GOP Primary~~

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 13.04.2016 at 22:42

Hillary will be next president. End of story.

You getting nervous?

Kirjutas Aetius, 13.04.2016 at 23:20

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 13.04.2016 at 22:42

Hillary will be next president. End of story.

You getting nervous?

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 13.04.2016 at 23:38

Kirjutas Aetius, 13.04.2016 at 23:20

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 13.04.2016 at 22:42

Hillary will be next president. End of story.

You getting nervous?

-

that dog has a big nose, you don't say....?

Trump is crushing it.

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 13.04.2016 at 22:42

Hillary will be next president. End of story.

Well Bernie certainly isn't going to be. You underestimate Trumps appeal and what he's doing. He's galvanizing the white working class. This is why the Establishment is frightened; their most dangerous demographic is no longer apathetic about its current state and future. It is acting.

Capitalists and communists fear the white worker.

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 20:29

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:37

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 19:33

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:28

The fourth thing I sort of agree with him but it's still not that clear is that he criticises the defense agreements US has with South Korea (Soldiers allocated in DMZ, that leads to unecessary expenses by the US with no benefits to the USA whatsoever)

I'm all for keeping troops in South Korea because the moment we pull out of the region North Korea is going to go ahead and invade it.

then those troops should be maintained by South Korea and not the US government, or at least South Korea should pay half of the maintenance cost of that Army there.

South Korea pays us over $866 million for a little over 25k people. That's a significant amount, 34k per person.

Then SK is the exception, because from what I've read,US isn't paid or gets any real benefits from protecting other nations like Saudi Arabia

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 14.04.2016 at 10:53

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 20:29

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:37

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 19:33

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:28

The fourth thing I sort of agree with him but it's still not that clear is that he criticises the defense agreements US has with South Korea (Soldiers allocated in DMZ, that leads to unecessary expenses by the US with no benefits to the USA whatsoever)

I'm all for keeping troops in South Korea because the moment we pull out of the region North Korea is going to go ahead and invade it.

then those troops should be maintained by South Korea and not the US government, or at least South Korea should pay half of the maintenance cost of that Army there.

South Korea pays us over $866 million for a little over 25k people. That's a significant amount, 34k per person.

Then SK is the exception, because from what I've read,US isn't paid or gets any real benefits from protecting other nations like Saudi Arabia

I will admit many countries don't pay us, but I would rather those countries be able to stay free then to fall from a foreign enemy.

Kirjutas Dereny, 14.04.2016 at 16:21

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 14.04.2016 at 10:53

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 20:29

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:37

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 19:33

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:28

The fourth thing I sort of agree with him but it's still not that clear is that he criticises the defense agreements US has with South Korea (Soldiers allocated in DMZ, that leads to unecessary expenses by the US with no benefits to the USA whatsoever)

I'm all for keeping troops in South Korea because the moment we pull out of the region North Korea is going to go ahead and invade it.

then those troops should be maintained by South Korea and not the US government, or at least South Korea should pay half of the maintenance cost of that Army there.

South Korea pays us over $866 million for a little over 25k people. That's a significant amount, 34k per person.

Then SK is the exception, because from what I've read,US isn't paid or gets any real benefits from protecting other nations like Saudi Arabia

I will admit many countries don't pay us, but I would rather those countries be able to stay free then to fall from a foreign enemy.

North Korea doesn't have enough fuel to keep its aircraft flying for more than 20 minutes + US can be anywhere in the world in 6 hours in its full military power

Kirjutas Tundy, 14.04.2016 at 01:38

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 13.04.2016 at 23:38

Kirjutas Aetius, 13.04.2016 at 23:20

Kirjutas Columna Durruti, 13.04.2016 at 22:42

Hillary will be next president. End of story.

You getting nervous?

-

that dog has a big nose, you don't say....?

Actually, the dog's nose is pretty normal for his apparent size

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 14.04.2016 at 16:34

Kirjutas Dereny, 14.04.2016 at 16:21

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 14.04.2016 at 10:53

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 20:29

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:37

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 19:33

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:28

The fourth thing I sort of agree with him but it's still not that clear is that he criticises the defense agreements US has with South Korea (Soldiers allocated in DMZ, that leads to unecessary expenses by the US with no benefits to the USA whatsoever)

I'm all for keeping troops in South Korea because the moment we pull out of the region North Korea is going to go ahead and invade it.

then those troops should be maintained by South Korea and not the US government, or at least South Korea should pay half of the maintenance cost of that Army there.

South Korea pays us over $866 million for a little over 25k people. That's a significant amount, 34k per person.

Then SK is the exception, because from what I've read,US isn't paid or gets any real benefits from protecting other nations like Saudi Arabia

I will admit many countries don't pay us, but I would rather those countries be able to stay free then to fall from a foreign enemy.

North Korea doesn't have enough fuel to keep its aircraft flying for more than 20 minutes + US can be anywhere in the world in 6 hours in its full military power

Yes NK does not have as good of technology, but they have the man power. They have 700k as active duty sodiers and 4.5 million in reserves. The moment the US left, they would overrun SK. Now SK could be retaken, but why let the invasion happen to result in thousands being killed and millions, if not billions, of dollars in damage? To me, it seems more cost effective to prevent a war rather than win a war.

Kirjutas Dereny, 14.04.2016 at 17:11

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 14.04.2016 at 16:34

Kirjutas Dereny, 14.04.2016 at 16:21

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 14.04.2016 at 10:53

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 20:29

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:37

Kirjutas Dereny, 13.04.2016 at 19:33

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:28

The fourth thing I sort of agree with him but it's still not that clear is that he criticises the defense agreements US has with South Korea (Soldiers allocated in DMZ, that leads to unecessary expenses by the US with no benefits to the USA whatsoever)

I'm all for keeping troops in South Korea because the moment we pull out of the region North Korea is going to go ahead and invade it.

then those troops should be maintained by South Korea and not the US government, or at least South Korea should pay half of the maintenance cost of that Army there.

South Korea pays us over $866 million for a little over 25k people. That's a significant amount, 34k per person.

Then SK is the exception, because from what I've read,US isn't paid or gets any real benefits from protecting other nations like Saudi Arabia

I will admit many countries don't pay us, but I would rather those countries be able to stay free then to fall from a foreign enemy.

North Korea doesn't have enough fuel to keep its aircraft flying for more than 20 minutes + US can be anywhere in the world in 6 hours in its full military power

Yes NK does not have as good of technology, but they have the man power. They have 700k as active duty sodiers and 4.5 million in reserves. The moment the US left, they would overrun SK. Now SK could be retaken, but why let the invasion happen to result in thousands being killed and millions, if not billions, of dollars in damage? To me, it seems more cost effective to prevent a war rather than win a war.

I understand that quantity in those cases surpass quality, but still, the maximum NK would do would be nuke SK or nuke US when they least expect.


I'm still waiting for the day China withdraws their political support to NK and some special op performs a coup d'état on Kim family and seize the nuclear facilities

Obviously my "how to quote" thread needs to be sticked again because this is just fugly and completely thread ruining.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=19336

Kirjutas Acquiesce, 14.04.2016 at 17:59

Obviously my "how to quote" thread needs to be sticked again because this is just fugly and completely thread ruining.

http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=19336

I think the way we're quoting is quite sexy.

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 13.04.2016 at 19:28

Snip for aqui

Once China is anti NK, the state of NK will be completely changed.

Kirjutas Dereny, 14.04.2016 at 17:11

Yes NK does not have as good of technology, but they have the man power. They have 700k as active duty sodiers and 4.5 million in reserves. The moment the US left, they would overrun SK. Now SK could be retaken, but why let the invasion happen to result in thousands being killed and millions, if not billions, of dollars in damage? To me, it seems more cost effective to prevent a war rather than win a war.

South Korea has 650,000 active military personnel supported by 3 million reservists. Their equipment is also considerably more advanced than the cold-war relics fielded by the North. Those few thousand American soldiers in Korean bases are a drop in the bucket for South Korea's defence, and even sending in US reserves (of which there are 0.8 million) is not going to seriously change the balance of power along the DMZ.

Those bases simply don't matter in any real, practical terms. The only reasons why the United States maintains these far-away bases and why South Korea pays for the troops they don't even need are entirely symbolic. The bases are basically there to send the message of: "if you invade this country, you are also declaring war on that country with the ridiculously overfunded military."

Kirjutas International, 14.04.2016 at 22:28

South Korea has 650,000 active military personnel supported by 3 million reservists. Their equipment is also considerably more advanced than the cold-war relics fielded by the North. Those few thousand American soldiers in Korean bases are a drop in the bucket for South Korea's defence, and even sending in US reserves (of which there are 0.8 million) is not going to seriously change the balance of power along the DMZ.

Those bases simply don't matter in any real, practical terms. The only reasons why the United States maintains these far-away bases and why South Korea pays for the troops they don't even need are entirely symbolic. The bases are basically there to send the message of: "if you invade this country, you are also declaring war on that country with the ridiculously overfunded military."

IF it is so that North Korea received some of the last weapons created by the USSR and China in the 80's and 90's their army could actually be quite advanced. I think that the technological advantage isn't greater than the advantage posed by North Korea being able to conscript more or less every citizen in their nation for the cause. Also, the North Korean terrain is somewhat more defensive than the South Korean which also poses an advantage.

That feel when Cruz and Kasich ally...

..... their vows together still can't even reach half of Trump's vows

Everyone but Trump.

Kirjutas Oleg, 25.04.2016 at 15:57

Anyone but Hillary.

Kirjutas Al Fappino, 25.04.2016 at 16:37

Kirjutas Oleg, 25.04.2016 at 15:57

Anyone but Hillary.

why someone upvotes you quoting me,but not original post....thats cuz im serbian,this forum is full of nazi and ustasha!

Gg

Kirjutas clovis1122, 27.04.2016 at 12:46

Gg

stop defeatism