Trump Asks Tokyo to Quadruple Payments for U.S. Troops in Japan

[skews13]

As Washington seeks to renew denuclearization talks with Pyongyang, U.S. President Donald Trump is asking Japan, a longtime ally that the United States leans on for stability in the region, to pay drastically more to cover the cost of a continued U.S. military presence in that country.

The administration has asked Tokyo to pay roughly four times as much per year to offset the costs of stationing more than 50,000 U.S. troops there, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy. Then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Matt Pottinger, the National Security Council’s Asia director at the time, delivered the request to Japanese officials during a trip to the region in July, the officials said.

Japan is not the only Asian ally the United States is asking to cough up more money for continued U.S. troop presence. The officials confirmed that during that same trip, Bolton and Pottinger made a similar demand of South Korea, which hosts 28,500 U.S. troops, asking Seoul to pay five times as much as it currently does. CNN and Reuters previously reported that Trump had demanded Seoul increase its contribution.

(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...

AND TO GO ALONGVWITH THAT......

The Trump administration is reportedly demanding South Korea pay 400% more for U.S. troops in the region, officials said.

The president’s demands for an increase in spending of about $4.7 billion came as Defense Department Secretary Mark Esper is visiting South Korea to discuss the change in military costs, saying South Korea is wealthy enough to cover what the president is asking for, according to CNN, citing a congressional aide and an administration official.

“Sustaining the costs of our global military presence is not a burden that should fall on the US taxpayer alone but is a responsibility that should be shared fairly with allies and partners who benefit from our presence,” a State Department spokesperson said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 400% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, sources say. (Corrects price tag increase percentage) Trump hikes prices tag for US forces in Korea almost 400% as Seoul fumes, frets - CNNPolitics

— CNN (@CNN) November 15, 2019

Esper said during a joint press conference with South Korean Minister of National Defense Jeong Kyeong-doo that South Korea is a wealthy enough country to foot part of the United States’ bill for military forces in the area, according to The Associated Press.

“This is a very strong alliance we have, but [South] Korea is a wealthy country and could and should pay more to help offset the cost of defense,” Esper said, adding that while South Korea has given the U.S. “a fair amount of support in the past … most of that money stays here in this country — easily over 90% of that money stays here in Korea, it does not go to the United States.”

(Excerpt) Read more at infowars.com ...

It's about time we stopped supporting the world ... for free. The only Americans 'benefiting BIG TIME' were Wahington elites milking fees from speeches, book deals and demanding butt kissing from foreigners...

Those days are over - thank YOU President Trump.

You're an idiot. Who do you thinks best interest is served by US troops being in Japan, ans South Korea?

So if we lose geographical strategic advantage of the area in air and naval power, and South Korea is over run by the north, that will really help our cause woudn't it?

This is what happens when you have a traitor in the White House.
The founders warned that this would happen, and their worst fears are coming true.

Trump is going to lose all of the gains made by the WW2 and Korean war generation.

Why don't you Trumpettes all go piss on their graves at Arlington Cemetery.

 

[Godboy]

As Washington seeks to renew denuclearization talks with Pyongyang, U.S. President Donald Trump is asking Japan, a longtime ally that the United States leans on for stability in the region, to pay drastically more to cover the cost of a continued U.S. military presence in that country.

The administration has asked Tokyo to pay roughly four times as much per year to offset the costs of stationing more than 50,000 U.S. troops there, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy. Then-National Security Advisor John Bolton and Matt Pottinger, the National Security Council’s Asia director at the time, delivered the request to Japanese officials during a trip to the region in July, the officials said.

Japan is not the only Asian ally the United States is asking to cough up more money for continued U.S. troop presence. The officials confirmed that during that same trip, Bolton and Pottinger made a similar demand of South Korea, which hosts 28,500 U.S. troops, asking Seoul to pay five times as much as it currently does. CNN and Reuters previously reported that Trump had demanded Seoul increase its contribution.

(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...

AND TO GO ALONGVWITH THAT......

The Trump administration is reportedly demanding South Korea pay 400% more for U.S. troops in the region, officials said.

The president’s demands for an increase in spending of about $4.7 billion came as Defense Department Secretary Mark Esper is visiting South Korea to discuss the change in military costs, saying South Korea is wealthy enough to cover what the president is asking for, according to CNN, citing a congressional aide and an administration official.

“Sustaining the costs of our global military presence is not a burden that should fall on the US taxpayer alone but is a responsibility that should be shared fairly with allies and partners who benefit from our presence,” a State Department spokesperson said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Trump is demanding that South Korea pay roughly 400% more in 2020 to cover the cost of keeping US troops on the peninsula, sources say. (Corrects price tag increase percentage) Trump hikes prices tag for US forces in Korea almost 400% as Seoul fumes, frets - CNNPolitics

— CNN (@CNN) November 15, 2019

Esper said during a joint press conference with South Korean Minister of National Defense Jeong Kyeong-doo that South Korea is a wealthy enough country to foot part of the United States’ bill for military forces in the area, according to The Associated Press.

“This is a very strong alliance we have, but [South] Korea is a wealthy country and could and should pay more to help offset the cost of defense,” Esper said, adding that while South Korea has given the U.S. “a fair amount of support in the past … most of that money stays here in this country — easily over 90% of that money stays here in Korea, it does not go to the United States.”

(Excerpt) Read more at infowars.com ...

It's about time we stopped supporting the world ... for free. The only Americans 'benefiting BIG TIME' were Wahington elites milking fees from speeches, book deals and demanding butt kissing from foreigners...

Those days are over - thank YOU President Trump.

You're an idiot. Who do you thinks best interest is served by US troops being in Japan, ans South Korea?

So if we lose geographical strategic advantage of the area in air and naval power, and South Korea is over run by the north, that will really help our cause woudn't it?

This is what happens when you have a traitor in the White House.
The founders warned that this would happen, and their worst fears are coming true.

Trump is going to lose all of the gains made by the WW2 and Korean war generation.

Why don't you Trumpettes all go piss on their graves at Arlington Cemetery.

If you have evidence that there is a traitor in the White House, you should alert the authorities.

 

[pknopp]

Both are facts we currently see.

No we do not. You need to support your ridiculous claim with real facts.

What have we "won" in Afghanistan?

We killed thousands of terrorists. The taliban once controlled 95% of the country, now they only have 14%. Terrorists stopped hiding out there too. Im quite happy with those results. I imagine the good people of Afghanistan are happy about it too.

We have no clue who is who there.

Thats not true. We have a pretty decent idea of whos there. You know who is not there? Terrorist leaders.

We call them terrorists. The people of Afghanistan call them neighbors.

 

[Godboy]

No we do not. You need to support your ridiculous claim with real facts.

What have we "won" in Afghanistan?

We killed thousands of terrorists. The taliban once controlled 95% of the country, now they only have 14%. Terrorists stopped hiding out there too. Im quite happy with those results. I imagine the good people of Afghanistan are happy about it too.

We have no clue who is who there.

Thats not true. We have a pretty decent idea of whos there. You know who is not there? Terrorist leaders.

We call them terrorists. The people of Afghanistan call them neighbors.

You clearly don't understand what life was like under Taliban rule.

 

[pknopp]

What have we "won" in Afghanistan?

We killed thousands of terrorists. The taliban once controlled 95% of the country, now they only have 14%. Terrorists stopped hiding out there too. Im quite happy with those results. I imagine the good people of Afghanistan are happy about it too.

We have no clue who is who there.

Thats not true. We have a pretty decent idea of whos there. You know who is not there? Terrorist leaders.

We call them terrorists. The people of Afghanistan call them neighbors.

You clearly don't understand what life was like under Taliban rule.

Is that why we get no help from them?

 

[JoeB131]

What are we going to do if Japan and South Korea refuse to pay any more money?

We leave.

And cede East Asia to China? Really? This is a solution to you?

Seems a bit racist but ok

History is racist, now? You are sounding like a liberal snowflake.

Okay-the reality. Japan probably could rearm, but almost everyone else in Asia would object. They have long memories.

 

[pknopp]

What are we going to do if Japan and South Korea refuse to pay any more money?

We leave.

And cede East Asia to China? Really? This is a solution to you?

Seems a bit racist but ok

History is racist, now? You are sounding like a liberal snowflake.

Okay-the reality. Japan probably could rearm, but almost everyone else in Asia would object. They have long memories.

It's bad to attack other countries that never attacked you?

 

[JoeB131]

It's bad to attack other countries that never attacked you?

Depends on the country... for instance, if the country is run by a genocidal madman... attacking it is just fine.

 

[pknopp]

It's bad to attack other countries that never attacked you?

Depends on the country... for instance, if the country is run by a genocidal madman... attacking it is just fine.

Right, it always "depends". Hypocrisy in its finest.

 

[JoeB131]

Right, it always "depends". Hypocrisy in its finest.

Darn straight it does.

Frankly, I get sick and tired of liberals who were all for taking out Saddam before we invaded, all mewling because it was harder than we thought it would be.

Saddam was a bastard. Taking him out was a good thing. How we handled the aftermath was fucked up.

 

[Godboy]

We killed thousands of terrorists. The taliban once controlled 95% of the country, now they only have 14%. Terrorists stopped hiding out there too. Im quite happy with those results. I imagine the good people of Afghanistan are happy about it too.

We have no clue who is who there.

Thats not true. We have a pretty decent idea of whos there. You know who is not there? Terrorist leaders.

We call them terrorists. The people of Afghanistan call them neighbors.

You clearly don't understand what life was like under Taliban rule.

Is that why we get no help from them?

Youre dumb for believing that.

 

[pknopp]

Right, it always "depends". Hypocrisy in its finest.

Darn straight it does.

Frankly, I get sick and tired of liberals who were all for taking out Saddam before we invaded, all mewling because it was harder than we thought it would be.

Saddam was a bastard. Taking him out was a good thing. How we handled the aftermath was fucked up.

You are discussing this with me, not your fellow hypocrites.

What we did was exactly what we condemned Saddam for doing. That is what we do.

 

[pknopp]

We have no clue who is who there.

Thats not true. We have a pretty decent idea of whos there. You know who is not there? Terrorist leaders.

We call them terrorists. The people of Afghanistan call them neighbors.

You clearly don't understand what life was like under Taliban rule.

Is that why we get no help from them?

Youre dumb for believing that.

And yet that is what happened.

 

[August West]

Right, it always "depends". Hypocrisy in its finest.

Darn straight it does.

Frankly, I get sick and tired of liberals who were all for taking out Saddam before we invaded, all mewling because it was harder than we thought it would be.

Saddam was a bastard. Taking him out was a good thing. How we handled the aftermath was fucked up.

Saddam was tried and convicted of killing people in 1982 and 1988 so we were a little bit late for liberating anybody. I don`t know one liberal who was in favor of removing SH. His name rarely made the newspapers after Desert Storm. We wanted to kill some Muslims after 9-11 so we invaded a country that had no military to speak of. It was going to be a "cake walk" we were told. Was taking out Saddam worth 4,500 dead plus 20,000 wounded including 6,000 double amputations?

 

[Godboy]

Thats not true. We have a pretty decent idea of whos there. You know who is not there? Terrorist leaders.

We call them terrorists. The people of Afghanistan call them neighbors.

You clearly don't understand what life was like under Taliban rule.

Is that why we get no help from them?

Youre dumb for believing that.

And yet that is what happened.

No, the opposite happened. Youre dumb for saying that twice.

 

[JoeB131]

You are discussing this with me, not your fellow hypocrites.

What we did was exactly what we condemned Saddam for doing. That is what we do.

If we turned Iraq into a colony like he tried to do with Kuwait, you might have a point.

Saddam was tried and convicted of killing people in 1982 and 1988 so we were a little bit late for liberating anybody. I don`t know one liberal who was in favor of removing SH.

Really? So when Biden, Lieberman, Hillary, Kerry, Edwards and 22 other Senate Democrats voted to authorize Bush to take out Saddam, what did they think he was going to do, give him a stern talking to?

Come on, this is why people don't trust Democrats... They're pussies. They were all for the war when it started, and totally against it when the going got tough....

The young men and women we sent over there to fight didn't have that option.

 

[pknopp]

We call them terrorists. The people of Afghanistan call them neighbors.

You clearly don't understand what life was like under Taliban rule.

Is that why we get no help from them?

Youre dumb for believing that.

And yet that is what happened.

No, the opposite happened. Youre dumb for saying that twice.

The best example is Iraq. We spent millions (maybe billions) training their army (or so we were told) and what happened when we turned the country over to them? They just went home.

18 years and we are still there with no end in sight.

 

[pknopp]

You are discussing this with me, not your fellow hypocrites.

What we did was exactly what we condemned Saddam for doing. That is what we do.

If we turned Iraq into a colony like he tried to do with Kuwait, you might have a point.

What do you consider an 18 year occupation?

The hypocrisy of others does not excuse yours.

 

[JoeB131]

What do you consider an 18 year occupation?

Bad planning.

We should have used the model that we used for Germany and Japan after WWII. Prop them back up as quickly as possible.

Instead, we insisted that no one who was a member of the Ba'ath Party could be part of the new government, but that was nearly anyone who knew how to run the country.

We disbanded Saddam's Army instead of keeping it on the payroll to keep order. They all joined various militias.

We should have gone in with 500,000 troops instead of the 130,000 Bush went in with.

It's another case where civilians with no military experience tried to tell the professional soldiers their jobs and failed.

 

[pknopp]

What do you consider an 18 year occupation?

Bad planning.

We should have used the model that we used for Germany and Japan after WWII. Prop them back up as quickly as possible.

Instead, we insisted that no one who was a member of the Ba'ath Party could be part of the new government, but that was nearly anyone who knew how to run the country.

We disbanded Saddam's Army instead of keeping it on the payroll to keep order. They all joined various militias.

We should have gone in with 500,000 troops instead of the 130,000 Bush went in with.

It's another case where civilians with no military experience tried to tell the professional soldiers their jobs and failed.

So you agree. We fail at this but you are going to argue we should continue doing it? We have failed over and over.