JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

Now the Russian Agent in the Oval Office is doing what he can to ruin our alliance with South Korea.


Washington (CNN) — Secretary of Defense Mark Esper landed in South Korea on Thursday to navigate renewed threats from an "enraged" North Korea and newly heightened strain in the alliance with Seoul that congressional aides, lawmakers and Korea experts say has been caused by President Donald Trump.
Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 500% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.

The price hike has frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to military officials and congressional aides. It has angered and unnerved Seoul, where leaders are questioning US commitment to their alliance and wondering whether Trump will pull US forces if they don't pay up.

... North Korea has already launched 24 missiles this year, each a violation of UN resolutions, to match the country's previous annual record for firing off projectiles that threaten South Korea and Japan, according to Bruce Klingner, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Germany, France and the United Kingdom recently condemned Pyongyang for the launches, saying they undermined regional security and stability. Meanwhile, South Korean leaders are acutely aware that Trump has downplayed the launches, saying he is "not at all" troubled by them.

"There are a lot of hard feelings," Klingner said of South Korean views of the US right now, adding that "people are questioning the viability of the US as an ally."


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politi ... cnn.com%2F

It’s going to take years, and perhaps decades to fix the damage done by Trump and his ignorant supporters.

DocBarrister :?
@DocBarrister
njbill
Posts: 7525
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:35 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by njbill »

The author is right about Ukraine having been thrown under the bus, except it was by the guy who Peter Welch says started it all. No quid pro quo convo, no bus in sight.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18896
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:02 am Now the Russian Agent in the Oval Office is doing what he can to ruin our alliance with South Korea.


Washington (CNN) — Secretary of Defense Mark Esper landed in South Korea on Thursday to navigate renewed threats from an "enraged" North Korea and newly heightened strain in the alliance with Seoul that congressional aides, lawmakers and Korea experts say has been caused by President Donald Trump.
Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 500% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.

The price hike has frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to military officials and congressional aides. It has angered and unnerved Seoul, where leaders are questioning US commitment to their alliance and wondering whether Trump will pull US forces if they don't pay up.

... North Korea has already launched 24 missiles this year, each a violation of UN resolutions, to match the country's previous annual record for firing off projectiles that threaten South Korea and Japan, according to Bruce Klingner, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Germany, France and the United Kingdom recently condemned Pyongyang for the launches, saying they undermined regional security and stability. Meanwhile, South Korean leaders are acutely aware that Trump has downplayed the launches, saying he is "not at all" troubled by them.

"There are a lot of hard feelings," Klingner said of South Korean views of the US right now, adding that "people are questioning the viability of the US as an ally."


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politi ... cnn.com%2F

It’s going to take years, and perhaps decades to fix the damage done by Trump and his ignorant supporters.

DocBarrister :?
...or a wealthy S Korea can share more of the cost of US forces dedicated to their protection.
It's a costly evolution rotating an entire US Army division from Ft Lewis, WA through Camp Humphreys in S Korea, every year, not to mention the expense of Air Force & Naval deployments.
njbill
Posts: 7525
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:35 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by njbill »

They could save money by stopping at Prestwick. Not out of the way at all.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:06 am
DocBarrister wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:02 am Now the Russian Agent in the Oval Office is doing what he can to ruin our alliance with South Korea.


Washington (CNN) — Secretary of Defense Mark Esper landed in South Korea on Thursday to navigate renewed threats from an "enraged" North Korea and newly heightened strain in the alliance with Seoul that congressional aides, lawmakers and Korea experts say has been caused by President Donald Trump.
Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 500% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.

The price hike has frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to military officials and congressional aides. It has angered and unnerved Seoul, where leaders are questioning US commitment to their alliance and wondering whether Trump will pull US forces if they don't pay up.

... North Korea has already launched 24 missiles this year, each a violation of UN resolutions, to match the country's previous annual record for firing off projectiles that threaten South Korea and Japan, according to Bruce Klingner, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Germany, France and the United Kingdom recently condemned Pyongyang for the launches, saying they undermined regional security and stability. Meanwhile, South Korean leaders are acutely aware that Trump has downplayed the launches, saying he is "not at all" troubled by them.

"There are a lot of hard feelings," Klingner said of South Korean views of the US right now, adding that "people are questioning the viability of the US as an ally."


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politi ... cnn.com%2F

It’s going to take years, and perhaps decades to fix the damage done by Trump and his ignorant supporters.

DocBarrister :?
...or a wealthy S Korea can share more of the cost of US forces dedicated to their protection.
It's a costly evolution rotating an entire US Army division from Ft Lewis, WA through Camp Humphreys in S Korea, every year, not to mention the expense of Air Force & Naval deployments.
South Korean troops followed the U.S. into Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Only a bunch of lowlife scumbags like Trump would disrespect this ally in such a way.

DocBarrister :roll:
@DocBarrister
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34250
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:53 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 6:08 pm...have you noticed no VDH links in a the past couple of months....at least :?:
Ask & you shall receive. VDH recommends this one :

Will the new & improved Ukraine 4.0 be collateral damage in the (D)'s impeachment frenzy ?
https://thehill.com/opinion/internation ... ays-wanted

Ukraine stood on the brink of success just as impeachment-minded Democrats and anti-Trump media pivoted from Russian collusion to Trump’s purported quid pro quo in a telephone call with Zelensky.... Ukraine’s corruption therefore became overnight Item #1 in U.S. press and social media conversation. Trump supporters now regard Ukraine not as a heroic guardian of freedom but as a den of thieves. Will the U.S. Senate continue its rare bipartisan support for Ukraine, given Ukraine’s new image?

As evidence is collected for a possible Trump impeachment, Ukraine will be presented as a den of corruption led by a young, confused president. If Zelensky claims the Trump call was benign, he will antagonize Democrats. If he asserts the Trump call was a quid pro quo, he’ll alienate Trump, who may serve a second term. Not an enviable position.

In a word, Ukraine has been thrown under the bus by the media and Democrats at the very time when it was poised to truly join the West. Ukraine has a long, bloody, tragic history. Our politicians seem intent on keeping up this record.
Keep ‘em coming!
“I wish you would!”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18896
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

How the Pentagon has learned to manage President Trump -- lengthy but meaty article in today's NYT :
Nearly three years into the Trump presidency, the Pentagon is learning how to manage a capricious president whose orders can whipsaw by the hour. Top Defense Department officials have acquired their education the hard way, through Mr. Trump’s Twitter bullying of Iran and North Korea, letdown of allies in Syria, harsh attacks on the Atlantic alliance and public support for commandos the military has charged with war crimes. Mr. Trump, top Pentagon officials say, is unpredictable, frustrating and overly focused on spectacles like military parades.

But there is much these officials like about the president.
They are happy with the annual budget boost he gave them — to $716 billion this year from $585 billion in 2016 — and are pleased he has done away with what they considered micromanaging by Obama White House officials. Mr. Trump has also given commanders in combat zones a far freer hand to conduct raids. And among a big portion of the rank and file, those service members who mirror Mr. Trump’s conservative base, he remains very popular.
In many ways, the American military remains the part of the government most responsive to the president across a large and fractious administration, because civilian control of the armed forces is embedded in the Constitution and the psyche of every soldier. But for Mr. Trump, the other side of that coin is that the military respects the coequal branches of government, as Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman demonstrated in recent days when, against the wishes of the president, he testified in the House impeachment proceeding.

New Freedom, and New Fallout
Once Mr. Trump took office, he gave the Pentagon and military commanders more running room. He allowed the Pentagon to speed up decision-making so the military could move faster on raids, airstrikes, bombing missions and arming allies in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. The Pentagon, after eight years of chafing at what many generals viewed as the slow decision-making and second-guessing by the Obama White House, at first embraced the new commander in chief.
But with the new freedom came repercussions. Mr. Trump deflected blame onto the Pentagon if things went wrong. After a botched raid in Yemen in January 2017, which led to the death of Chief Petty Officer William Owens, a member of the Navy SEALs known as Ryan, Mr. Trump appeared to blame the military — a stunning departure from previous presidents, who as commanders in chief have traditionally accepted responsibility for military operations that they ordered.
“They explained what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected,” Mr. Trump told Fox News after the raid. “And they lost Ryan.”

On another issue important to the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and the Army secretary, Ryan McCarthy, have reached out quietly to Mr. Trump in recent days to ask that he not interfere in several war crimes cases. Defense Department officials are concerned that presidential pardons could undermine discipline across the ranks. The Army, for instance, is prosecuting a Green Beret, Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, in the killing of a man linked to the Taliban in Afghanistan; Mr. Trump has indicated he may pardon him. “I do have full confidence in the military justice system,” Mr. Esper told reporters.

And in the case of Syria, the Pentagon gave Mr. Trump an unexpected gift in return: the American commando raid that led to the death of the Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which so elated the president that he tweeted the news as soon as American troops were out of harm’s way.
The next day, Mr. Trump triumphantly mentioned General Milley four times during his 48-minute news conference on the raid, calling him “incredible” for his work and thanking him by name before any other senior administration officials.

Commanders have also learned to carefully parse their comments, wary of having their words construed as subtle criticism of the president.
During a news conference, Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the head of the United States Central Command, declined to repeat Mr. Trump’s assertion that the Islamic State leader was “whimpering” before he detonated his suicide vest after American troops raided his compound.
But General McKenzie backed up Mr. Trump’s characterization of Mr. al-Baghdadi as a coward. “He crawled into a hole with two small children, blew himself up,” the general said. “So, you can deduce what kind of person it is based on that activity.”

Defense Department officials also make sure to speak more frequently about how important it is to get North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies in Europe to “pay their fair share,” echoing Mr. Trump’s more transactional view of how that alliance should proceed. By emphasizing payment, rather than simply saying that the Pentagon wants European governments to bolster their own internal military budgets — a more accurate description of NATO policy — American officials couch something they wanted anyway in language that will appeal to the president.

On the Korean Peninsula, the United States and South Korea have continued to conduct joint military exercises despite Mr. Trump’s announcement that such “war games” be suspended pending nuclear negotiations with North Korea. Stopping the exercises completely, Defense Department officials say, would hurt military readiness in the event the United States does end up at war with the North. The military now conducts them at a smaller scale level and no longer makes them public.

In Afghanistan, Gen. Austin S. Miller, the commander of the war effort there, is preparing to shrink the American presence. Mr. Trump has said he wants all the troops withdrawn, but has given no timetable. General Miller now has plans that could reduce the number of American forces in Afghanistan to 8,600 troops, from roughly 12,000 to 13,000 — a move, American officials say, that will allow Mr. Trump to say in his 2020 re-election campaign that he is bringing the troops home. But it will leave what commanders consider an adequate number on the ground.

Clashes Over Syria
The relationship between Mr. Trump and the military has been the most fraught over Syria policy.

The problems began last December, when Mr. Trump first tried to bring what were then 2,000 American troops home from Syria and Jim Mattis, his first defense secretary, resigned in protest. In the storm that followed — Republicans, Democrats and some of Mr. Trump’s own advisers said he was pulling out of the fight before the Islamic State was defeated for good — Mr. Trump backtracked and agreed to leave some 1,000 American forces. But over the past year, Pentagon officials let them operate almost in secret to avoid calling attention to the fact that Defense Department officials had talked the president out of his initial order.

In early October, after a phone call with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Mr. Trump signaled he had had enough, and announced he was pulling out those remaining troops. Once again there was another outcry from Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Trump’s own national security advisers, who said he was paving the way for a Turkish offensive against the United States’ longtime allies, Kurdish fighters, who had carried the brunt of the fight against the Islamic State. In particular, the military did not want to abandon the Kurds.

“The idea of walking away from that sacrifice, that is something that really bothers,” said Representative Mac Thornberry, Republican of Texas and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. “You want to salute and follow the orders of the duly elected political authorities, but you also don’t want to betray the sacrifice of your comrades. That puts the military, at least their hearts, in a tough place.”

General Milley, along with Mr. Esper, looked quickly at how to yet again make the case to Mr. Trump that American forces still had work to do in Syria. The military’s Central Command had drafted two alternate plans.
One proposal would have kept a small force to help control a small swath of the border between Iraq and Syria, about 10 percent of the area. Another option would try to keep control of a larger part of the country — more than half of the area the American and Kurdish fighters currently controlled.

But after Mr. Trump told General Milley he wanted to keep the oil fields, the Pentagon quickly “operationalized” a new plan wrapped around using American forces and their Kurdish allies to protect the oil and to keep it from falling into the hands of the Islamic State, officials said. From Brussels, where he was attending a NATO meeting, Mr. Esper was on the phone with General Milley completing details of the new plan.

General Milley, for his part, has been advised by friends to maintain a low profile, and not to appear to be contradicting Mr. Trump’s decisions or strategy. Known for long monologues, General Milley has also learned to be concise with Mr. Trump, offering clear opinions but allowing the president to dominate the conversation.

By the end of October, Mr. Trump was on board with the Pentagon plan. At Game 5 of the World Series, he was in one of the luxury boxes at Nationals Park surrounded by Republican members of Congress and top aides. The conversation turned to Syria.

Mr. Trump talked about how he was revising his plans for Syria, repeatedly telling lawmakers that American forces would remain there. Why? Because America was “keeping the oil.”

Senior military and Defense Department officials say that in some cases, it is simply a matter of talking in a way that will appeal to Mr. Trump, while prosecuting a similar national security policy as they did under President Barack Obama.

“The Pentagon has figured out that they can couch things to manage Trump’s biases in some ways,” said Derek Chollet, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration. “Don’t make it about saving the Kurds, make it about saving the oil.”

At the moment, the Pentagon is left trying to continue the strategy in a patchwork fashion, with General Milley’s move to keep American troops in Syria helping Kurdish fighters protect oil fields the latest piece.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18896
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:04 am
old salt wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:06 am
DocBarrister wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:02 am Now the Russian Agent in the Oval Office is doing what he can to ruin our alliance with South Korea.


Washington (CNN) — Secretary of Defense Mark Esper landed in South Korea on Thursday to navigate renewed threats from an "enraged" North Korea and newly heightened strain in the alliance with Seoul that congressional aides, lawmakers and Korea experts say has been caused by President Donald Trump.
Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 500% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.

The price hike has frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to military officials and congressional aides. It has angered and unnerved Seoul, where leaders are questioning US commitment to their alliance and wondering whether Trump will pull US forces if they don't pay up.

... North Korea has already launched 24 missiles this year, each a violation of UN resolutions, to match the country's previous annual record for firing off projectiles that threaten South Korea and Japan, according to Bruce Klingner, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Germany, France and the United Kingdom recently condemned Pyongyang for the launches, saying they undermined regional security and stability. Meanwhile, South Korean leaders are acutely aware that Trump has downplayed the launches, saying he is "not at all" troubled by them.

"There are a lot of hard feelings," Klingner said of South Korean views of the US right now, adding that "people are questioning the viability of the US as an ally."


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politi ... cnn.com%2F

It’s going to take years, and perhaps decades to fix the damage done by Trump and his ignorant supporters.

DocBarrister :?
...or a wealthy S Korea can share more of the cost of US forces dedicated to their protection.
It's a costly evolution rotating an entire US Army division from Ft Lewis, WA through Camp Humphreys in S Korea, every year, not to mention the expense of Air Force & Naval deployments.
South Korean troops followed the U.S. into Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Only a bunch of lowlife scumbags like Trump would disrespect this ally in such a way.

DocBarrister :roll:
Doc -- if you're interested in a substantive discussion on this issue, plz put on your green eye shade & consider the cost #'s in this WP piece.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... uth-korea/
Note the marked increase of the cost to the US for maintaining our forces in the ROK, both in total & in relation to the ROK's contribution, which exceeded the US share prior to 2009.

FTR -- I support our presence in S Korea, but IMHO, it needs to be restructured, resized & repurposed.
It's still a Korean War legacy strategy of "ready to fight tonight" based on a large, heavy, conventional US Army presence.
67 years after the end of hostilities, it should not be necessary for the US to augment Infantry & Armor forces, in place, which the ROK should be able to provide themselves. This is prohibitively expensive in terms of "bang for the buck" which could be achieved in comparison to forward deployed Air & Naval assets.

The recently completed Camp Humphreys is a magnificent facility. Rather than hosting rotating 9 mos deployments of US based Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), IMHO -- it would be better used to permanently house a single, non-rotating Armored BCT (to train w/ROK counterparts) & US Army enablers who help the ROK Army defend themselves in case of a conventional attack across the DMZ & to coordinate the flow of US troops flown in to man pre-staged equipment as pre-hostility DEFCON increases.

It's not an insult to ask the ROK to share at least 50% of the cost of maintaining US forces deployed there, as they did a decade ago & to re-examine & update our joint force structure to get the most bang for buck for both nations.
a fan
Posts: 19693
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by a fan »

Doc isn't interested in that, Old Salt.

If Obama had done this, he'd be here championing "fiscal discipline".


I'm all for this payment from S. Korea.
foreverlax
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by foreverlax »

a fan wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:54 pm Doc isn't interested in that, Old Salt.

If Obama had done this, he'd be here championing "fiscal discipline".


I'm all for this payment from S. Korea.
For sure, who wouldn't be. Ask where Trump came up with the figure...$5b. Pulled it out of his highknee.
a fan
Posts: 19693
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by a fan »

Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:37 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:04 am
old salt wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:06 am
DocBarrister wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:02 am Now the Russian Agent in the Oval Office is doing what he can to ruin our alliance with South Korea.


Washington (CNN) — Secretary of Defense Mark Esper landed in South Korea on Thursday to navigate renewed threats from an "enraged" North Korea and newly heightened strain in the alliance with Seoul that congressional aides, lawmakers and Korea experts say has been caused by President Donald Trump.
Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 500% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, a congressional aide and an administration official confirmed to CNN.

The price hike has frustrated Pentagon officials and deeply concerned Republican and Democratic lawmakers, according to military officials and congressional aides. It has angered and unnerved Seoul, where leaders are questioning US commitment to their alliance and wondering whether Trump will pull US forces if they don't pay up.

... North Korea has already launched 24 missiles this year, each a violation of UN resolutions, to match the country's previous annual record for firing off projectiles that threaten South Korea and Japan, according to Bruce Klingner, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Germany, France and the United Kingdom recently condemned Pyongyang for the launches, saying they undermined regional security and stability. Meanwhile, South Korean leaders are acutely aware that Trump has downplayed the launches, saying he is "not at all" troubled by them.

"There are a lot of hard feelings," Klingner said of South Korean views of the US right now, adding that "people are questioning the viability of the US as an ally."


https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politi ... cnn.com%2F

It’s going to take years, and perhaps decades to fix the damage done by Trump and his ignorant supporters.

DocBarrister :?
...or a wealthy S Korea can share more of the cost of US forces dedicated to their protection.
It's a costly evolution rotating an entire US Army division from Ft Lewis, WA through Camp Humphreys in S Korea, every year, not to mention the expense of Air Force & Naval deployments.
South Korean troops followed the U.S. into Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Only a bunch of lowlife scumbags like Trump would disrespect this ally in such a way.

DocBarrister :roll:
Doc -- if you're interested in a substantive discussion on this issue, plz put on your green eye shade & consider the cost #'s in this WP piece.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... uth-korea/
Note the marked increase of the cost to the US for maintaining our forces in the ROK, both in total & in relation to the ROK's contribution, which exceeded the US share prior to 2009.

FTR -- I support our presence in S Korea, but IMHO, it needs to be restructured, resized & repurposed.
It's still a Korean War legacy strategy of "ready to fight tonight" based on a large, heavy, conventional US Army presence.
67 years after the end of hostilities, it should not be necessary for the US to augment Infantry & Armor forces, in place, which the ROK should be able to provide themselves. This is prohibitively expensive in terms of "bang for the buck" which could be achieved in comparison to forward deployed Air & Naval assets.

The recently completed Camp Humphreys is a magnificent facility. Rather than hosting rotating 9 mos deployments of US based Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), IMHO -- it would be better used to permanently house a single, non-rotating Armored BCT (to train w/ROK counterparts) & US Army enablers who help the ROK Army defend themselves in case of a conventional attack across the DMZ & to coordinate the flow of US troops flown in to man pre-staged equipment as pre-hostility DEFCON increases.

It's not an insult to ask the ROK to share at least 50% of the cost of maintaining US forces deployed there, as they did a decade ago & to re-examine & update our joint force structure to get the most bang for buck for both nations.
There is a proper and appropriate way to seek greater financial contributions from South Korea.

Then there is the impulsive, reckless, juvenile, and ignorant manner in which Trump went about it.

DocBarrister :roll:
@DocBarrister
DocBarrister
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

a fan wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:01 pm Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.
Your view of the world is terribly outdated ... circa 1939 I would say.

We are going to have a substantial number of U.S. forces forward-deployed overseas for the foreseeable future. Not completely by choice, but out of necessity.

And what do I mean by foreseeable future? Considering that nuclear proliferation and terrorism have continued to be major problems, we’re talking about the remainder of the 21st century and beyond.

The “American Century” is now a quaint term. Whether desirable or not (and I certainly tend to think not), the United States is clearly in the midst of a centuries-long period of acting as the world’s policeman.

Let’s hope that Pax Americana ends better than Pax Romana (the decline and sack of Rome) and Pax Brittanica (WWI).

Delusions of a new era of military retrenchment and isolationism are as delusional today as they were in 1939. Put down that beer you’re enjoying and join us in a sober discussion of 21st century reality.

DocBarrister :?
@DocBarrister
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 15958
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by youthathletics »

This ain't our fathers 1935, technology solves quite a bit for us. Army Futures ABOUT
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
a fan
Posts: 19693
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by a fan »

DocBarrister wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:51 am
a fan wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:01 pm Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.
Your view of the world is terribly outdated ... circa 1939 I would say.

We are going to have a substantial number of U.S. forces forward-deployed overseas for the foreseeable future. Not completely by choice, but out of necessity.
Sorry buddy, we ALWAYS have a choice.
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:51 amDelusions of a new era of military retrenchment and isolationism are as delusional today as they were in 1939. Put down that beer you’re enjoying and join us in a sober discussion of 21st century reality.
Never pegged you as a warmonger. Or as a guy who can't add.

So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18896
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

a fan wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:05 pm So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.
I think I now know where Trump came up with the $5 billion tab. .:mrgreen:.
foreverlax
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:21 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by foreverlax »

old salt wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:09 pm
a fan wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:05 pm So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.
I think I now know where Trump came up with the $5 billion tab. .:mrgreen:.
He pulled it out of his highknee. ;)
DocBarrister
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by DocBarrister »

a fan wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:05 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:51 am
a fan wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:01 pm Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.
Your view of the world is terribly outdated ... circa 1939 I would say.

We are going to have a substantial number of U.S. forces forward-deployed overseas for the foreseeable future. Not completely by choice, but out of necessity.
Sorry buddy, we ALWAYS have a choice.
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:51 amDelusions of a new era of military retrenchment and isolationism are as delusional today as they were in 1939. Put down that beer you’re enjoying and join us in a sober discussion of 21st century reality.
Never pegged you as a warmonger. Or as a guy who can't add.

So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.
You might want to talk to the garbage Republicans in Congress (and the misguided Americans who support them) who chose to give away more than a trillion dollars to corporations and the wealthy about Americans who can’t put food on the table or visit their doctors. Haven’t seen a single thing the Party of Stupid has done for the poor or the uninsured.

It’s not amusing that Americans seemingly abandon their stalwart allies so readily. I’m sure South Korean leaders had some explaining to do regarding their troops in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But that’s what allies do, right?

We needed plenty of allies to help us in responding to al Qaeda and Isis. The ready abandonment of these allies is a form of collective narcissism that reflects Trump’s. And deployments like those in South Korea are primarily peacekeeping missions, not “warmongering” as you claim. It’s disturbing you don’t understand the difference.

The United States has significant security, trade, and diplomatic interests in East Asia and all around the world. I’m no big fan of expanding our military budget and deploying troops overseas, but 25,000 peacekeepers in South Korea are a more efficient deployment of forces than deploying more than 500,000 to fight another war on the peninsula against a rogue nuclear power.

The United States needs its allies as much as our allies need us. Remember, the only triggering of NATO defense obligations was invoked by the United States.

Your failure to understand the importance (and benefits) of our security, diplomatic, and trade alliances reflects a disturbingly uninformed perspective.

Think the seas will protect the United States from enemies and dangers abroad? That’s not even 1939 thinking ... that’s a fallacy from the 18th century.

Again, jump a couple of centuries and join us in discussing the 21st.

DocBarrister :roll: :?
@DocBarrister
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by seacoaster »

a fan wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:05 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:51 am
a fan wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:01 pm Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.
Your view of the world is terribly outdated ... circa 1939 I would say.

We are going to have a substantial number of U.S. forces forward-deployed overseas for the foreseeable future. Not completely by choice, but out of necessity.
Sorry buddy, we ALWAYS have a choice.
DocBarrister wrote: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:51 amDelusions of a new era of military retrenchment and isolationism are as delusional today as they were in 1939. Put down that beer you’re enjoying and join us in a sober discussion of 21st century reality.
Never pegged you as a warmonger. Or as a guy who can't add.

So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.
I don't know what the right answers are for this business -- pull out our military missions in overseas bases; make them pay us more $$ and give more value for having our "police" presence there; or wind down in increments, etc. But I think Doc's depiction of a fan's thinking doesn't do justice to the debate, and maybe vice versa.

There are benefits to having US forces in locations outside of the United States: quicker and more facile responsiveness to contingencies overseas; easier cooperation with other countries on security and intelligence matters; deterrence of adversaries or enemies nearby allies; better training opportunities for US forces to train-up foreign military services as allies; and probably others. The question, it seems to me anyway, is where are these forward bases best maintained and best let go/withdrawn. The clarion call for "payment," which is the President's transactional worldview, doesn't answer this question. And this shouldn't be a GOP v. Democrat discussion.
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”