- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:53 am to StraightCashHomey21
Liberals: reeee why are we spending so much on the military
Trump: ok Korea needs to start paying us for protection
Liberals: reeee you can't say that! They need us!
Trump: ok Korea needs to start paying us for protection
Liberals: reeee you can't say that! They need us!
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:54 am to DawgsLife
Has to be a girl, right? 
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:54 am to roadGator
quote:
Has to be a girl, right?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:58 am to StraightCashHomey21
Is the pre-requisite for us to have a free trade agreement with a nation, that we have to pay for their defense?
That doesn't sound sustainable.
That doesn't sound sustainable.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:59 am to cokebottleag
You mean buying your friends isn't sustainable?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:00 pm to StraightCashHomey21
He's doing what he said he'd do. We offer protection for many of our allies and aren't getting compensated for it. Why shouldn't we pull out entirely and say "let us know when you need help in combat" instead of spending countless dollars placing troops and arms in their backyards?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:07 pm to roadGator
quote:
You mean buying your friends isn't sustainable?
If I go to someone and say: I want to trade with you!
And their response is: Only if you pay me a fee every year in perpetuity for the privilege.
That isn't buying from a friend. That's a payment from me, for the privilege of trading with them. With no reciprocity. That sounds more like a vassal state to a suzerain.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:14 pm to StraightCashHomey21
THAAD is there mainly protect the US troops and people in the US mainland. It would be in America's best interests to have THAAD. THAAD does not protect South Korea...North Korea could destroy Seoul in minutes and THAAD can't protect against those type of missiles. SK does pay the US troops to be in SK, so It's not like they're getting everything for free.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:25 pm to StraightCashHomey21
If they don't give a frick about missile defense why should we. frick em. Let NK fire away.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:27 pm to lilaznfish123
quote:
THAAD does not protect South Korea.
Not trying to be a smart arse but to learn more.
So are you saying that if missiles are fired over the heads of US soldiers and just at Seoul then THAAD won't be employed?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:31 pm to StraightCashHomey21
South Korea is among the worst free riders out there. Make em pay.
They have the ability to pay and should.
Why would anyone have a problem with making them pay?
They have the ability to pay and should.
Why would anyone have a problem with making them pay?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:35 pm to StraightCashHomey21
I have no problem with Trump telling SK that, "Those Chinese televisions and hand held devices are really looking good, right now. Maybe they'd prefer we pull out and sell us their crap? What do you think?"
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:35 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I agree with Trump on this, but he is all talk and nothing is going to change.
At least he brought it up, and we're discussing it now. That's the first step.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:37 pm to roadGator
Ok I'll admit that's factually incorrect. What I meant to say was that NK can destroy Seoul with their tank missiles (i don't know what they call those). THAAD is mainly there to protect against the missiles that could be used to attack Japan and Hawaii/Alaska/mainland USA. If NK were to attack one of SK's islands such as Jeju Island or Busan (2nd biggest SK City located a couple hours south of the DMZ), then yes THAAD would be employed.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:39 pm to Sable Hat
quote:
If they don't give a frick about missile defense why should we. frick em. Let NK fire away.
NK can fire away missiles at Seoul that can't be intercepted by THAAD. Seoul is around 30 miles away from the DMZ.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:39 pm to lilaznfish123
quote:
formerly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is a United States Army anti-ballistic missile system which is designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase using a hit-to-kill approach
Most of SK is considered closer than "short range" then?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:43 pm to lilaznfish123
quote:
THAAD is there mainly protect the US troops and people in the US mainland.
Yes and no. It is to protect US Troops in SK, but the NK does not have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that can reach the mainland.
quote:
THAAD does not protect South Korea.
If it is protecting our troops in SK, how in the world can it not be protecting SK?
quote:
North Korea could destroy Seoul in minutes and THAAD can't protect against those type of missiles.
If true, then THAAD is not protecting our troops, either. You can't have it both ways.
quote:
SK does pay the US troops to be in SK, so It's not like they're getting everything for free.
This is true. they have been paying a portion since 1991. (I don't know what our portion is)
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:44 pm to roadGator
quote:
Most of SK is considered closer than "short range" then?
Correct. NK doesn't need ballistic missiles to hit Seoul.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:47 pm to StraightCashHomey21
Someone will pay one way or another because Lockheed has some of the best lobbyists in the world. They won't get screwed.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News