[quote=“sofun”][quote=“Winston Smith”][quote=“sofun”]Wrong logic.
One division of US army on the continent is not the reason why North Korea is weak and a joke. . . . [/quote]
NORAD isn’t laughing:[/quote]
Kim is.[/quote]
That’s because Pyongyang is 200 kilometers from the Chinese border and Kim has a hardened train and rail line ready to scoot him across the border anytime he needs to escape U.S. retaliation deep inside China.
[quote=“Winston Smith”][quote=“sofun”][quote=“Winston Smith”][quote=“sofun”]Wrong logic.
One division of US army on the continent is not the reason why North Korea is weak and a joke. . . . [/quote]
NORAD isn’t laughing:[/quote]
Kim is.[/quote]
That’s because Pyongyang is 200 kilometers from the Chinese border and Kim has a hardened train and rail line ready to scoot him across the border anytime he needs to escape U.S. retaliation deep inside China.[/quote]
One division of US army is not there to take out N.Korea nuclear weapon, which really was China’s baby project.
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]Getting back to the actual topic of this thread, interesting article on alternet.org suggesting that of all the GOP candidates, Trump is the most progressive…
alternet.org/news-amp-politi … -candidate
…which is scary.[/quote]
echos my observation of Trump’s first GOP debate. Aside from his xenophobia, Trump is socially progressive, which would mean his support for the GOP maybe due to his completely misunderstanding of GOP’s position on cutting taxes.
Fun times:
[quote]Mexican programmers are striking back at Donald Trump—with video games
In a new video game where you play as Donald Trump, the objectives are simple: Collect as much money as you can. Avoid all minorities. Whip your hair around.
Released this week by Apto Communicacion Digital, a digital agency based in Guadalajara, Trumpada is a side-scrolling game for Android devices. The game is the brainchild of Apto co-founder and creative director Andres Preciado and co-founder and producer Alvaro Plasencia. It puts players into the body of GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, with the goal of amassing wealth and making minorities go away by throwing money and whipping your enormous hair at them.
And while the game is goofy and addictive in the way that all good mobile games are, it also works as a piece of protest art against Trump made by young, tech-savvy Latinos—the sort of people office-seeking candidates are finding it more and more difficult to alienate or ignore.
…
Apto isn’t alone among Mexican game developers. Fellow Guadalajara digital agency Karaokulta also just released a Trump game for Android called Trumpealo. Tagline: It’s up to you.
El Universal, a Spanish-language website with bureaus throughout Latin America, reports that the game “parodies the political situation in the United States” and lampoons “the constant controversial statements made by the magnate.”
In this Trump game, players are attending a Trump stump speech and are invited to throw a number of items, like balls, bottles, and even a cactus at the real estate mogul in order to chase him away from the stage. Conversely, supporters of Trump can shower him with money, which keeps him at the podium longer.
[/quote]
Interesting that you cite a man famous for advocating against intervention, who basically calls for the US to withdraw all its troops to the United States. He says things like: “the Chinese people likely would be willing to spend and risk much more to ensure that contested territories end up Chinese” as a reason that the US should not challenge Chinese authority on disputed land. He also says: “Washington should make clear through action as well as rhetoric that it takes no position regarding competing territorial claims;” “Especially verboten should be military missions, whether unilateral or in conjunction with allied forces;” and above all else:
[quote]The U.S. must clearly state that it does not intend to back Taiwan’s independence aspirations with the American military.
[/quote]
See: nationalinterest.org/feature/the … asia-12976
Are you absolutely sure you agree with this fellow’s line of argumentation?
Seems like you’re swayed and that’s a good sign.
Can we agree to pull out of Korea first?
let’s go over the reasons again.
Funny how Trump is against manufacturing in China, but almost all his Trump products are made there.
oddly now, it seems palin is back in the game and wants to be Trump’s Energy go-to lady (DOE). I have no words…
And, now is the winter of my discontent made glorious summer by this sun…
Imagine the damage those two could do in the White House. 
[quote=“rowland”]There’s something a little sad about how many Taiwanese look to the US government to solve their problems. Kind of like Uncle Sam is their family partriarch.
There’s also something sad about Americans looking to the US government to solve their problems, but that’s another subject.[/quote]
Uncle Sam is Taiwan’s Godfather. And mafia ridden Taiwan (the mafia is deeply rooted in TW society) understands the importance.
I don’t think the Americans as a whole look for the federal govt to solve their problems.
I am not keen on having Hillary back in the White House. She has ruled the country for 8 years already. Who do you think was behind the scenes with Bill?
But she would be desirable over his royal Trumpness by far. Trump is first and foremost for himself.
I think of Trump as I do the Khardasians. But they are very popular and so is Trump. I bet he wins the Rep nomination. He has an 'in" with a lot of white folk.
It could be down to Trump versus Hillary. And I know who I am voting for in that case.
You’re not keen on having Clinton II back in power because you can’t afford her. If you could she’d be the perfect candidate because she’s proven she’s for sale to the highest bidder. That’s why her lack of accomplishments are of no concern to the ruling class. Once the check clears their principles will be her administration’s agenda.
That’s a …
Trumpaline !! 
Whereas Hillary is first and foremost for whoever gives her the most money.
sofun, you’re not making any sense. To summarize to the story so far:
*The US should withdraw troops from Korea, and this argument is supported by talking head Bandow
*Bandow also says the US should offer no support to Taiwan
And your response to second point is… to ignore it and post the same YouTube video again? Bandow is advocating a package: bring troops home, period. He is not advocating what you think he is.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]sofun, you’re not making any sense. To summarize to the story so far:
*The US should withdraw troops from Korea, and this argument is supported by talking head Bandow
[strike]*Bandow also says the US should offer no support to Taiwan[/strike]
[/quote]
Hok, focus on my arguments , and simply use what I quoted (the youtube video) as audible words in lieu of my own voice. That was my intention.
Why are you basing your decision of whether to pull out of Korea on other aspects of his political views? It’s not about him. It’s not about you buying his or another person’s “entire package of views” because that’s not what I’m asking you to do. Focus on Korea first.
I’m asking you to consider the good reasons I gave you on why US should pull out of Korea, and I’m giving you evidence of another person (regardless of what his political view is) making the same proposal with almost identical reasons.
Focus on how the reasons given by me and Bandow match, and see if both of us can persuade you.
If not, tell me what’s bothering you.
Let’s go down the list. These two gentlemen say it better than I:
“The South Koreans have 40 times the GDP and twice the population of North Korea. They should defend themselves.The US shouldn’t be expected to defend allies who are well able to defend themselves” by Doug Bandow.
“Nuclear proliferation is a problem that transcends region, …[Pakistan, North Korea]…but what we’re doing makes us seem more vulnerable, and it costs us to pay extra attention on threats that are not really threats, and we’re not achieving very much. We’ve tried everything with North Korea: isolation, negotiation…whining and threatening. None of that’s worked. This is going to be a protracted problem. We shouldn’t add to that, worrying about conventional threats our ally can handle.”
John Bolton: “With regard to the Americans there [in S.Korea], it’s been our policy for ten years to get them away from the demilitarized zone. The principle responsibility, the overwhelming responsibility of the defence of South Korea rests with South Korean troops. What we want is to have the relatively small number of Americans there, based on the southern tip of the peninsula that they’re available for deployment throughout east Asia, which I think is very much in our national security interest.”
same video, posted again. don’t get sidetracked.
[quote=“sofun”]John Bolton: “With regard to the Americans there [in S.Korea], it’s been our policy for ten years to get them away from the demilitarized zone. The principle responsibility, the overwhelming responsibility of the defence of South Korea rests with South Korean troops. What we want is to have the relatively small number of Americans there, based on the southern tip of the peninsula that they’re available for deployment throughout east Asia, which I think is very much in our national security interest.”
[/quote]
Having Americans in the southern tip of the peninsula makes a lot of sense, and is a far greater option than no Americans stationed in South Korea at all.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“sofun”]John Bolton: “With regard to the Americans there [in S.Korea], it’s been our policy for ten years to get them away from the demilitarized zone. The principle responsibility, the overwhelming responsibility of the defence of South Korea rests with South Korean troops. What we want is to have the relatively small number of Americans there, based on the southern tip of the peninsula that they’re available for deployment throughout east Asia, which I think is very much in our national security interest.”
[/quote]
Having Americans in the southern tip of the peninsula makes a lot of sense, and is a far greater option than no Americans stationed in South Korea at all.[/quote]
I’m glad it gets you thinking at least. Expanding on that thought further, could you explain why it makes more sense to station the one division conventional US army at the souther tip of the peninsula than to station it on Taiwan?
Have you factored in today’s naval, air and A2AD technology, which makes transporting from the peninsula southward more difficult?
If there is a NK invasion into SK requiring US help at a moment’s notice, there is no excuse for China to sink US ships going from Taiwan to the Peninsula. However, the same cannot be said about the scenario when there is a Chinese invasion against Taiwan or Japanese Okinawa.
If you already agree on moving the US division to the southern tip of the Peninsula, then why not to Taiwan (instead of Korea)?