LogFAQs > #903174229

Dikitain posted...

Not really, I mean you have people complaining that the US is too militaristic, then you have the same people complaining that we are reducing our military presence in South Korea. Which is it?

I don't know - take it up with those specific people. For what it's worth, however, the two complaints are not mutually exclusive. You can think that the US is too militaristic overall while also believing that the US military presence in South Korea specifically is dollars well spent and that the budget should be cut elsewhere (like the perpetual misadventures in the Middle East, for instance).

Dikitain posted...

Plus, like you said with the nukes thing, it is all just a gentleman's agreement anyways. We want them to stop trying to make nukes, they want us out of South Korea. So that is what we agreed to. If one side doesn't keep their end of the bargain you can bet the other side is not going to either.

See, I'd be fine with that, except Trump agreed to concrete steps and North Korea did not. Hell, this "gentleman's agreement" doesn't even have an agreed upon end goal right now. "Denuclearization" is a buzz-word and North Korea has a very different vision of what that means than America does and absolutely no effort went into bridging that gap.

Trump could have made significantly better use of his leverage here. Instead, he was so eager to pocket a deal that he could brag about back home he gave up far more than he got despite the fact that the US is holding all the cards here.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!