Trump has turned US military into a Guns For Hire outfit.

[Spamature]

The money is used to build housing and training areas for U.S. forces, pay wages to thousands of Japanese workers on U.S bases and supply water and power.

So the funds actually went to pay Japanese workers, and Japanese utility companies, and to build housing for the troops in the country of Japan ?

That does not sound like any protection racket I've ever heard of.

 

[YJ02]

Frankly, Europe, South Korea, Saudi, etc. should all be paying up.

YES, having personally served in a couple of these places while in the army --and, I'd add Japan to that list-- I can easily say that these nations have the capability to defend themselves

South Korea has a fairly capable military, although it is filled with draftees, and it is equipped with pretty much the same weapons we have

now, our troops there would just be in the way of ROK forces moving to contact with DPRK invaders

we actually have nowhere near the numbers of soldiers there we had even 20 yrs ago. Almost all US bases north of Seoul have been abandoned and the us army has been consolidated on about 2-3 larger bases

one of these- the Humphrey's Garrison, was paid for by South Korea actually. they paid a huge financial price and a massive price with their public when they condemned about half of a korean city to demolish to make room for the base

as for actual payments, why not? we have a smaller military now, and pretty much very few people actually qualified to serve,so why not pt a cash price on our services?

show them all--especially Europe- that it would be less costly to grow and improve their own military then pay for ours

 

[Spamature]

YES, having personally served in a couple of these places while in the army --and, I'd add Japan to that list-- I can easily say that these nations have the capability to defend themselves

South Korea has a fairly capable military, although it is filled with draftees, and it is equipped with pretty much the same weapons we have

now, our troops there would just be in the way of ROK forces moving to contact with DPRK invaders

we actually have nowhere near the numbers of soldiers there we had even 20 yrs ago. Almost all US bases north of Seoul have been abandoned and the us army has been consolidated on about 2-3 larger bases

one of these- the Humphrey's Garrison, was paid for by South Korea actually. they paid a huge financial price and a massive price with their public when they condemned about half of a korean city to demolish to make room for the base

as for actual payments, why not? we have a smaller military now, and pretty much very few people actually qualified to serve,so why not pt a cash price on our services?

show them all--especially Europe- that it would be less costly to grow and improve their own military then pay for ours

Why not let them grow their militaries ?

The last time they did is the reason we are still there now. Remember WWII was pretty costly as well.

 

[YJ02]

The last time they did is the reason we are still there now. Remember WWII was pretty costly as well.

so, the old belief that supports the american military industrial complex is brought in by you then?

if Europe is supposedly so 'mature' and unified, why not let them defend themselves?

besides, we and the British do not have enough troops in Germany to keep the Germans from blitzing through a grocery store let alone Europe if they wanted to do it

Germany, Japan, and to a lesser extent, South Korea have all economically benefited from having America defend their nations for them. They have grown to dominate markets while we spend so much of our resources on our military to defend their nations instead of our own

another reason they should pay if they want us to stay

 

[RickWA]

YES, having personally served in a couple of these places while in the army --and, I'd add Japan to that list-- I can easily say that these nations have the capability to defend themselves

South Korea has a fairly capable military, although it is filled with draftees, and it is equipped with pretty much the same weapons we have

now, our troops there would just be in the way of ROK forces moving to contact with DPRK invaders

we actually have nowhere near the numbers of soldiers there we had even 20 yrs ago. Almost all US bases north of Seoul have been abandoned and the us army has been consolidated on about 2-3 larger bases

one of these- the Humphrey's Garrison, was paid for by South Korea actually. they paid a huge financial price and a massive price with their public when they condemned about half of a korean city to demolish to make room for the base

as for actual payments, why not? we have a smaller military now, and pretty much very few people actually qualified to serve,so why not pt a cash price on our services?

show them all--especially Europe- that it would be less costly to grow and improve their own military then pay for ours

Great input - thank you.

I don’t think it unseemly to have those nations who benefit from our troops (including the associated local commerce our folks spend on top of security functions) contribute more funding than they do.

And, I think you’re right. SK, Japan, certainly most of Europe are capable of doing more.

 

[Spamature]

so, the old belief that supports the american military industrial complex is brought in by you then?

if Europe is supposedly so 'mature' and unified, why not let them defend themselves?

besides, we and the British do not have enough troops in Germany to keep the Germans from blitzing through a grocery store let alone Europe if they wanted to do it

Germany, Japan, and to a lesser extent, South Korea have all economically benefited from having America defend their nations for them. They have grown to dominate markets while we spend so much of our resources on our military to defend their nations instead of our own

another reason they should pay if they want us to stay

I am all for pulling back to he bare minimum of a foothold. Just not crazy out the idea of them building back up.

 

[YJ02]

I am all for pulling back to he bare minimum of a foothold. Just not crazy out the idea of them building back up.

ok but where do you draw the line?

should we not allow the British to have a military? i mean they tried to maintain their rule over us by force, invaded our country, burned our capitol and aided the rebellious southern states by continuing to trade with them during the civil war

 

[Spamature]

ok but where do you draw the line?

should we not allow the British to have a military? i mean they tried to maintain their rule over us by force, invaded our country, burned our capitol and aided the rebellious southern states by continuing to trade with them during the civil war

All of these countries have a military. The problem is the more you build up a military the more temptation there is to use it. Even we haven't learned that lesson yet.

 

[YJ02]

All of these countries have a military. The problem is the more you build up a military the more temptation there is to use it. Even we haven't learned that lesson yet.

we can handle our lessons, let everyone else handle theirs. we should not get in the way of their 'learning'

stop the US role as 'world cop'

 

[Drumcollie]

We now literally have a crime boss who is running an international protection rack out of the White House. The only thing left for him to get into is gambling and prostitution.

Oh wait, I mean gamble...


Trump Brags About Serving Up American Troops to Saudi Arabia for Nothing More Than Cash



Conservative Rep. Justin Amash, who was a Republican until recently, responded to Trump’s remarks, saying, “He sells troops”


During President Donald Trump’s interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on Friday, the president spoke about his positive relationship with Saudi Arabia, including how the country is paying to use American troops.“Saudi Arabia is paying us for [our troops].

We have a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia,” Trump said. “I said, listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1 billion in the bank.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-brags-about-serving-up-american-troops-to-saudi-arabia-for-cash-936623/

So this time we get paid unlike Obama who gave the Iranians money and they still attacked S.A.

 

[Drumcollie]

It's only a matter of time before we see this.

View attachment 47392

The NoKo's paying us back for Bill Clinton's Nuke facilities....Nice!

 

[Drumcollie]

At one point in time or another the British on our shores and the Chinese in Korea, the Germans and Italians in Europe killed who knows how many US soldiers in wars. Also it was not until under Trump that Iran govt was given at terrorist designation. Then he turns around and has US serve as the security guards and hired guns for the homeland of the 9/11 hijackers.

There is no question about Obama citizenship status. You must be thinking of immigration lawbreaker, Melania.

Iran[edit]
Iran was added to the list on January 19, 1984. According to Country Reports on Terrorism 2013:

 

[Spamature]

we can handle our lessons, let everyone else handle theirs. we should not get in the way of their 'learning'

stop the US role as 'world cop'

I suppose you'd rather us be the world's fireman then, who has to step after the blaze has started ( for the sake of keeping us from being consumed by the inferno ) rather than the guy's who stop the arsonist before the fire starts.

 

[Spamature]

So this time we get paid unlike Obama who gave the Iranians money and they still attacked S.A.

How did that disappearing $12 billion in cash bush gave Iraq work out in preventing us from being attacked in Iraq ?

Not so good right ?

But it sure was a bit of hefty start up funding for ISIS.

Thanks Bush and the Republicans.

 

[Spamature]

The NoKo's paying us back for Bill Clinton's Nuke facilities....Nice!

Then sent Trump a Valentine's Day card and he seemed to feel fine about it as payback.



So much so, that he is allowing them to develop missiles that will be able to reach out an touch all Americans.

 

[Spamature]

Iran[edit]
Iran was added to the list on January 19, 1984. According to Country Reports on Terrorism 2013:

Please post the relevant information that backs up your statement. Your link does not.
Likely so, because it is a lie.

 

[EatTheRich]

I suppose you'd rather us be the world's fireman then, who has to step after the blaze has started ( for the sake of keeping us from being consumed by the inferno ) rather than the guy's who stop the arsonist before the fire starts.

The U.S. is the arsonist

 

[Spamature]

The U.S. is the arsonist

Quite often, but not always.

But when you look at which part of us likes playing with matches. Almost exclusively our right hand is the one throwing them.

 

[EatTheRich]

Quite often, but not always.

But when you look at which part of us likes playing with matches. The box is almost exclusively in our right hand.

Obama=wars in East Africa and the Middle East
Clinton=wars in East Africa, the Caribbean, and the Balkans
Carter=funding terrorists in Southern Africa and Latin America, supporting dictators there and in the Middle East
Johnson=escalating the war on Vietnam
Kennedy=wars in Southeast Asia, created Alliance for Progress and Peace Corps
Truman=horrific WWII atrocities, Korean War, Marshall Plan, created NATO and CIA
Roosevelt=dragged U.S. into WWII, wars in Latin America, laid foundation for creating UN

 

[Spamature]

Obama=wars in East Africa and the Middle East

You're saying he started that fire ?

Clinton=wars in East Africa, the Caribbean, and the Balkans

You mean his inheritance of Somalia, and trying to stop genocide in the Balkans ?

I don't know of us fighting a war in the Caribbean what was that ?

Carter=funding terrorists in Southern Africa and Latin America, supporting dictators there and in the Middle East

Drawing a blank on S Africa and S America. But yeah he did support the dictator Republicans installed in Iran and who was overthrown.

Johnson=escalating the war on Vietnam
As opposed to Nixon committing treason to keep the war going when Johnson was trying to end it.

Kennedy=wars in Southeast Asia, created Alliance for Progress and Peace Corps

Vietnam okay, but the others are a reach when it comes to claiming they were matches.

Truman=horrific WWII atrocities, Korean War, Marshall Plan, created NATO and CIA

If you mean nuking Japan it wasn't his war and it was done to save millions of live on both sides. NATO was never really involved in a war until Libya. Which is something you should have put on Obama.

Roosevelt=dragged U.S. into WWII, wars in Latin America, laid foundation for creating UN

Yeah I suppose Roosevelt can be called the original founder of Anitfa.
But the UN is a match for war ? Latin America in the 30's or 40's ? I don't know enough to even begin to discuss it.

Also we kind need to cap this at 60 yrs. Because both sides were pretty much the same back then.

Anyway, now do the history of Republicans and let's compare. I suppose you have to start with Lincoln and the war he started.