The US and Korea

[RomaVicta 29,793]

8 hours ago, Caracara said:

Trump has cleared a path for him to be, to his people, everything he's been built up to be, the savior who gets them off the pigeon and grass diet, and gets them cell phones. Maybe dotard convinced Kim the old deals are done and the old bullies are out.  But he no longer has coup-protection, and the back-channels to resources are cut.

I appreciate that you write about Trump in a speculative tone because all any of can do is begin with "maybe" when seriously considering Trump's actions. Is this policy or is this a happy result of bungling? One's opinion of Trump's other actions and statements dictate which answer one has for that question. 

I agree about our terrible record of supporting or installing autocrats in other countries because we can't stand the uncertainty of actual self-determination which often is not good for American Big Business Interests in those countries. This record is a bi-partisan blemish that eclipses much of our happy talk about advancing truth, justice and the American Way. The best things we do for other countries are often non-governmental. Foreign aid has largely been military aid which funnels money back to US defense contractors.

Characterizing every war we start as a repeat of our part in deposing Hitler is becoming a pretty tired charade to get the electorate excited for the big game. We entered that war because Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us. The worst of Hitler's evils were unknown to Americans until the end of the war. 

Every conflict isn't against Hitler. That's why citizens of the countries we invade rarely shower our soldiers with flowers and sweets. And we're always surprised. Military force is not the tool for every job. And it costs big even if we don't fight.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

8 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

I think our military bases serve as a small deterrent from hopefully anything escalating to a full out multi-country war. 

This.

 The United States is an Empire of sorts, we currently have troops in over 100 countries and we have twice as many troops in Japan than South Korea.

Our adversaries hate this and would love nothing more for the United States to turn inward on itself and retreat from the global theatre. 

I personally wish we would slowly move to replacing the troops with diplomats/statesmen because those are the people that prevent the use of troops.  Diplomats are also better at projecting influence than troops.

But military industrial complex gonna military industrial complex.

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

19 hours ago, GhostRider said:

If we were to pull out of S Korea, I believe the Norks would invade the very next day.

No they wouldn't. The North would lose to the South in a conventional war.  SK has a much more modern fighting force. We actually don't even have all that much manpower in Korea now. The war will never happen because Seoul is guaranteed to be destroyed and the North is guaranteed to lose.  KJU wants to legitimize his regime and that is what he is doing. Nuke MAD is looking more stable than the prior conventional MAD.  We don't really need to be on the peninsula.  We can reengage from Japan if China ever does something. NK will never start anything.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

There are South China Sea land disputes brewing where it is a deterrent to have a large military force in the area that can be moved around quickly.  Not because we will actually use them, but because another country like China won't attack us.   The era of military land grabs isn't over.  Putin proved that with Crimea.  If no major power is there, you can take shit and nobody can do anything about it.

My biggest concern with all of this is losing SK as a Westernized democracy and ally.   That's what I see brewing here.  China gaining more influence over SK through this peace, and eventually controlling SK, while we lose all direct influence. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[77horn 216]

Won't know for a long time whether Trump's antics helped or hurt here, but SK allowing NK to compete at the Olympics with them was a brilliant move.  I thought at the time that if you get a few Norks who had never been out of NK in their lives (like Kim's sister), they would have a Yeltsin in the Clear Lake Grocery Store Moment.  

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by 77horn

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

When was the last time China attacked anybody? I know the recent past doesn't necessarily predict the future, but they've been content to throw their weight around by diplomatic and economic means for a long-ass time. Like going back to some Dynasty we can't even name now. And that will happen whether we like it or not. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

They aren't attacking anyone, but they are physically taking more and more of the Spratly islands by the day, which Rex Tillerson said "is akin to Russia's taking of Crimea":

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/915272/china-news-south-china-sea-island-fortresses-military-waterway-asia-philippines-trump

Edited April 28, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Dolemite 143]

Found this and thought it was interesting.

 

[David Dennison 18,659]

3 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Found this and thought it was interesting.

 

Seems legit.

[RomaVicta 29,793]

2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

They aren't attacking anyone, but they are physically taking more and more of the Spratly islands by the day, which Rex Tillerson said "is akin to Russia's taking of Crimea":

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/915272/china-news-south-china-sea-island-fortresses-military-waterway-asia-philippines-trump

Doesn't that indicate that our military presence in S. Korea isn't a deterrent at all? Does anybody think the United States should or would enter a shooting war with a great power over the Spratly Islands? Should we do the same for S. Korea?

Shouldn't cost weigh into whether our actual deterrent effect should be maintained? Ideally, I would love to deter all aggression everywhere with the presence of a benevolent American military force.

The cause is just, but is the cost justifiable?

[RomaVicta 29,793]

3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

When was the last time China attacked anybody? I know the recent past doesn't necessarily predict the future, but they've been content to throw their weight around by diplomatic and economic means for a long-ass time. Like going back to some Dynasty we can't even name now. And that will happen whether we like it or not. 

I agree. They are very patient about incrementally pushing at the boundaries of tolerance. If someone pokes you at work every few months, and your response is limited to shooting them in the chest, what do you do?  You both know that you won't pull out a gun and kill someone for irritating you. You need a subtler response. An equal response.

China is too smart to think rolling the tanks or using their navy are moves that often serve their long term interests. I wish we were so smart.

By the way, thanks to all for keeping this such a measured discussion.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

When was the last time China attacked anybody? I know the recent past doesn't necessarily predict the future, but they've been content to throw their weight around by diplomatic and economic means for a long-ass time. Like going back to some Dynasty we can't even name now. And that will happen whether we like it or not. 

China is currently doing what we should be doing. They are tripling down on diplomats all over the world and building shit while we are killing our State Dept.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

Doesn't that indicate that our military presence in S. Korea isn't a deterrent at all? Does anybody think the United States should or would enter a shooting war with a great power over the Spratly Islands? Should we do the same for S. Korea?

Shouldn't cost weigh into whether our actual deterrent effect should be maintained? Ideally, I would love to deter all aggression everywhere with the presence of a benevolent American military force.

The cause is just, but is the cost justifiable?

I think our regional presence has slowed China down and stopped them from just taking the region in one fell swoop.  But now they're seeing what they can get away with, and the Trump administration is basically responding with the policy you are advocating — de facto ceding them the region.  We could do more with our presence if Trump gave a shit.  Not start a war, but put ourselves in places where China then can't go without starting a war themselves.   

I agree that our military being there is pointless if that's our choice, but that's begging the question, because we're making the choice not to use them in the way that would justify their presence. 

[RomaVicta 29,793]

20 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

now they're seeing what they can get away with, and the Trump administration is basically responding with the policy you are advocating — de facto ceding them the region. 

I'm advocating that the current strategy and justification for an army in S. Korea is not effective and certainly not cost effective. If that's the only way we have of limiting Chinese expansion (if that's our goal), it' not doing the job and costs a lot of money.

My metaphor above about finding subtler ways to deal with China or anyone allows for strategies that do not cede the region. Reality may cede the region for us if we run out of money (even worse than the way we already have) or China deftly moves around our deterrent. Hugo's post about this topic in on point.

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

China is currently doing what we should be doing. They are tripling down on diplomats all over the world and building shit while we are killing our State Dept.

Mojo, here's a key point to your post above:

Quote

We could do more with our presence if Trump gave a shit.  Not start a war, but put ourselves in places where China then can't go without starting a war themselves.   

I agree that our military being there is pointless if that's our choice, but that's begging the question, because we're making the choice not to use them in the way that would justify their presence. 

I don't see exactly how we can put ourselves in places ahead of China as you describe without violating the sovereignty of the nations in question. It's also unclear to me the choices available that you allude to. Can you give me an example or a hypothetical? How would it play out in your vision of this?

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

The military strategy would be to move US forces into spots in the SCS controlled by our allies, increase flying routes in the area, and/or move military vessels through the islands.   That is, project our physical presence so that China can't expand where we are.  Of course, the longer we ignore the issue, the more difficult that becomes. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

When was the last time China attacked anybody? I know the recent past doesn't necessarily predict the future, but they've been content to throw their weight around by diplomatic and economic means for a long-ass time. Like going back to some Dynasty we can't even name now. And that will happen whether we like it or not. 

Tibet, Korea ??

[XYZ 2,154]

Won’t anybody think of the military-industrial complex, and all the wealth that perpetual war generates for them and their friends?

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

Perpetual war? Is that what we've been invloved with in Korea? What was the casualty count last year?

[David Dennison 18,659]

11 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Won’t anybody think of the military-industrial complex, and all the wealth that perpetual war generates for them and their friends?

The worst kept secret in Washington is that the defense budget is the nation's largest jobs program.

[David Dennison 18,659]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Perpetual war? Is that what we've been invloved with in Korea? What was the casualty count last year?

Ask Otto Warmbier's parents.

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Ask Otto Warmbier's parents.

The military industrial complex is real but it doesn't explain Korea at all. Especially not Otto Warmbier who was a student on a visit. 

[berlinerbaer 670]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Tibet, Korea ??

Vietnam, in 1979

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

27 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Vietnam, in 1979

Really ??  didn't know that.

[atomheartbevo 89,448]

22 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Really ??  didn't know that.

Border clashes continued up through I think the 90s.  China did not like poking the hornet's nest.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

12 hours ago, Dolemite said:

Found this and thought it was interesting.

 

Yeah, like I said, my Korean-American buddy told me there were people like this there, but they were the minority and regarded as lightly treasonous by the majority of South Koreans. 

Dolemite, I know you are from Bama. And I admire your trolling skills. But imagine if we were occupied by some other country, or if Bama were occupied by Georgia, Tennessee or (gasp) Miss'ippi. Would you be "so much grateful" for the actions they made? Only if you were a tool. 

[Dolemite 143]

Notice how that guy says he is native Korean and has been living in the southern part,  South Korea. They apparently don't see themselves as separate countries. I think that bodes well for the prospects of peace and reunification.

[David Dennison 18,659]

Well, it didn't take long for Kim to throw down the poison pill.

Promises, promises.

Edited April 29, 2018 by David Dennison

[Caracara 41]

No invasion. Just friendly access above and below ground. Maybe host an American military base which is the custom among our allies.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

What is with all this talk about details?  The war is over!  Time to celebrate! 

[Caracara 41]

Big macs, coca cola and fidget spinners for all

[Sawbonz 27,436]

Is this real life

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/30/607008627/trump-should-win-the-nobel-peace-prize-south-korea-s-moon-says

[WhatTheBuck 28,713]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. 

[PittsburghTiger 6,137]

North Korea has freed three U.S. citizens detained for years in the communist country, bowing to another demand of President Trump ahead of his planned meeting with Kim Jong-un.

The three Americans — Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak-song and Kim Sang Duk, also known as Tony Kim — were released from a North Korean labor camp and sent to Pyongyang for medical treatment, the Financial Times reported.

Though out of the brutal labor camp, the men remain in the grasp of Mr. Kim’s regime.
They currently are believed to be convalescing in a hotel outside Pyongyang.

“We believe that Mr. Trump can take them back on the day of the U.S.-North Korea summit, or he can send an envoy to take them back to the U.S. before the summit,” said Choi Sung-ryong, an activist pursuing release of North Korea’s political prisoners.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/2/north-korea-releases-us-detainees-bows-another-tru/

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

It’s remarkable how much North Korea and China are working to make Trump look good.

Why would they do that?

/rhetorical question 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,810]

Republican house just nominated him for a Nobel Prize.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Good news for America. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Can we please wait until the hostages are home healthy and safe before we start dishing out credit?!?

Seriously, these fuckers are not to be trusted.

[David Dennison 18,659]

33 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Republican house just nominated him for a Nobel Prize.

Talk about an empty gesture.

[David Dennison 18,659]

47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s remarkable how much North Korea and China are working to make Trump look good.

Why would they do that?

/rhetorical question 

Because they've read Art of the Deal and know what kind of a negotiator he is.

[Amobie 58]

It's amazing how the rhetoric has gone from nuclear war to reunification over the past 6 months.  Both the North and South Koreans are winning big here.  Kim will be making an official trip to the USA inside of 2 years.  Book it. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

20 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Good news for America. 

What did we trade for it? 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

34 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What did we trade for it? 

$50 Schrute bucks and Barack’s Nobel Peace Prize

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

$50 Schrute bucks and Barack’s Nobel Peace Prize

Worth it then.  Trump's a regular Dennis Rodman.   If it's part of an unfolding deal to normalize their nukes, it's not a good development. 

[Caracara 41]

don't we spend ten times more on our military than the next several countries combined?  don't we have an obscene number of military bases all over the world?  don't we control the petrol-dollar and have cyber capabilities and secret tech beyond everyone else in the world?  wasn't NK maintained  as a boogieman so we'd have a legit presence in asia?   Luckily SK doesn't want us to leave. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-southkorea-northkorea/south-korea-says-it-wants-us-troops-to-stay-regardless-of-any-treaty-with-north-korea-idUSKBN1I305J

 

 

[Anastasis 23,394]

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Worth it then.  Trump's a regular Dennis Rodman.   If it's part of an unfolding deal to normalize their nukes, it's not a good development. 

Trump should bring rodman to teh peace house for the negotiations.  would be perfect. 

[Caracara 41]

15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Worth it then.  Trump's a regular Dennis Rodman.   If it's part of an unfolding deal to normalize their nukes, it's not a good development. 

It's a pretty good development for those American captives.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Good point.  We should probably just give NK whatever they want. 

[Caracara 41]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Good point.  We should probably just give NK whatever they want. 

What does your denuclearization of the korean peninsula  look like?   

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

They'd have to give up everything with rigorous IAEA verification on the ground.   Planned reductions over a period of time are fine as long as there are firm stages.  I'd accept withdrawal of ours from the physical peninisula, but not Japan.   Maybe allow them a peaceful nuclear power program if the terms are right to ensure no weapons capabilities. 

[Amobie 58]

1 hour ago, Caracara said:

What does your denuclearization of the korean peninsula  look like?   

They are already past the sale on denuclearization.  They are talking reunification.  That's a big fucking deal.  NK just released US prisoners ahead of the summit. 

https://www.ft.com/content/871bce30-4dd6-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493