Posted on 04/03/2016 4:14:54 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
They have some good weaponry in their self-defense forces. I think, for most practical purposes now, the limitations are on the use of their forces and the size of them.
Vulgarians are coming for your asses. You had better batten down the hatches.
I have no expectations of ever having another president as great as Reagan in my lifetime. That said though, one of Reagan's shortcomings was that he didn't realize that the USSR thought that he WAS actually talking policy when he joked about wiping their country off the world map. They were a paranoid country with their finger poised over the button to launch the retaliatory strike, because they really believed the US would launch a preemptive attack.
Calling them an evil empire, and saying they will wind up on the "ash heap of history" sounds like policy to me. Of course it sounds like it, because it WAS our policy. Things worked out well in the end, but when you're dealing with paranoid people there are other ways it could have ended up. Sometimes leaders try to stay in power by getting their people to rally together against the external enemy.
I’m just stating that because of the existence of this treaty, the perception is, that we’re obligated to spend money to put troops there for our own good.
I have no doubt that Japan and S.Korea have the ability and the technology to defend themselves against N.Korea. But what about China?
Personally, I’m extremely anti-chinese. I still think it was a mistake to let the communist china win during the chinese civil war (despite how corrupt the nationalist were); And another mistake was not going into china during the korean wars. While what’s done, is done. I still believe Ike’s domino theory. I very much would like to give the finger to China about the debts.
Drama queen much?
That is very kind of you.
By the way, I wanted to thank you for this below. We got a hearty laugh all around!
Good LORD. What kind of cavalier imbecile would issue such an embarrassing, if not temerarious international utterance, particularly for one who's desire is to sit at the desk of the Leader of the Free World?
So your position is that Japan pays nothing for the stationing of USFJ troops, right? That’s my reading. Care to back that up with a reputable source? (Your words: “ US troops.... and NOT get paid for it.”
You bet. The U.S. Government can't even protect it's own borders. And they're importing mass murdering terrorist into our towns and cities. This BS of being the worlds baby sitter and their private ATM is going to end, or we will lose this country trying to save the planet.
I did not hear any good luck comment. He may have said it. I did not purposely leaving anything like that out of the transcript. He may have said it. I don’t know.
But what you have there, I think, is the full context. It is way different than the portrayal by a reporter trying to play gotcha.
I listened to his comments and agree with him. We should not be the world’s cop but if we are going to be, then they need to pay up. We are going broke. We simply can’t afford it any more. I agree with him.
First of all, it’s the Guardian. The Guardian makes the New York Times look like a conservative publication.
The main issue is, the U.S. should not be the world’s policeman. Our troops should pull out of Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc. What’s in it for the U.S. to pay for the defense of other nations.
Do those nations appreciate the sacrifice of our troops? NO! The average Japanese detests us & the South Koreans HATE us. Screw them.
We are in financial trouble & can’t afford to let other nations sponge off us. Let them start paying for their own defense. It’s not our moral obligation to do so.
No more of the U.S. as the World Policeman. All it does is risk the lives of our soldiers. Your precious Japan & South Korea aren’t worth it.
I am so glad to see that you are able to actually count. Due to your post, I really did not feel there was any chance of that.
You have absolutely no chance or power to give me permission to vote and I thank God for that. Anyone like you who makes a statement that “I do not give you permission to vote” proves what a simple minded person you are.
What would be dangerous would be to continue to lead the rest of the world to believe we can take care of them. We can't. We are effectively broke. When we get to $25 trillion we can't even take care of ourselves.
Trumps message is not dangerous. It is the truth. They are going to have to pay their own way. We will help if they pay us. If not, we likely won't be able to. And why should we? Answer me that. We've been chumps going into debt to cover everyone else's costs. I'd love to hear your reply. Seriously.
what good is it to have a vast and technologically advanced nuclear Arsenal and all the delivery systems if the main message we always broadcast is that under no circumstances will we ever use them? what temp does safe from the Soviet Union and red China in the past was the fact that they knew we had the ability and the will and the resolve to come and clean their clocks if they started anything. nowadays we are led by cowards they put out the messaging that we will under no circumstances ever use nukes. This is the wrong message, absolutely the wrong message. we need to get rid of Obama and all of his stuff and start being led by people more like Curtis LeMay again. this is why I am for Trump, I feel that he is more likely to allow a Lemay or Patton like approach to our military readiness rather than the ridiculous women is that they Inspire today
GREAT Donald J. Trump Town Hall In Rothschild, Wisconsin (4-2-16)
Do you feel we should pay for the defense of countries that screw us over on trade deals? Gimme a break.
Agreed. But continuing to have a the best "tools in the shed" means you still have to help out your neighbors, otherwise they will eventually get their own, which would be a bad thing when we are talking about munitions such as nukes.
It’s not a discussion about the US using or not using nukes. It IS every bit about the US encouraging a dangerous regional nuclear arms race, such as J, SK and then Taiwan wanting to join the parade which will greatly destabilize the whole of Northeast Asia. We have vital interests in the region and it is not just about protecting Japan.
Specify that Japanese “hate us.” Do you have facts to back that up? Is it from personal visit(s) there you ascertained this fact?
After watching the video, the point where he says, "Good luck folks, enjoy yourselves" (1:39:53 in the video) appears to be an aside to some audience members off to this right who were leaving at that time, unrelated to the Japanese/Korean policy discussion--Trump interrupted himself to briefly say goodbye to some audience members, in other words.
“audience members off to this right” s/b “audience members off to his right”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.