but that's not an option in the here and now. We knew back in 91 that taking Saddam out was going to the problem that taking him out has caused. A power vacuum in Iraq between the Sunni and Shia. Yes, he was POS despot, but he was an equal opportunity secular one. Now we've got terrorists all over the ME and Europe, and Obam's going to let them in here.

Their goal is to win by any means necessary. Convert or die. An enemy that isn't afraid to die to take you with him is the most dangerous of enemies. We've been beating these goofballs back since the 7th century and they just won't quit. THEY are a menace to Western society.

North Korea on the other hand is contained. What are they going to do? Declare war on Russia or China? And I personally could care less what happens to S Korea. We get nothing of any substance I know of out of them. They cost us. In THAT regard, I agreed with Trump before Trump agreed with Trump. Pony up. When we went into Kuwait we were paid in gold and some cozy oil deals to do it. South Korea has been hiding behind our skirt since 52.

It seems our continued presence in the ME isn't really cleaning anything up. And I disagree on SK, they are funding their national defense far higher than your average NATO country.

[fj1200]

Incorrect. We just took up the majority of the burden; which, is the underlying point of this thread. Why are we paying for everything and providing most of the manpower?

We were part of SEATO during Vietnam. There were Aussie units, New Zealand units, and we flew out of Thailand. I don't know right off the bat all the countries involved in SEATO. Believe it or not, when I was in grade school they taught us all this junk as it was a current event.

Granted re: the UN cover. Do you think the UN was anything more than the US back then trying to negotiate with the Soviets?

[fj1200]

By that reasoning, we need to completely rethink everywhere we are. Our lines are STILL Cold War lines. Our alliances are STILL Cold War alliances. That isn't being isolationist. It's called updating an antique. Why are we even in Europe at all? We're fighting a two-front war in the Middle East, not Europe.

It's all about the Benjamin's.

You could almost be making a Libertarian argument there.

[Elessar]

T But you can't tell that to Big Oil. .

Big Oil is a MYTH, created and perpetuated by Liberals: "No Blood for Oil".
The USA did not get one dime for restoring that industry. The most of it went to Europe.

[Gunny]

Granted re: the UN cover. Do you think the UN was anything more than the US back then trying to negotiate with the Soviets?

Nope. Started as the League of Nations under Wilson.

I'm here to tell you now I would have refused to serve on a UN force. Nothing in the Oath of Enlistment says you can farm me out. And I damned sure any wearing no baby blue ass helmet. I swore to "defend and protect the Constitution of the United States." Not someone's civil war. I agree with going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. I never have agreed with the decision to go into Iraq and I would have refused to go to Bosnia. Just what I need. A French commander. When was the last time the French won anything?

[Black Diamond]

Nope. Started as the League of Nations under Wilson.

I'm here to tell you now I would have refused to serve on a UN force. Nothing in the Oath of Enlistment says you can farm me out. And I damned sure any wearing no baby blue ass helmet. I swore to "defend and protect the Constitution of the United States." Not someone's civil war. I agree with going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. I never have agreed with the decision to go into Iraq and I would have refused to go to Bosnia. Just what I need. A French commander. When was the last time the French won anything?

Napoleon.

[fj1200]

Nope. Started as the League of Nations under Wilson.

That doesn't dispute my contention.


1919The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." The International Labour Organization (http://www.ilo.org/) was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War.