Seoul rejects Trump's demand it pay for THAAD missile system

Good on SK for blowing off Trump on this one. Trump just can't help what comes out of his mouth.

No surprises here as the US economy has the largest arms producing economy the world has ever seen-of course the US wants to sell a middle defense system to the

Koreans

Trump is a real estate businessman and he knows where to make profit, how to make profit and profit from the lands of 'Danger' !

How transparent.  Trump riles up L'il Kim, sounds off that war is imminent and then issues demands to the South.  Knowing that all L'il Kim can do is shell Seoul.  Typical protection racket.  And like the South paying for the THAAD system is a big deal in terms of overall US defence expenditure.

There is much likelihood that there would be a less of a threat from NK if Trump had not started his schoolboy bully tactics of "if China doesn't fi it, we will". 

The man is a clown.

I guess he didn't read the terms of agreement carefully enough. Awkward.

I can absolutely understand why China is infuriated. The US has them absolutely ringed and hemmed in in their own neighbourhood, amid this perverse underlying meta narrative that a bourgeoning China is somehow a threat to world peace and regional security.

China are a huge nation, with a right to exert influence proportionate to it's size and status in 2017. It's true, they are being bolder and showing signs of expansion in the South China Sea. But, think of the position the US has manoeuvred them into over the last 70 odd years?

We just accept that the US has 1000 odd military bases and installations on foreign soils. There is hardly any dissent to the Empire and it's undertakings. But when China does something that absolutely pales in comparison and context? Woah, Nellie!

I don't believe the narrative that China are any kind of threat to stability. They have proven to be the level head in this current trouble. But the US? Well.....

China are a huge nation, with a right to exert influence proportionate to it's size and status in 2017. 

Tell me, which country would you rather live and work in? China? Or the US? Have you been to China? One's status is not relative to one's size. The biggest man in the room is very seldom the best man in the room. There are few things that I like about China, and many things that I don't. You don't see people from around the world rushing to immigrate to China, but you still see countless Chinese hoping to get out. And even today, the place they most want to go to is America.

You seem to forget that when all of these military bases were built that there was still a Soviet Union, and China was still under Mao. Do you remember how many Soviets and Chinese were killed in the purges? Do you remember that the goals of the Soviet Union and China were to create world socialism of the type they practiced? Their plan was not unlike Hitler's plans for world dominance, or Japan's "Hakko Ichiu".

There is no such thing as a perfect system of government, because any and all forms of government are inherently corrupt and all-consuming. You can decry the wars and conflicts of the past 50 or 60 years from American interventionism, or imperialism, and complain about the loss of life. But arguably, were it not for America, much more blood might have been spilled.

Ironically, Trump seems to be trying to stop American interventionism by requiring allies to pull their own weight, and manage their own affairs. Which would you rather have?

North Korea is not Trump's baby. The difficulty we are now facing with North Korea are the fault of the previous 4 US administrations, which had sat on their hands and allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, but to build delivery systems as well.

If China is unhappy with having an American THAAD system set up in South Korea, they have themselves to blame for it. China hold's North Korea's leash, and when China cannot keep it's increasingly rabid pet under control, they cannot complain when neighbors start to build a taller fence.

I don't believe the narrative that China are any kind of threat to stability. They have proven to be the level head in this current trouble. But the US? Well.....

The sad thing is, you're right.

It's a messed up day and age where we can trust China over the president of the USA.

Trump thinks he has nice 'protection' racket going.

SO many Hollywood movies about the little guy telling the racketeer to f-off.

Tell me, which country would you rather live and work in? China? Or the US?

I would live in either, under the right circumstances, but both would be a distant 3rd, behind Japan and Australia.

You seem to forget that when all of these military bases were built that there was still a Soviet Union, and China was still under Mao.

What about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Naval_Base

Or this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-24/us-military-aircraft-marines-darwin-stars-and-stripes-australia/8206768

Do you remember how many Soviets and Chinese were killed in the purges? Do you remember that the goals of the Soviet Union and China were to create world socialism of the type they practiced?

Yes, I do. But are we talking about contemporary China here? I am. Are they the same thing? No. Goals of world Socialism? Please show me evidence of contemporary China's goal to turn the world into a socialist order. I'm happy to look at it if you can. I might point out to you though, that it is the US that has aggressively and purposefully pushed it's agenda in different parts of the world for a long, long time. And if you think that has been done for the good of the people in each place it has happened, you are spectacularly naive. It has resulted in a LOT of deaths though. Has China done this on anywhere near the scale?

But arguably, were it not for America, much more blood might have been spilled.

Yah mate, this is very, very arguable. It's also part of the bs meta narrative that has justified US involvement (read:hegemony). I do not believe that for one second. Not one.

Ironically, Trump seems to be trying to stop American interventionism by requiring allies to pull their own weight, and manage their own affairs. Which would you rather have?

Does this actually make sense?

The difficulty we are now facing with North Korea are the fault of the previous 4 US administrations, which had sat on their hands and allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons, but to build delivery systems as well.

The blind arrogance of this statement is extraordinary. Why is it YOUR job to manage North Korea at all?! It's not. It's not your world. There are 194 other countries in the world to consider here. What do THEY want? Have you even bothered to ask? Do you think you should?

If China is unhappy with having an American THAAD system set up in South Korea, they have themselves to blame for it.

Yep, beautiful. That's the way to shift blame man. Just lump it on China. It's really their fault. They deserve everything they get here. That's the meta narrative, right there.

its very easy let America tell them to protect themselves and no longer support peace or war in this region including japan if America is such a big problem then What is Kim a fat problem of a pig it amazes me that if a country asks for protection they dont appreciate what they get once the Question of money or help in installing this protection costs

sangetsu03 Today  05:11 pm JST

"China are a huge nation, with a right to exert influence proportionate to it's size and status in 2017. "

Tell me, which country would you rather live and work in?

Can we get rid of this red-herring fallacy where we respond to a question about what a country has a right to do with a question about what country we want to live in? It's irrelevant. Most of us don't especially want to live in say, Kazakhstan, but that doesn't mean their sovereign rights magically disappear just because they're not a popular immigration destination.

People choose where they want to live based on their personal quirks. We should be deciding what countries have a right to do based on rational principles. The notion that China's rights are proportional to its size is fallacious on its own merits, we don't need to introduce a totally different fallacy to defeat it.

it amazes me that if a country asks for protection they dont appreciate what they get once the Question of money or help in installing this protection costs

If you sign an agreement or contract, then you don't violate it or change it. The US agreed to pay for the cost and operation, while South Korea agreed to provide the area and infrastructures. It amazes me that people actually think they can violate an agreement willy nilly. Speaking of "the question of money", I'm pretty sure South Korea will economically benefit with having the THAADs removed by being able to access to China's market again, not to mention, having less tension in the region.

Just let Mr. Mattis do all the talking in this sphere of politics.

I don't believe the narrative that China are any kind of threat to stability. They have proven to be the level head in this current trouble. But the US? Well.....

Have they really? Is the 9 Dash Line level headed? Constant incursions into Japanese waters is level headed? Banning names and religious practices is level headed?

What level headed thing have they done outside of encouraging the DPRK and US not to begin a military conflict? (which wouldn't have happened anyways)

Snakes in the grass my friends... at least the American agenda is not hidden.