U.S. soldiers in S Korea

[Richard-H]

You know I think I have heard that word before, and it's entirely possible the north is negotiating in bad faith. It wouldn't be the first time. Regardless, history shows us they're not suicidal, and any missile strike would lead to their destruction. And an invasion would be solidly repelled by the south alone, and there's no question that American troops would be back on the peninsula in short order were an invasion attempted. There's no downside to giving peace a chance here.

So you believe that if NoKo were to launch a single nuke against SoKo or Japan, the U.S. would retaliate with a full blown nuke strike against NoKo knowing that NoKo would do the same against us? I don't think so.

Having a nuke strike against NoKo as the only option doesn't work.

You think the NKs can even attempt to hit the US with a nuke? Your name is gullible with a capital "G".

More than half the time their missiles don't even launch.

Half their missiles would cause absolute devastation.

Which they have no incentive to use, and we have the ability to shoot out of the sky. Apologies if I'm not willing to preclude the possibility of peace because of your circular arguing.

You seem to be awfully mixed up. The fact that we've been in a stalemate in Korea for the past 50 years and that any reduction in our capabilities means an advantage to NoKo is beyond you.

You've proposed the removal of U.S. forces from Korea, leaving the only option for the U.S. participation in defending SoKo to be using nukes.

Pretty much any scenario that includes us using nukes would produce extremely unacceptable results.

Basically, if we remove our troops, we've abondoned SoKo.

 

[Richard-H]

The point is:

Peace in Korea is possible, but it can only come as a result of a very careful step by step process. A process where each side takes a step and each step in verified.

Trump just gave away the farm with no definitive requirements that NoKo take equivalent steps. There was no quid pro quo. At least nothing definitive and nothing verifiable.

Hell Trump can't even make a solid deal with a porn star. Kim Jong Un is eating him alive.

Lying about the agreement will only make you look like an asshole, bud.

You should take those words to heart.

 

[Richard-H]

Our amazing Pres. Trump is the best president that America has had in decades. ....

He is a great leader and knows what is best for the country.

We are truly a blessed nation to have him in the White House. ....

You would have really loved Stalin!

So would you.

Spoken like a true 5 year old.

 

[Richard-H]

And to think these people actually had the gaul to critisize the Iran nuke deal!

What a laugh!

 

[Richard-H]

You know I think I have heard that word before, and it's entirely possible the north is negotiating in bad faith. It wouldn't be the first time. Regardless, history shows us they're not suicidal, and any missile strike would lead to their destruction. And an invasion would be solidly repelled by the south alone, and there's no question that American troops would be back on the peninsula in short order were an invasion attempted. There's no downside to giving peace a chance here.

So you believe that if NoKo were to launch a single nuke against SoKo or Japan, the U.S. would retaliate with a full blown nuke strike against NoKo knowing that NoKo would do the same against us? I don't think so.

Having a nuke strike against NoKo as the only option doesn't work.

Why is that the only option? I said in the post you quoted, "and there's no question that American troops would be back on the peninsula in short order were an invasion attempted." Furthermore, the idea that North Korea could hit the U.S. with a nuke is unrealistic. Seoul? Probably. Japan? Probably not, but maybe. The U.S.? Very unlikely. And yes, I believe that the U.S. would hit them with a nuclear strike that would take out their power structures in very short order wherein no retaliatory strike could even be attempted.

First, a U.S. force returning to Korea would take an awful lot of time.

Second, if we did hit them with nukes, they'd level Seoul in minutes.

Third, if we hit them with nukes, the fallout would blow over SoKo & China causing massive casualties in both countries and possible provoking a war with China.

So we went from a hypothetical U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike against North Korea for them insanely striking South Korea first, to us nuking them for no reason and then them nuking Seoul in retaliation. As neither of these hypothetical scenarios are remotely likely I don't see the use in continuing to debate them as you change the terms to continue to argue.

Where the hell did you get the idea that we were going to nuke them for no reason? That is bull fucking shit.

No, if you could read you know that I said: "if NoKo were to launch a single nuke against SoKo or Japan".

Your replying with out bothering to read whats been posted is bull fucking shit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The point is:

Peace in Korea is possible, but it can only come as a result of a very careful step by step process. A process where each side takes a step and each step in verified.

Trump just gave away the farm with no definitive requirements that NoKo take equivalent steps. There was no quid pro quo. At least nothing definitive and nothing verifiable.

Hell Trump can't even make a solid deal with a porn star. Kim Jong Un is eating him alive.

What did he give away? Nothing. War games canceled? They serve no real purpose other than making North Korea mad and can be rescheduled immediately, and pulling troops out of South Korea which he hasn't even actually said he'll do. They can be put back very quickly if they are removed. He's literally given away nothing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You know I think I have heard that word before, and it's entirely possible the north is negotiating in bad faith. It wouldn't be the first time. Regardless, history shows us they're not suicidal, and any missile strike would lead to their destruction. And an invasion would be solidly repelled by the south alone, and there's no question that American troops would be back on the peninsula in short order were an invasion attempted. There's no downside to giving peace a chance here.

So you believe that if NoKo were to launch a single nuke against SoKo or Japan, the U.S. would retaliate with a full blown nuke strike against NoKo knowing that NoKo would do the same against us? I don't think so.

Having a nuke strike against NoKo as the only option doesn't work.

Why is that the only option? I said in the post you quoted, "and there's no question that American troops would be back on the peninsula in short order were an invasion attempted." Furthermore, the idea that North Korea could hit the U.S. with a nuke is unrealistic. Seoul? Probably. Japan? Probably not, but maybe. The U.S.? Very unlikely. And yes, I believe that the U.S. would hit them with a nuclear strike that would take out their power structures in very short order wherein no retaliatory strike could even be attempted.

First, a U.S. force returning to Korea would take an awful lot of time.

Second, if we did hit them with nukes, they'd level Seoul in minutes.

Third, if we hit them with nukes, the fallout would blow over SoKo & China causing massive casualties in both countries and possible provoking a war with China.

So we went from a hypothetical U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike against North Korea for them insanely striking South Korea first, to us nuking them for no reason and then them nuking Seoul in retaliation. As neither of these hypothetical scenarios are remotely likely I don't see the use in continuing to debate them as you change the terms to continue to argue.

Where the hell did you get the idea that we were going to nuke them for no reason? That is bull fucking shit.

In the hypothetical scenario Richard lays out in the post I quoted he mentions that they'd level Seoul in minutes if we nuked them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you believe that if NoKo were to launch a single nuke against SoKo or Japan, the U.S. would retaliate with a full blown nuke strike against NoKo knowing that NoKo would do the same against us? I don't think so.

Having a nuke strike against NoKo as the only option doesn't work.

You think the NKs can even attempt to hit the US with a nuke? Your name is gullible with a capital "G".

More than half the time their missiles don't even launch.

Half their missiles would cause absolute devastation.

Which they have no incentive to use, and we have the ability to shoot out of the sky. Apologies if I'm not willing to preclude the possibility of peace because of your circular arguing.

You seem to be awfully mixed up. The fact that we've been in a stalemate in Korea for the past 50 years and that any reduction in our capabilities means an advantage to NoKo is beyond you.

You've proposed the removal of U.S. forces from Korea, leaving the only option for the U.S. participation in defending SoKo to be using nukes.

Pretty much any scenario that includes us using nukes would produce extremely unacceptable results.

Basically, if we remove our troops, we've abondoned SoKo.

"SoKo" doesn't need our troops, and our troops can be put back in no time at all. The risk to doing this is non-existent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And to think these people actually had the gaul to critisize the Iran nuke deal!

What a laugh!

I hope you're not lumping us all in as one contiguous blob of "people," because I view the Iran deal as the best thing an American president has done in my lifetime to this point. Trump pulling the U.S. out of it is terrible.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Our amazing Pres. Trump is already talking about reducing the size of the U.S. military presence in South Korea, which is currently around 30,000 soldiers.

This will save the American taxpayer a boatload of money. ....

The problem is, the North Koreans will undoubtedly renig on any agreement. Trump should have learned this from the previous Kim family leaders. If Trump actually goes through with this, he should make a deal with Japan to allow those troops leaving South Korea, to be stationed at a US base in Japan, thus they can be a rapid deployment force, if needed, which they probably will be in the future.

 

[Taz]

I hope our wonderful Pres. Trump also draws down the number of U.S. soldiers stationed around the numerous military bases in Germany and Japan, which currently is around 40,000 troops in each country.

WWll has been over for 70+ years.

Time to fold the tent and return home. ....

Have to help protect against the invading Muslim hoards.

 

[Flash]

Trump is doing the right thing.

We need those American soldiers guarding our southern border from illegals flooding across rather than guarding the Korean border.

Why don't you build a wall across the Canadian border while your at it!

Stalin would be so proud of you trumpbots!

Because Canada doesn't export its poverty to the US.

Any more silly questions?

 

[Flash]

Trump is doing the right thing.

We need those American soldiers guarding our southern border from illegals flooding across rather than guarding the Korean border.

Yeah! Just gun those immigrants down with heavy caliber machine guns....blow 'em up with incindiary explosives!

Just a freakin' wonderful idea!

You would only have to shoot a few of the bastards before the others figured out that it would be too dangerous to be an illegal.

Probably less deaths with that policy than with a stupid Obama type policy allowing the assholes to flood in with their crime and murders.

 

[Richard-H]

The point is:

Peace in Korea is possible, but it can only come as a result of a very careful step by step process. A process where each side takes a step and each step in verified.

Trump just gave away the farm with no definitive requirements that NoKo take equivalent steps. There was no quid pro quo. At least nothing definitive and nothing verifiable.

Hell Trump can't even make a solid deal with a porn star. Kim Jong Un is eating him alive.

What did he give away? Nothing. War games canceled? They serve no real purpose other than making North Korea mad and can be rescheduled immediately, and pulling troops out of South Korea which he hasn't even actually said he'll do. They can be put back very quickly if they are removed. He's literally given away nothing.

We don't do the 'War Games' just for laugh and giggles. We do them to maintain combat readiness. This is especially important since we need to coordinate 2 separate armies.

Soldiers change their positions allthe time. They advance in rank, they rotate. If a war did break out we don't wnat a bunch of people asking 'What am I supposed to do?".

Sure, thes "War Games" scare the NoKos. That's why it's been a major demand by the NoKos for us to end them.

That may be a reasonable risk, but we should have gotten something substantial in return. We got nothing.

With people like Kim Jong Un, if you give him an inch he will take a mile. We've given that inch...what's next? Giving him another inch without anything in return?

 

[task0778]

So you believe that if NoKo were to launch a single nuke against SoKo or Japan, the U.S. would retaliate with a full blown nuke strike against NoKo knowing that NoKo would do the same against us? I don't think so.

Having a nuke strike against NoKo as the only option doesn't work.

Why is that the only option? I said in the post you quoted, "and there's no question that American troops would be back on the peninsula in short order were an invasion attempted." Furthermore, the idea that North Korea could hit the U.S. with a nuke is unrealistic. Seoul? Probably. Japan? Probably not, but maybe. The U.S.? Very unlikely. And yes, I believe that the U.S. would hit them with a nuclear strike that would take out their power structures in very short order wherein no retaliatory strike could even be attempted.

First, a U.S. force returning to Korea would take an awful lot of time.

Second, if we did hit them with nukes, they'd level Seoul in minutes.

Third, if we hit them with nukes, the fallout would blow over SoKo & China causing massive casualties in both countries and possible provoking a war with China.

So we went from a hypothetical U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike against North Korea for them insanely striking South Korea first, to us nuking them for no reason and then them nuking Seoul in retaliation. As neither of these hypothetical scenarios are remotely likely I don't see the use in continuing to debate them as you change the terms to continue to argue.

Where the hell did you get the idea that we were going to nuke them for no reason? That is bull fucking shit.

In the hypothetical scenario Richard lays out in the post I quoted he mentions that they'd level Seoul in minutes if we nuked them.

I got a problem with this "us nuking them for no reason". Richard didn't say that, you did. And it's a load of crap, we are not going to nuke NoKo or anyone else for no reason.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The point is:

Peace in Korea is possible, but it can only come as a result of a very careful step by step process. A process where each side takes a step and each step in verified.

Trump just gave away the farm with no definitive requirements that NoKo take equivalent steps. There was no quid pro quo. At least nothing definitive and nothing verifiable.

Hell Trump can't even make a solid deal with a porn star. Kim Jong Un is eating him alive.

What did he give away? Nothing. War games canceled? They serve no real purpose other than making North Korea mad and can be rescheduled immediately, and pulling troops out of South Korea which he hasn't even actually said he'll do. They can be put back very quickly if they are removed. He's literally given away nothing.

We don't do the 'War Games' just for laugh and giggles. We do them to maintain combat readiness. This is especially important since we need to coordinate 2 separate armies.

Soldiers change their positions allthe time. They advance in rank, they rotate. If a war did break out we don't wnat a bunch of people asking 'What am I supposed to do?".

Sure, thes "War Games" scare the NoKos. That's why it's been a major demand by the NoKos for us to end them.

That may be a reasonable risk, but we should have gotten something substantial in return. We got nothing.

With people like Kim Jong Un, if you give him an inch he will take a mile. We've given that inch...what's next? Giving him another inch without anything in return?

So we went from giving the farm away to giving an inch. Bit different. Regardless, U.S. troops are highly trained, and have the most advanced military technology in the world. These war games are nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why is that the only option? I said in the post you quoted, "and there's no question that American troops would be back on the peninsula in short order were an invasion attempted." Furthermore, the idea that North Korea could hit the U.S. with a nuke is unrealistic. Seoul? Probably. Japan? Probably not, but maybe. The U.S.? Very unlikely. And yes, I believe that the U.S. would hit them with a nuclear strike that would take out their power structures in very short order wherein no retaliatory strike could even be attempted.

First, a U.S. force returning to Korea would take an awful lot of time.

Second, if we did hit them with nukes, they'd level Seoul in minutes.

Third, if we hit them with nukes, the fallout would blow over SoKo & China causing massive casualties in both countries and possible provoking a war with China.

So we went from a hypothetical U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike against North Korea for them insanely striking South Korea first, to us nuking them for no reason and then them nuking Seoul in retaliation. As neither of these hypothetical scenarios are remotely likely I don't see the use in continuing to debate them as you change the terms to continue to argue.

Where the hell did you get the idea that we were going to nuke them for no reason? That is bull fucking shit.

In the hypothetical scenario Richard lays out in the post I quoted he mentions that they'd level Seoul in minutes if we nuked them.

I got a problem with this "us nuking them for no reason". Richard didn't say that, you did. And it's a load of crap, we are not going to nuke NoKo or anyone else for no reason.

You're misunderstanding. I'm aware we're not going to nuke North Korea for no reason. Look at what he said in his post, "Second, if we did hit them with nukes, they'd level Seoul in minutes." His implication is that, in his hypothetical scenario, we're going to nuke them first, and they're going to retaliate by striking Seoul. This is different from his original hypothetical scenario where they strike South Korea first and we nuke them in retaliation. I was responding to the fact that he changed the goalposts of his scenario.

 

[task0778]

Our amazing Pres. Trump is already talking about reducing the size of the U.S. military presence in South Korea, which is currently around 30,000 soldiers.

This will save the American taxpayer a boatload of money. ....

The problem is, the North Koreans will undoubtedly renig on any agreement. Trump should have learned this from the previous Kim family leaders. If Trump actually goes through with this, he should make a deal with Japan to allow those troops leaving South Korea, to be stationed at a US base in Japan, thus they can be a rapid deployment force, if needed, which they probably will be in the future.

Trump is not going to pull any US troops out of SoKo until and after NoKo's nukes are gone and a peace treaty is signed that finally ends the Korean war. Nothing wrong with reducing our numbers over there and eventually pulling them all out, but that's mostly up to SoKo. And there's nothing wrong either with putting any joint military exercises on hold as long as NoKo continues their de-nuke program and we verify it.

I'll be honest, I don't trust the bastards one bit cuz they've got a long history of saying one thing and then not following through. Nuh-uh, not this time; 1st you do what you promised to do and THEN we'll lift the sanctions and the other stuff. We won't be withdrawing anybody until the North is de-nuked.

 

[task0778]

First, a U.S. force returning to Korea would take an awful lot of time.

Second, if we did hit them with nukes, they'd level Seoul in minutes.

Third, if we hit them with nukes, the fallout would blow over SoKo & China causing massive casualties in both countries and possible provoking a war with China.

So we went from a hypothetical U.S. retaliatory nuclear strike against North Korea for them insanely striking South Korea first, to us nuking them for no reason and then them nuking Seoul in retaliation. As neither of these hypothetical scenarios are remotely likely I don't see the use in continuing to debate them as you change the terms to continue to argue.

Where the hell did you get the idea that we were going to nuke them for no reason? That is bull fucking shit.

In the hypothetical scenario Richard lays out in the post I quoted he mentions that they'd level Seoul in minutes if we nuked them.

I got a problem with this "us nuking them for no reason". Richard didn't say that, you did. And it's a load of crap, we are not going to nuke NoKo or anyone else for no reason.

You're misunderstanding. I'm aware we're not going to nuke North Korea for no reason. Look at what he said in his post, "Second, if we did hit them with nukes, they'd level Seoul in minutes." His implication is that, in his hypothetical scenario, we're going to nuke them first, and they're going to retaliate by striking Seoul. This is different from his original hypothetical scenario where they strike South Korea first and we nuke them in retaliation. I was responding to the fact that he changed the goalposts of his scenario.

'K, my bad.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Our amazing Pres. Trump is already talking about reducing the size of the U.S. military presence in South Korea, which is currently around 30,000 soldiers.

This will save the American taxpayer a boatload of money. ....

The problem is, the North Koreans will undoubtedly renig on any agreement. Trump should have learned this from the previous Kim family leaders. If Trump actually goes through with this, he should make a deal with Japan to allow those troops leaving South Korea, to be stationed at a US base in Japan, thus they can be a rapid deployment force, if needed, which they probably will be in the future.

Trump is not going to pull any US troops out of SoKo until and after NoKo's nukes are gone and a peace treaty is signed that finally ends the Korean war. Nothing wrong with reducing our numbers over there and eventually pulling them all out, but that's mostly up to SoKo. And there's nothing wrong either with putting any joint military exercises on hold as long as NoKo continues their de-nuke program and we verify it.

I'll be honest, I don't trust the bastards one bit cuz they've got a long history of saying one thing and then not following through. Nuh-uh, not this time; 1st you do what you promised to do and THEN we'll lift the sanctions and the other stuff. We won't be withdrawing anybody until the North is de-nuked.

This is correct. Trump has mused about maybe pulling troops out of South Korea, but he's put forward no concrete plan to do so. He's holding it out as a possibility for future concessions to the north which is a perfectly legitimate diplomatic olive branch. Stopping the pointless war games is just a first non-concession to Kim to show him that Trump is negotiating in good faith. People on this board seem to think that diplomacy goes one way and only Kim needs to make concessions. That's utter nonsense and not how things work in the real world.