Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden penned an article for South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency, where he pledged to strengthen Washington’s alliance with Seoul and said he would not threaten to remove any of the 28,500 US troops from the peninsula.
“As President, I’ll stand with South Korea, strengthening our alliance to safeguard peace in East Asia and beyond, rather than extorting Seoul with reckless threats to remove our troops,” the former vice president wrote, taking a swipe at President Trump.
The Trump administration has weighed troop cuts in South Korea over disagreements with Seoul over cost-sharing. President Trump has demanded South Korea’s government pay more for the heavy US presence in the country.
In the article, Biden said he would engage in “principled diplomacy” to work towards a “denuclearized North Korea and a unified Korean Peninsula.” Biden and President Trump traded barbs over North Korea’s nuclear program at the last presidential debate.
“We have a different kind of relationship. We have a very good relationship, and there’s no war,” President Trump said of himself and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
“We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded the rest of Europe,” Biden responded. The former vice president said Trump “legitimized North Korea” and called Kim a “thug.”Biden said he would only meet with Kim if the North Korean leader agreed to draw down his nuclear capacity.
I did not vote for Trump but I agree with him in this instance. If US Bases remain in other nations, those nations should pay for them, it would be better if the other nations shut down US Bases & paid more for their own defense. There are people that say “US Bases shouldn’t be in other nations, what nation doesn’t have US Bases”?
They’re both wrong. Leave. Period.
I’d strongly advise voting for Trump this time around. Harris-Biden means that a new war and serious escalations soon, are a certainty.
The militarist Deep State has lost time to catch up on. Trump snuck a ‘No New Wars’ policy past them for the past four years.
Biden in, means war is in. Even Trump would have a hard time keeping up No New Wars, now that the Deep State is aware of the policy.
But Biden is far more likely to fully embrace any war option that crosses his desk.
The American people would be almost incapable of resisting war, especially once COVID-1984 is hammered in by Harris-Biden.
I voted for Jo Jorgenson of the Libertarian Party & in 2016, I voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party. I am tired of the Republican-Democrat duopoly.
Trump was good about having talks with Kim Jong Un because his war of words did not work. It is good he says other nations should pay for US Bases there if they want them there, the US gets nothing in return from them if they do not pay.
The bad things about Trump are that he wants regime change in Venezuela & Bolivia. He rigged Brazil’s election in Bolsonaro’s favor. He scrapped the Iran Nuclear Deal & reimposed sanctions. He favors Israeli Settlements in the W Bank, Gaza & E Jerusalem & transferred the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. All previous presidents Republican as well as Democrat, kept the embassy in Tel Aviv & opposed settlements although they continued to give Israel aid. Ronald Reagan condemned Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the ’80’s but continued to give it aid.
I honestly don’t understand why you feel this way.
Let me say first: Biden will not fix the problem nor be a paradigm change. Unfortunately we are left, again, to debate who is the lesser evil.
On Trump: Iran and Venezuela would disagree that he has employed a No New Wars Policy. Possibly China too. Plus he increased military spending each year.
SecDef Mark Esper is the personification of Deep State – where business interests run governmental institutions and policy. Trump has embraced the DS. It is everywhere in his administration. It runs the COVID response.
Biden, for all his warts, would likely spend less than Trump on the military and is more likely to re-enter the JCPOA, re-enter the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (and others), not develop tactical-nukes and hypersonic weapons, not place missiles in Pacific bases that can reach China, not develop Asian NATO, and re-enter the Paris agreement.
That is better.
The ‘lesser evil’ argument is a pointless fallacy. No matter how many candidates are running and who the candidates are, ‘lesser evil’ can be used to justify voting for a candidate or to not vote at all.
In the end, an ‘evil’ candidate by some definition will get in. Not voting, in material reality, is just acceding to whomever wins as as not voting has no legal or moral effect.
https://ryoc.us/lesser-of-two-evils-fallacy/
Therefore, look instead to discrete, well-defined antiwar goals and who can better realize them.
All Trump’s offensive actions, had an exit strategy built in. Even assassinating General Soleimani, did not result in a larger war with Iran, but facilitated the Iraq withdrawal by removing Iran’s capacity to wage a proxy war in Iraq against the U.S.. This proxy war would also have come at the expense of Iraqis as well as Americans.
Ending the 9/11 wars is a discrete goal. No new wars is a discrete policy accomplishment in that direction.
‘Maybe’ spending less on defense, is not a discrete goal. In any case, reducing defense spending is not any kind of accomplishment. The amount the U.S. government spends on warmaking does not preclude warmaking. Furthermore, the amount spent on defense is already so high, any politically passable reduction will not hobble the war machine.
Democrat Adam Smith has already floated the trial balloon of spending on ‘capability’, which is a rather open ended and undefined term in the context of defense spending. Just as Democrat commitment to end the forever wars hinges on that undefined term “responsibly”.
https://news.antiwar.com/2020/10/30/top-democrat-says-biden-would-change-national-defense-strategy/
https://news.antiwar.com/2020/08/24/trump-and-democrats-both-promise-end-to-forever-wars/
That kind of loophole wording permeates Democratic policy making, whereas Trump has consistently just wanted out with no strings attached, no plan B set in place like when Obama seeded the Islamic State in Iraq before leaving in 2011..
In reality, the MIC’s hard power and soft power wings are going to be scrapping for limited funds. The Democrats prefer the soft power approach to foreign relations, not a less conflictual one. Lest we forget, soft power diplomacy to the U.S. government includes colour revolutions and clandestine proxy armies.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/dems-likely-to-war-over-defense-after-election-navy-a-big-target-hasc-chair-smith/
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/19/democratic-candidates-afghanistan-endless-war/
Trump out means Biden in, and return of war plans upended in 2016 by the Trump victory, and new war plans set in motion under Trump’s nose in anticipation of his defeat.
Biden already expressed an interest in Nagorno-Karabakh, an insane conflict for the U.S. to intervene in.
https://news.antiwar.com/2020/10/14/biden-trump-should-get-more-involved-with-nagorno-karabakh-talks/
Biden will continue the Obama-era pivot to China, and since Obama’s they have plenty of practice breaching the Russian-styled A2/AD zones in Syria likely to be found defending China.
The intermediate-range nuke treaty does not include China, which will always be a sore point with any Adminstration. Add to that, intermediate range missiles are at best cheaper missiles, but otherwise cosmetic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-range_ballistic_missile
The JCPOA does little but free Iran’s wealth for a cash grab by European banks. Much of Iran’s wealth is held by U.S. or U.S.-friendly banks in Asia, and China, including money held in escrow from foreign oil sales. At any time the U.S. could be asked by allies to end the agreement; Trump just decided to do so on his own, demonstrating how empty the agreement was in reality..
Only a strings-free return by Iran into the international community is a satisfactory result. The JCPOA is not a peace treaty, just a political agreement with no legal force.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-department-affirms-iran-deal-only-political-commitment
Thank you for a well-considered response. But I disagree on a few things.
The JSPOA is significant. It allows Iran to prove that their nuclear program is civilian only. It therefore takes away the hawks’ and zionists’ prime rallying-cry for an attack: to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons. If Iran can verify that their program does not produce weapons, then that justification disappears. Exiting the deal clears the way for an attack.
Assassinating Soleimani, plus other “maximum pressure” tactics, invited retaliation specifically to facilitate an attack. It is not an exit strategy but rather an escalation policy. We are fortunate that they have not yet led to war. Further, Trump could end “Iran’s capacity to wage a proxy war” by pulling troops out of Iraq. He won’t.
Rhetoric aside, Trump has done nothing to indicate that a “no new wars policy” exists. His ambition is increased military spending to “help” the economy. If new war results, so be it – to him that means more weapons and a “better” economy.
Plus the “Obama-era pivot to China” was far less aggressive than Trump-era policy. And again, Venezuela is under attack.
Trump’s cabinet members, advisors and actions demonstrate his duplicity. I see no advantage with Trump, only discouragement.
The problem is, in the West pursuing ‘peaceful nuclear power’ with few exceptions meant pursuing the Bomb. A nuclear reactor is a controlled nuclear explosion, greatly slowed down.
This is not unlike how the race for ICBMs was baked into the peaceful space programs of the U.S. and Soviet Union. Once ICBMs were a mature technology, grand interest in space exploration fizzled. Similarly, once enough fissile material was produced, interest in new nuclear reactors, which have never paid for themselves as public utilities, also waned.
Once a country has a working nuclear program, they have the capacity to refine weapons-grade uranium with centrifuges and ability to produce fissile material from a working reactor.
https://ieer.org/resource/factsheets/fissile-material-basics/
So, when one considers that nuclear energy isn’t cheap or cost effective, and Iran is pursuing nuclear energy anyway, its almost impossible to say with certainty that Iran isn’t seeking nuclear weapons capability. ‘Capability’ being the weasel-word of that day. Iranians probably do want secure civilian nuclear energy, oil and gas being needed for export.
Iran can’t attack anyone; their entire strategy is by necessity defensive. Anyone who attacks Iranian soil pays a high price. A few proxy militia in Syria and Iraq are about the best Iran can do offensively.
These Shia militia, are drawn heavily from local Shia with limited loyalties to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Islam operates closer to Protestantism in practice; clerics are not bound to any centralized leadership.
The Shia Crescent, was tightly bound to the person of General Soleimani. Removing Soleimani, and his top Iraq lieutenant al Muhandis, broke the Iranian scimitar at the hilt in Iraq. The sheer stupidity of losing Soleimani, will hardly inspire confidence in Iran’s clerical leadership either.
Trump has been drawing down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Deep State would prefer to drag things out and hope for Biden presidency. It took eight years for Reagan to end Cold War I.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/trump-iraq-troop-pullout/2020/09/09/id/985958/
Popular support for Cold War I was expiring in the West and East by around 1975. The success of the Church Committee in the U.S. and Soviet coverup of the Valery Sablin mutiny in the USSR, marked high tide for corrupt police statism for that era.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/cold-war/truth-behind-movie-hunt-red-october.html
The 9/11 narrative has never been wholly accepted. COVID-1984 is even less acceptable as a pretext. The Russians aren’t even bothering to play; they introuced their COVID vacccine and are done.
The pivot to China and angst at Venezuela precede Trump. These were not static conditions but firmly on worsening traectories. Trump did step in just before being elected, to defuse China’s seizure of a USN drone, which held promise for better Sino-U.S. relations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-tweet-china-seize-us-navy-underwater-drone-south-china-sea-one-china-taiwan-a7482416.html
Trump turned antagonisms away from hot war to trade – then got overwhelmed by the depth of U.S. sinophobia. Trade war, like real war, is a subtle game of timing and action. Yet the RINO Senate tried to scuttle Trump’s ZTE deal, which had won concessions from China. Theoretically, a series of successful small trade actions would put the U.S. in a good position versus China, but that was not to be.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-blocks-zte-deal-rebuke-trump-deal-n882196
Trump has been trying to corner the bottom of sinophobia ever since, and not been successful. At best, he could use sinophobia to balance off demands for even more toxic Russophobia, but the Deep State and too many Americans hate Russia and China both boundlessly.
Trumps advisors are not lone agents but represent constituencies of the Deep State. Bolton’s and Bannon’s extremism are out; totally unrealistic and unworkable to nation state nationalism or imperialist nationalism. Pompeo’s nuanced U.S. imperialism, is under stress but so far has survived. Trump’s advisors are less globalist and more nationalist, which is the important thing.
Hot war would wreck the U.S. political economy and Trump knows it. His quiet ‘no new wars’ strategy is evidence of this. Trump’s controlled escalations also reflect this; initiative to escalate is left to opponents. Neither Syria or Iran care to escalate. Even Robert Gates, whose moderate U.S. imperialism would be totally unwelcome in Washington today, recognizes no new wars as a good thing.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/502659-former-defense-secretary-gates-at-least-trump-hasnt-started-any-new-wars
Trump couldn’t campaign on ‘no new wars’, because all it takes is one terrorist attack on Americans, soldiers or civilians, to throw that out the window.
No sooner did Trump declare victory against Syrian IS in December of 2019, and order the first pullout attempt, then immediately in January 2019 three U.S. soldeirs were killed in a terrorist attack in Manbij, Syria.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-us-troops-syria-withdrawal-20181219-story.html
Somehow, in a restaurant so closely monitored by U.S. forces in Syria and secured by the Kurds, so safe that Americans reguarly visited without trouble, somehow IS terrorists pulled off a successful attack.
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/18/686578315/defense-department-releases-names-of-three-u-s-casualties-in-syria-attack
Meanwhile Russiagate I was on and Trump would need RINO Senate support to defeat impeachment in the Senate.
Anyone claiming that as C-in-C Trump could just arbitrarily order troops out, is disingenuously never-Trumping. The American political system has checks and balances on Executive power, and there is bipartisan elite support for the 9/11 wars. It would seem that anti-Trumpists played their own long game, knowing that if Trump failed to end one war, that was their Trump card in the next election.
Is Biden saying that North Korea has the might to attack south Korea? Is he claiming China might attack south Korea if US troops leave?? Or is it Japan that the US is protecting south Korea from?
Correct me if I am wrong. The US is the invader and military occupier in Korea and south Korea is quite capable of relating to its neighbors sans US.
No, Biden is saying the U.S. reserves the right to attack North Korea or China from South Korea.
Like the rest of the black hat MIC, Biden is sick of Trump’s no new wars policy and foreign troop reduction plans.
Long term Long War plans were being jeopardized. South Korea has continued fortressing Jeju Island and others.
https://truthout.org/articles/jeju-island-base-divides-national-green-groups/
https://www.foxnews.com/world/south-korea-to-make-islands-near-north-korea-fortresses
” The US is the invader and military occupier ”
The US is there at the invitation of the South Korean government. We should not be there, but we are not an invader or an occupier.
South Korea’s military is five times more powerful than the North’s. Biden shouldn’t threaten to withdraw, he should just do it. Leave one base with a thousand troops as a symbol, but remove the rest to include the tens of thousands of American family members.
Biden is not threatening to withdraw, he’s threatening to stay and up the ante.
President Trump is the one who threatened to withdraw and make peace with North Korea.
Why leave 1000 US troops as a target? Bring them all home. Your “symbol” is just a way to get the US into an Asian land war again.
Of course Biden wouldn’t threaten to remove troops from North Korea. He’d double down and triple down if he could find the money.
Biden in, means Trump’s no new wars policy is over, and escalations would not be political theatre but in deadly earnest to continue the Long War.
Comparing Little Kim to Hitler, is just plain ignorant Bidenism. Hitler was a Western imperialist wannabe with grand designs on Russia and an military that was the cutting-edge of its day.
Kim Jong-Un commands a slightly backwards half-a-country, 1950’s military, and bold ambitions to remain nominally independent.