≡ Menu

This and that regarding USFK cost-sharing agreement

The Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) announced today that it has started a preliminary investigation to see if the Korean moneys paid for the upkeep of USFK are being used properly:

The probe is taking place while the South Korean government is waiting for parliamentary approval of its agreement to pay 920 billion won (US$866 million) for U.S. troops this year, a 5.8 percent increase from the previous year.

The move comes after a left-leaning civic group, Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea, in October requested a probe into the fund use after data showed that the U.S. is sitting on more than 1 trillion won of unspent defense funds paid by Seoul.

The investigation is to mainly focus on whether there was any attempt to evade taxes on interest from unspent cash paid by Seoul, according to officials.

Yes, that would be this Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea, led in part by that Kang Jeong-koo and a priest best known for illegally visiting North Korea. You’ll also recall that the lawmaker who’d been spearheading allegations of USFK “cash-hoarding” was none other than Rep. Lee Seok-ki.

Yes, that Lee Seok-ki.

As GI Korea said way back when:

[T]he money is likely being stockpiled in anticipation of whenever the big move to Camp Humphreys takes place. Moving all the servicemembers from Yongsan and the 2nd Infantry Division to Camp Humphreys is not going to be cheap. However, if you are a North Korean spy looking to create discord between the Korean public and the US military this is a great issue to demagogue.

Still, the fact that the BAI has decided to launch a preliminary investigation suggests that the public is insufficiently satisfied with USFK transparency. The recent cost-sharing agreement includes mechanisms to boost transparency, but the DP is promising to take a tough look at the agreement when it goes to the National Assembly for approval. You can read more about the “blowback” here.

It’s important to realize that it’s not just allegedly pro-North Korean elements raising the issue of transparency. The reliably pro-American Chosun Ilbo warns in an editorial:

Saddled with a huge fiscal deficit, the U.S. is trying to cut spending while focusing its strategy in Asia on Japan. If South Korea resists any calls to take on a greater share of the cost at a time like this, it may end up sidelined in policies involving Northeast Asian security and North Korea. It must therefore approach the issue from a diplomatic rather than fiscal perspective.

But an important point is whether there will be increased transparency in how the money is being spent. Washington has agreed to provide more information, but it remains to be seen just how much, since there is no legally binding clause in the agreement to ensure this.

The U.S. did not spend around W710 billion it received from South Korea as part of upkeep, but Seoul had no idea of this for some time. If this happens again, the South Korean public will only become more opposed to any rise in Seoul’s share of the cost. Both the U.S. and South Korea must be careful not to let the cost issue damage their alliance.

The likewise reliably pro-American Dong-A Ilbo also cites transparency concerns, and adds a demand that now that Korea is paying more to maintain USFK, the United States should make concessions on other security-related issues, by which it means Washington should agree to delay the transfer of wartime operational command to the second coming of Christ and lift restrictions on Korean nuclear development:

The two countries have yet to hold negotiations over revision to the bilateral nuclear treaty and another postponement of the transfer of wartime operational control. On the nuclear talks, the two sides delayed the deadline by two years to 2016, but have yet to narrow major differences despite nine rounds of talks. The planned transfer of wartime operational control is scheduled in December 2015, but it is uncertain whether the transfer will be postponed again. How negotiations over these issues are concluded will determine not only Korea’s security but also the nation’s nuclear technology development and the future of export. Since Korea has made concessions in the talks over defense cost sharing, the U.S. should make sincere efforts to resolve the remaining issues.

The Hankyoreh, meanwhile, didn’t find much to celebrate at all. I do think its call for an itemized standard like Japan is worth considering, though:

The talks basically left in place the current framework, leaving the US with discretionary authority on how to spend the money once a total amount is agreed on. Many had called for a system more along the lines of the Japanese one, where spending is decided on an item-by-item basis as needed. It would have been worth the headaches to find a way of adopting an itemized standard while working to minimize the financial costs. It’s also unfortunate that they failed to produce any real answers on how to use the 1,352.3 billion won in previous defense contributions that haven’t been used.

Of course, if we end up itemizing like Japan, we might want to demand Korea start paying like Japan, too. Even under the most recently signed agreement, Korea is paying less than 50% of USFK’s upkeep costs. Japan, I believe, pays something in the neighborhood of 70% (please correct me if I’m wrong here), and according to the Chosun Ilbo editorial linked above, Tokyo was asking Washington to make Seoul pay more in accordance with its much-improved economic power.

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • wangkon936

    Percentage wise… it’s still less that what the Japanese are paying the Americans.

  • http://www.bcarr.com/ Brendon Carr

    Regarding evidence of intent to evade taxes, I suggest the lawmakers take a look at the Status of Forces Agreement, where such intent is clearly stated and expressly agreed.

  • BSDetector

    They can investigate all they want, they’ll find that all money sits in non-interest bearing accounts. That’s what was agreed upon and that’s how it is.

  • Wedge1

    Money is fungible; it doesn’t matter where or how it’s spent. The only valid question is whether it’s worth paying that much to keep U.S. troops here.

  • pawikirogii

    korea is a developing nation and of course, pays less than the yasukunese. let’s keep that in mind and make proper remarks regarding this issue. also, korea can’t pay the bill in full because that would make the us gi a mercenary and we can’t have that. the us should pay most of the cost in providing assistance in assisting the koreans defending korea.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    That would be fine, but you cannot expect to both slam and oppose USFK presence here, going as far as electing openly anti-American presidents, and turn around asking for the US to PAY FOR YOUR DEFENSE. Korea CAN pay more, it is a rich country today; but even if the money isn’t paid, less hypocrisy and entitlement would be welcome.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    1) Korea is a developed and no longer a developing country.
    2) Even if Korea pays the full expense, the American soldier would not be mercenaries
    3) Korea should pay most of the US’s expense in defending Korea because even if Korea paid 100% of the US’s expense, Korea would still pay significantly less than if Korea had to pay for its own defense.

    Yeah, the argument is that simple.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    It is simple as this: 20,000 US soldiers = 400,000 additional ROK soldiers; this includes the additional weaponry and equipment in the same proportions. And I am probably underestimating the disparity. It really is time to STOP BITING THE HAND THAT FEEDS AND PROTECTS.

  • Todd M

    U.S. troops should have been out of Korea shortly after the cold war ended. Give Korean negotiators credit; they understand American exceptionalism – little funding for infrastructure, education and science, or the lazy unemployed and poor; lots for the MI complex.

  • seoulite

    As a preliminary cost-benefit analysis, the SK government could try computing these figures.

    i) Korea’s current annual GDP – Cost of protecting that GDP = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    iii) GDP – cost of USFK + predicted gains from NK-led unification and economic restruction = – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – $

  • pawikirogii

    1. many still regard korea as developing and thus we should not expect the korea to pay the same amount as japan.

    2. why wouldn’t they be mercenaries? if koreas pays for them then they would be mercenaries. that’s what the expat says about the korean soldier in vietnam, isn’t it?

    3. korea does pay for it’s defense and it just upped its payment to the us military. your suggestion that korea pay for the bill in full is unreasonable and predicated on your belief that the us gets nothing and does things for free.

    yeah, the argument is that simple.

  • pawikirogii

    you know, ya get on my god damn nerves. you are a former communist from eastern europe, you are not in position to judge koreans. and just because of you, i’m not buying an eastern european car!

  • Anonymous_Joe

    1. Just because many regard K-pop as the apotheosis of music doesn’t make it so. I don’t care if many regard the moon as being made of green cheese.

    2. By the definition of mercenaries.

    3. Your suggestion that I suggested that Korea pay for the bill in full is unreasonable.

    ****************************
    A few moments ago and in another tab,. the post by seoulite showed pawi’s name. I suggest that seoulite socks for pawi. Whether seoulite or pawi, if you want to debate my opinions or quibble with my words, make sure they are my opinions and words.

  • ryuNchoosk

    When S. Korea ~ hosts of the next Winter Olympics after Sochi ~ starts being transparent on the skiing snow base(depth for the non-skiing numbskulls) on each and everyone one of its skiing mountains, then, and only then, should the U. S. let S. Korea be its military accountants.

  • Richard Hankin

    I thought I had read somewhere that Seoul does a nice job of being less than transparent itself as in buying Hyundai cars for USFK at LIST price and takes that off their obligation while in reality they get a huge discount from Hyundai..padding the books as it where.
    I do not know if this is true but let’s hope this transparency is also applicable to Korea.

  • kaizenmx

    Wouldn’t it be more easy if US just gives SK to right to have a nuclear arsenal, like the jews and pull the troops out of the peninsula?

  • redwhitedude

    Are you sure the US gave the Jews that right? They kept their nuclear program hidden until it was leaked.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Why am I not in position to judge Koreans? Its simple, really. The superiority of 20,000 US soldiers is part their fighting ability and how well they are armed but mostly it is both psychological and their trip-wire function. The Norks are not scared of South Koreans and if you took the Americans out of the equation, an additional 400,000 ROK soldiers, or even 500,000 of them would still give the ROK a smaller army than the North. Granted, they are better equipped and fed but the Norks probably figure that a couple million poorly armed , hungry but desperate and fully indoctrinated Norks storming down the peninsula would get the job done. Its not like the leadership cares about casualties. The end game is control of the peninsula and they probably figure that the US would be slow to counter and maybe even hesitant to do so if presented with a fait accompli. The 20,000 US soldiers here pretty much ensure the US gets involved if the ROK is attacked.

    The psychological element is there too. The Norks ARE afraid of the Americans and probably figure, and rightly so, that 20,000 US GIs are more battle ready than the softy Korean conscripts, most of whom look like highschool boys, and better equipped. And who can blame them?

  • wangkon936

    Yeah, I don’t think the U.S. gave Israel “the right” to have nukes. I think the Israel’s didn’t give a shit about what America thought and just bought the fissionable material from the French and started their own program, world opinion be damned.

    Technically, Israel doesn’t have any nuclear “weapons” per se. Components for nuclear weapons are in pieces and can be put together quickly in event of war. So, Israel can look people in the face and say that they don’t have “nuclear weapons.” It’s a layer of plausible deniability.

  • wangkon936

    SMS,

    Basic rule of warfare vocalized eloquently by Napoleon:

    “An army marches on its stomach.”

    A solider who doesn’t eat can’t fight. Guns need bullets, troops need food. Logistics often determine who wins in war. In WWII the Germans often had better weapons. The Americans always had better logistics. I predict that the North Korean army can fight one week tops before their logistical system is exhausted of supplies and its men, vehicles and weapons of war no longer have the ability to push on.

  • wangkon936

    The Japanese do this also…. Toyota trucks and Komatsu excavators instead of Fords and Caterpillars. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Germans did this also.

    Any ways, the money, supply and service “equivalents” that Japan gives to U.S. Forces Japan have a lot of “padding.”

  • dlbarch

    Given that most of South Korea’s “Special Measures Assistance” cost sharing, or whatever its termed these days, is “re-circulated” back into Korean hands and the Korean economy by way of salaries to Korean workers, contracts with Korean firms, and local construction work, I can’t imagine why this modest and loooooong overdue increase in Korea’s defense burden is an issue at all.

    Once one gets the full gist of just how much Korea remains a free-rider on defense — now it its THIRD DECADE of being a truly first world country — one really has to put into context Robert’s insistance that the Chosun, Dong-A, et al. are “pro-American” newspapers.

    The Chosun, Dong-A, and JoongAng papers are pro-American in the sense that one might adore one’s parents for buying them a BMW for graduation. If Washington were to ever apply a bit of tough-love to its relationship with Seoul on issues ranging from trade reciprocity to true defense burden-sharing, these newspapers would show their true colors in a heartbeat…which they already do from time to time when these very issues come up.

    But I’m not complaining. The fact that Robert felt compelled to describe these newspapers as pro-American in the first place suggests, to me at least, that such description was warranted, because it’s not at all self-evident that they are.

    DLB

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Numbers often win. Nature looks to fill vacuums. And if we go with your food argument, the hungry will go where the food is – South. War is also fought, or at least started, on delusion: Hitler thought he could conquer the world, and he tried to do it. As far as better logistics or equipment, none of that helped the better equipped, better trained Germans in Russia where they were defeated by a mass of hungry, often shoe-less Russians. War, in other words is complex and so many things happen that we can never predict with certainty. Do the South Koreans have the spirit to fight? I am not sure if they do. Theoretically they have the better army, but left to their own devices, how can we say what would happen? The difference between the North and the South is too close for other, unpredictable, factors not to sway the war one way or another. The US has that large advantage that makes it much more clear cut. Sure, the US did not do well in Vietnam and they have had trouble in Afghanistan, but a Korea war would be much more the kind of war the US military is so good at fighting. In the end, its not the outcome of the war that people are stressing over, but the start of it; for no matter how short the war would be, the first few days or weeks would be all out brutality.

  • dlbarch

    Oh, and in case there are any sensitive souls out there thinking that these observations apply only to Korea, think again. I think most of America’s allies are free-riders on national security and global defense burden-sharing.

    Unfortunately, America only has itself to blame. It could change the status quo in a heartbeat if it really wanted to…and, of course, it doesn’t really want to.

    An equal opportunity America-firster, I remain,

    DLB

  • wangkon936

    DLB,

    If you were the same age that you are today in say December 6th, 1941, I would say you would have been an isolationist and an appeaser.

  • dlbarch

    No, WK, America-firsters are not isolationists and are not appeasers, and weren’t in 1941 either.

    But SOME high-profile America-firsters were, which is why the association has stuck…much to America’s lasting detriment.

    But anyone reading this blog for any length of time knows I am a full-throated defense and trade hawk.

    And if I were a nationalist, 40-something Korean policy wonk type, I’d be the first to recommend that Seoul man up, thank the U.S for its six decades of asstance, and say, amicably, “Thanks, Washington, but we’ll take it from here.”

    DLB

  • wangkon936

    Another thing the Americans don’t have to worry about in South Korea is if a certain “vill” is housing and feeding North Korean troops. Even the Korean War of the 50′s was never really that kind of war. It was in certain areas, but wasn’t for long.

  • seouldout

    I’m convinced your #2 went right over pawi’s head.

    And yes, you’re not the first to notice that several accounts appear to be pawi’s socks. Several months ago I posted screen shots of a comment made by pawi/redwhitedude.

  • Bob Bobbs

    I love unsupported statements as much as the next stateless person with a cultural identity complex- and I know a wee bit about both sides of the tracks in DHMG- but if the world’s 12th largest economy in a world of roughly 200 economies isn’t developed, what is? The possession of such infrastructure as it has, a somewhat healthy population and a sizable chunk of what used to be the Western manufacturing industry all make SK a developed country. It’s the mock servility that holds you back (and makes you in particular, due to your adopted American messianic complex, particularly volatile).

  • Richard Hankin

    When the French decided to intervene in Mali, despite having bases in Chad, they still needed US assistance in surveillance and air tankers. A FIRST world power and they have TWO air refueling tankers!!!!
    NATO has been admonished for years to increase defense spending to no avail. Indeed they have gone in the opposite direction with the Brits leading the way and becoming a third rate power.

  • arbeiter

    Ah, yes, the Japanese again.

  • seouldout

    “Given that most of South Korea’s “Special Measures Assistance” cost
    sharing, or whatever its termed these days, is “re-circulated” back into
    Korean hands and the Korean economy by way of salaries to Korean
    workers, contracts with Korean firms, and local construction work, I
    can’t imagine why this modest and loooooong overdue increase in Korea’s
    defense burden is an issue at all.”

    This is often missing from the news reports of Korea’s “contribution”. I suspect most readers believe that Korea contributes to the cost of GI salaries, support (food, billeting,transport, etc.), equipment, training, etc. Moreover by agreement the US is very limited in hiring non-Korean civilians and awarding contracts to non-Korean firms, so really the US taxpayer is picking up more than 50% of Korean salaries, contracts, etc. too. Ridiculously generous.

    The US taxpayer is owed a full accounting of all real costs by the GAO. It can start with salaries (this ought to easily to figure out), the cost of transport in and out of theatre (don’t forget mid-tour leave), food, healthcare, etc and then add in the cost of the fueling and maintaining tanks,.aeroplanes, etc. Don’t forget the depreciation of all that equipment based here.

    USFK doesn’t help itself with the Korean pulic when it reports Korea’s contribution is 40-odd per cent when really it’s likely less than 10%.

  • http://www.bcarr.com/ Brendon Carr

    The United States is headed the same way. We’re demobbing the Army and Marine Corps, and allowing the Navy to dwindle from 600 ships to 175 (fewer than before the First World War). But hey, at least we’ll have that great single-payer health care I’ve heard so much about.

  • seouldout

    Indeed.

  • seouldout

    “A FIRST world power and they have TWO air refueling tankers!!!!”

    Sooooo???? It’s only 7 fewer than Singapore’s Air Force. :p

  • dlbarch

    Tell me about it! I’ve lived in London, attended LSE, and still vacation every other Christmas in the Cotswolds, so when even the Brits refer to themselves as a rubbish country, well, this crypto-Anglophile can’t help but heave a heavy sigh!

    DLB

  • seouldout

    Again with “the Jews”?!?

    Last time I checked Israel is able to fend for itself without US bases throughout the land.

  • wangkon936

    Well… the Japanese, Koreans and Germans are the only U.S. allies where they have bases and where the host countries make all those aforementioned vehicles.

  • wangkon936

    No bases but $3 billion a year in military aid. That’s probably more than the costs of stationing a U.S. army division overseas.

  • redwhitedude

    Not sure about that. I think the US has delivered supplies to them in cases of war.

  • wangkon936

    We will, you won’t. That is unless you are thinking of coming back home.

  • seouldout

    Delivering supplies is far, far different from basing troops in harm’s way.

  • seouldout

    You realize that a division is approx. 10,000 troops. Is it only 2ID that’s here? Hah!

    Your comment aptly demonstrates the need for the US to fully disclose the entire cost of this mission.

  • seouldout

    you ought to mention your many-hour-afterwards edits.

    “I wouldn’t be surprised if the Germans did this also.

    Any ways, the money, supply and service “equivalents” that Japan gives to U.S. Forces Japan have a lot of “padding.”

  • ryuNchoosk

    There is less ocean water or space for American navy ships to float around in unless you want them tooling around in the 5 Texas sized garbage patches. They could float around endlessly “before WWI” but not today. Things change don’t you know.

  • seouldout

    Ahhh, the child’s protestations: “But Chul-su does it too!”

  • arbeiter

    Crucially, they don’t do anywhere near as much bitching about it, despite paying more and their security and sovereignty being less dependent on it.

    Put that ‘but the Japs do it, too/ are even worse’ card back in the pack.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Did the oceans shrink since WW2?

  • kaizenmx

    No, but Israel is the only country where US is keep shelling out billions of dollars of aid to that country even to this day.

    So you could say they are the most freeloaders of all the US allies combined.

  • seouldout

    Is the “only” country? Hardly.

    Given the excellence of Israeli military R&D it could be argued the US derives many tangible benefits from its “investment” too.

  • seouldout

    Things change don’t you know? :p

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Yes, things change…I have to consult 1945 maps to see just how much the oceans shrank by…..

  • aligner

    I thought Robert commented once that posting under various alias was an offence that got you banned. Is it the case that these people are not posting as others – commenting or reacting to their own comments, or such behaviour is now being tolerated? Just curious.

  • seouldout

    Well… the “only” yet again. The only thing I’m certain of is you shoot from the hip, consistently failing to fact check.

    Australia, Spain, Italy, UK and Turkey host US bases, manufacture vehicles, and also manufacture construction equipment such as excavators, dozers, loaders, scrapers graders, etc.

  • seouldout

    Good question.

  • redwhitedude

    You mean emergency airllifts?

  • ryuNchoosk

    Wow, Gangwon MIGHT get 1 inch.of snow this weekend. Can’t wait till 2018, certainly GOD will filter the mountain sides to the skiiers satisfaction. While Sochi pipes down the GAYS. S. Korea and Sochi = same same.

  • aligner

    Perhaps too good of a question as it appears there will be no answer.

  • wangkon936

    arbeiter,

    That’s because Japan is a conquered country. They can’t really bitch about it since they lost WWII to the Americans. Also, the Americans put all the troops in Okinawa, which most Japanese can give a rats ass about because many Japanese don’t really consider them “Japanese.” That’s the reason why Okinawan civilians were used as cannon fodder by the Japanese when the marines invaded the island in 1945.

  • wangkon936

    Really? What are these companies that are in “Australia, Spain, Italy, UK and Turkey” that make good quality construction equipment? The major construction equipment mfg companies in the world are: Caterpillar, Komatsu, Volvo Construction, John Deere, Doosan Group, Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Hyundai Heavy Industries, Liebherr-International AG. None of these are companies based in “Australia, Spain, Italy, UK and Turkey…” as you contend.

  • wangkon936

    The U.S. subsidizes Israeli military R&D, thus it should be entitled to some of the benefits.

  • wangkon936

    A typical U.S. Army infantry division has 24k troops. A marine division is about 28k troops. U.S. Army light divisions are about 14k troops (82nd Airborne, 101st, 10th Mountain, etc.).

    In Korea the USFK has one infantry combat brigade (from the 2nd ID, but one of three that the 2nd ID has), one aviation brigade, about a regimental sized armored combat team, a new “rotating” armored battalion from the 1st Cavalry Division, two wings of fighter/bombers and various support assets. This amounts to about 24k total personnel. The number of personnel in USFK has been declining over the years. About 36k in the 80′s, 28k in the 90′s and projected to be about 20k in the late 2010′s.

  • wangkon936

    Hummm… in this discussion there appears to be an overlooked problem:

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/yonhap-news-agency/131010/usfk-has-over-1-tln-won-unspent-money-paid-s-korea

    USFK has not spent (i.e. just sitting on) nearly a billion dollars of subsidization that Korea has provided. The USFK blames it on bureaucratic sluggishness, not that they don’t want or need the money.

  • wangkon936

    Listen. If you are going to complain about something you need to complain about it from some basis in standards. Your complain needs to be compared to what others are providing, right? Remember, I am an economist. It isn’t the product that you want, it’s the product that’s available in the market place. Thus, one needs to compare what the U.S. is getting from its other allies, no?

  • wangkon936

    The side with superior logistics almost always wins.

    http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2013/02/01/kennedy-engineers-budiansky-blackett/

    Also, what Omar Bradley said:

    “amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics.”

    You can only have the numbers that you can support with logistics.

  • kaizenmx

    R & D? You mean stuffs that US gave and Israel reverse engineered, like Iron Dome missile, which they basically put their own name instead of Patriot missile?

  • aligner

    I was kind of hoping that the finely tuned moderating skills of Wangkon might swoop down to threaten banishment of likely sock puppets, but it appears nothing of the sort will happen.

  • wangkon936

    Email me the offending comments with a short description of the complaint to wangkon936@yahoo.com.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Look at the map. Patton and Napoleon foughtion a theater that was a dozen times larger than the whole Korean peninsula. You can storm Seoul within a DAY, and be in Busan within 3. All you need is a strong enough initial push. Logistics will play a big role in HOLDING what you gained but the deluded-enough will think his logistics are good enough to do that. In any case, lots of destruction will occur. More than anything, in THIS theater, its who can strike hard first that will have the initial advantage.

  • wangkon936

    I see we are going to have a disagreement here. We will just have to agree to disagree then.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Thank you for backing out. I win.

  • sloppycho

    I thought Robert commented once that posting under various aliases was an offence that got you banned.

    Ah, if only ’twere true.

    Is it the case that these people are not posting as others – commenting or reacting to their own comments, or such behaviour is now being tolerated? Just curious.

    These people get caught from time to time but have no shame when caught and eventually go back to their sock puppetry as if nothing happened.

    Case in point….

    Caught Seouldout in flagrante delicto last year, had screenshots and everything but he fell strangely silent when asked to explain himself. And now shamelessly acts to expose other sock puppets when he himself is one!

    LMAOF!

    Here’s the proof…

  • sloppycho

    Several months ago I posted screen shots of a comment made by pawi/redwhitedude.

    I’m sure everyone here would be interested in seeing those screenshots so everyone can judge for themselves. :)

    In the meantime have you come to terms with your own acts of deception against everyone here are the hole?

    If you have you can explain to everyone why you were replying to yourself with two different personas last year…

  • sloppycho

    Email me the offending comments with a short description of the complaint to wangkon936@yahoo.com

    What good is an email if you don’t even act on visual proof?

    Here is the short version screenshot. I imagine you won’t be doing much with it like last time…

    The longer comment threads with more proof is attached to my reply to aligner’s comment.

  • wangkon936

    Rob and I are reviewing.

  • wangkon936

    Well, if you don’t think 2 + 2 = 4, I 1) can’t help you or 2) I don’t want to invest the time to help you.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Sleep soundly, I am for real.

  • seouldout

    I know the construction equipment mfg companies in the world. I researched it before commenting. You didn’t.

    The companies you mention, and many others you haven’t, have plants based in those countries in which construction equipment is manufactured.

    And I note now you are wiggling yet again by adding “good quality”. Whether these are “good quality” or not I leave to the consumer to decide.

  • sloppycho

    I’m crazy to have ever doubted you. lol!

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    You should never doubt THE SMS

  • seouldout

    “There are approximately 17,000 soldiers in the 2nd Infantry Division, with 10,000 of them stationed in South Korea,[2] accounting for about 35% of the United States Forces Korea personnel.”

    The report report you linked to is not the full costs. How do I know? It says so in the executive summary:”… does not include military personnel costs…”

    The full costs I think the US taxpayer deserves would include those costs, the costs of the US government civilian workers, and the costs of the non-government civilian workers, i.e. “contractors”. It would also provide the depreciation of equipment such as aeroplanes, helicopters, artillery, tanks, etc. And it ought to calculate other costs such as satellite imagery.

  • wangkon936

    Seouldout, if a country does not have a nationally based manufacturer, there is far less pressure to give it pork projects. There is no point in arguing about a Komatsu excavator used in Spain on an American base that happened to have been made in some Komatsu plant in Spain. Nobody in Spanish parliament will pressure the U.S. to use that Komatsu excavator. The net gain in jobs or economic benefit or whatever will motivate the Spanish politician will be just too small for them to bother with it. However, to a Japanese politician negotiating the U.S. base build out they would want the U.S. to use a Komatsu excavator because the economic benefits are greater. The Komatsu plants in Japan would be far more numerous and larger than any in Spain. The same model will hold true for the other nations you had mentioned such as Turkey, the UK, Australia, etc.

    If there are meaningful construction equipment plants in any of the countries you mentioned, it is your burden of proof to bring it up.

  • wangkon936

    Never “many hours.” Usually between 20-40 minutes. I can’t help it if you don’t have the patience to wait before you draft your counter comment.

  • seouldout

    not is this case.

  • wangkon936

    Yes, in this case. I can’t help it if you go out for lunch or dinner and come back and see an edit. You really should stop whining about this. Seriously, you should.

  • seouldout

    My reply was to your false statement: “Well… the Japanese, Koreans and Germans are the only U.S. allies where
    they have bases and where the host countries make all those
    aforementioned vehicles.”

    If you wish to shift the topic that’s fine, but it doesn’t correct your original comment.

  • wangkon936

    “hundreds of millions of dollars in South Korean contributions intended to offset U.S. costs”

    You forgot to mention that part. Any ways, the military personnel costs mean what you are paying all the folks to be military personnel. The question here is what are the costs of stationing the troops in Korea vs. the U.S. If you wanted to eliminated USFK personnel, such as the dissolution of a big chunk of the 2ID, two wings of aircraft, air combat brigade, etc. then that would include “personnel costs.”

    So, what do you want to do? Move U.S. forces in Korea back to the U.S. or eliminate them entirely?

  • seouldout

    Forget to mention it?!? It’s the very topic of the post.

    Why are you resistent to knowing what the real costs are?

  • wangkon936

    I picked the argument that mattered, which was which nation would most likely have pork projects and in what items. However, if the assets within the country are not enough to have pork projects, then it isn’t an argument worth fighting.

    I will clarify my statement from:

    “Well… the Japanese, Koreans and Germans are the only U.S. allies where they have bases and where the host countries make all those aforementioned vehicles.”

    To:

    “Well… the Japanese, Koreans and Germans are the only U.S. allies where they have bases and where the host countries have national headquarters and meaningful manufacturing assets of all the companies that make those aforementioned vehicles.”

    I stand by the original reason why Turkey, the UK or Australia would not draw pork though construction vehicles. It just isn’t a big enough part of their economy to fuss with it even if they had a few plants on their soil that will most likely be owned by foreign multinationals.

  • wangkon936

    News flash for ya. American military personnel get paid the same if they are stationed in Korea or in the U.S. It does, likely cost more to station them in Korea than in the U.S. However, no one is talking about eliminating the units currently in Korea from the U.S. Army and Air Force inventories, so the personnel costs were not in the report. Now, if we want to not only bring the troops home from Korea but also fire them and return them to civilian life, then military personnel costs would be an important data point to consider.

  • pawikirogii

    we’ re all waiting for ur results. lets hope this leads to seoulout’s banning.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    As his sock, do you think you’re safe?

  • seouldout

    You original comment had nothing to do with what you’re discussing now. It was simply the “Japanese do it too,” in response to Richard Hankin’s, “I thought I had read somewhere that Seoul does a nice job of being less than transparent itself as in buying Hyundai cars for USFK at LIST price and takes that off their obligation while in reality they get a huge discount from Hyundai..padding the books as it where. I do not know if this is true but let’s hope this transparency is also applicable to Korea.”

    The topic was “padding”. Appears in your mind it’s acceptable for this shaddy practice to happen because the Japs do so.

    These recent comments are simply fabrications because you were caught again posting incorrect info re the manufacture of items.

  • seouldout

    That’s a news flash?!? The base pay is the same.
    Soldiers in Area I get paid a bit more. Other non-pay costs are travel in and out of theatre. Off-post housing and utilities are another. Yada Yada. Since they are acquired in the defence of Korea I think most would consider these “Korean costs”.

    These are costs to the US taxpayer and seems to me it would benefit both Americans and Koreans to fully understand these. Americans could decide is the cost worth it. Koreans would learn what it would genuinely cost them to duplicate this capaility on their own.

    Why are you resistant to knowing what the real costs are?

  • pawikirogii

    yeah i do. btw would u publish a pic of yourself? thanks in advance.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Where’s your pic?

  • seouldout

    cuz of the melting icecaps. more water means smaller oceans.

  • seouldout

    What’s up with your compulsion to collect photos of men? Well at least it’s better than collecting photos of boys. Or do you do that too?

  • seouldout

    “I’m crazy…”

    Damn straight.

  • seouldout

    I gave you an explanation. You didn’t accept it. Such is life.

  • seouldout

    Golly. Seouldout replying to Seouldout.

    sock puppetry: a false online identity, typically created by a person or group in order to promote their own opinions or views.

    1) where is the false online identity? please name the account.

    2) In what way is “you need to get your head out of your ass,” promoting my own opinions or views?

    I’ve said it before but it’s worth saying again; sloppychoke, you need to get your head out of your ass.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Im sure he does it, too. This is the 3rd time he has begged for my pic. I might be flattered if it were yuna, but with pawi I am revolted that a pedo like him wants my photo.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Sounds logical.

  • sloppycho

    Oh right, you mean this hastily written response where you messed up the formatting from furiously typing out your oh-so-clever, not-at-all-overdone collection of other personas? lol!

    The way to handle the situation was to come clean and not go the scared little donkey-boy route typing out every ridiculous name you could come up with in order to deflect.

    School-boy donkey error.

  • wangkon936

    Yes, that’s what I meant. Base pay is the same anywhere… unless it’s danger pay.

    I know there are expenses that make it more costly if a solider is stationed somewhere else. I never denied that.

    I don’t know what you are complaining about really. I gave you the best source I could find that outlined the costs of stationing troops in Korea, outside of disbanding the troops mentioned (i.e. military personnel expenses). The total is $3.2 billion for which Korea is offering to pay about $866 million, thus the net extra the U.S. is paying is about $2.3-2.4 billion. If the U.S. would like to completely disband 28k additional troops it is likely to save more.

    I am being honest and forthright. I am also trying to be informative to the good people in this blog. Yet, despite this you still seem very badgering and hostile and I have no idea why.

  • sloppycho

    Answer this simple question. Why were you replying to yourself using a different persona?

    A question so simple even a donkey can answer it. :)

  • pawikirogii

    just want a pic to confirm my suspicion that so many of you got lost in the shuffle when god was giving the white man his good looks. dont be afraid, publish that pic. i’ll bet you a goober. lastly, the communist should go first. if he put his pic then ill put mine!

  • seouldout

    dudinit.

  • wangkon936

    Yep. The original topic was “padding” which my terminology I would call “pork barrel.”

    You had complained that the Koreans probably pad the expense numbers as it pertains to the USFK. I would agree with you that they probably do. Unlike you I don’t think it’s because the Koreans are bad people, I think it’s because everybody views a military base as a community’s sheep waiting to be sheared and/or a gravy train. I absolutely, positively think the other major recipients of American overseas military bases (i.e. Germany and Japan) do it also. If a so-called “Japanese” or “German” nurse is suppose to work at a U.S. military base for X amount of dollars I bet you whenever they can they substitute them with a cheaper Filipina (in Okinawa) or Polish (in German) nurse instead. I bet you they do this kinda pork barrel crap at Fort Hood in Texas and Ft. Bragg in North Carolina too. Mexican nurses and cafeteria workers, overpriced Caterpillars and GM trucks. $700 hammers, $500 screws. You name it it’s there. You act like Korea and the USFK are a special case. If you still think it is then you are either ignorant or just plain stupid.

    This kind of pork can be controlled but never eliminated. It’s like department stores. They can never eliminate shoplifting. They can only keep it under some kind of control. Some losses from there is the just the cost of doing business.

    And my posting “incorrect” info on manufacture of items? That’s a red herring because whether I was or wrong on that particular data set has no bearing to the point we have been arguing about. If you keep bringing it up, then I have to interpret that as a fact that you don’t even know or remember the major point. Additionally, there is no way I can explain every nuance when I write. What I meant was a national company like Daewoo Heavy = Korea, Komatsu = Japan, Liebherr = Germany, etc. None of the other countries you mentioned (i.e. Turkey, Australia, UK) have such a national company. Thus, lack of economies of scale via large manufacturing infrastructure and thus lack of a good reason to push for pork projects. Any ways, I’m done arguing about this. There is no point to it because it’s not backing up or breaking down any additional or supporting points.

  • seouldout

    Complaining?!? Merely stating the fact the document you provided doesn’t does provide the real costs I believe the tapayer is entitled to.

  • seouldout

    I didn’t complain about “padding”. That was Richard Hankin.

  • seouldout

    Creepy, ain’t it?

  • seouldout

    Six months later and you’re still thumbing your nose at Robert.

    Robert Koehler Mod > sloppycho
    • 6 months ago −
    I though I’d asked you to cease with that line of questioning.

  • sloppycho

    Ah, donkey is getting desperate I see lol!

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Surely, nothing could be creepier.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Don’t cover your tracks, pawi, we all know you’re perverted.

  • seouldout

    Keep your chin up, pawi. Someday you may find a girl too. Just too many women in the world for us ugly white guys to keep all to ourselves. Stay patient and keep your place in the queue. Your turn is comin’.

  • seouldout

    You give him too much credit. Surely he has ED.

  • pawikirogii

    Betcha!actually u went to korea cuz u couldnt a lady here in the west. unfortunately, korea can only cure ugly with a knife. heres a challenge you nasty expats start showing ur faces then ill show mine. how bout it? let me see…the eastern was handsome whn young but now nears 300 pounds from all that fried food.

  • ryuNchoosk

    Yes, move them out and leave only 5-10 jarheads if they insist on staying. They can patrol each other on the Itaewon hill.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Betcha you are a Korean nationalist in AMERICA because no one wants you…not white and not Korean, either. Too bad you can’t find a lady in the East, West, North and South.

  • wangkon936

    Well, I was Congress and the DoD publish a lot of information on the subject. I found that report in about 10 minutes of googling. If you really care as much as you say you do, I suggest you spend a little time and do some digging yourself. I would be interested in what you find. Currently, the information gathering has been one sided.

  • wangkon936

    Nope. I was just indicating that you misunderstood as usual. I was never wrong. You were wrong since the countries you mentioned have very little relevant construction manufacturing assets to speak of.

    You wiggled, then you waffled. You do it a lot better then I supposedly do. It was quite entertaining to watch.

  • seouldout

    They are the lowest on the totem pole.

  • seouldout

    “korea can only cure ugly with a knife”

    As seen in all the plastic surgery.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    especially the fat, ugly ones with nasty personalities and small penises. Hi pawi, talking about you

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    ….not used by whites.

    Seriously, if ugly can only be cured by knife in Korea, why do so many Koreans get the surgery?

  • pawikirogii

    whites don’t get plastic surgery? you better do some research. as for your question as to why so many koreans get plastic surgery, the answer is real simple: because there’s lots of ugly koreans, that’s why. koreans should look at the kazakhs to see asians who are actually attractive without any plastic surgery. pssst…it’s the mixing of genes.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Whites do get plastic surgery but in KOREA its mostly Koreans. Whites also do not get plastic surgery to the extent Koreans do.

  • Arghaeri

    To still claim that Korea is a “developing county” in the snse used is moronic.

  • Arghaeri

    And you a nutter in America are, LOL love that logic!!

  • Arghaeri

    America always had better logistics?

    Rather a strange claim given the efficiency of the German logistics.

    So it wasn’t that the Germans overextended by fighting on several front against superior numbers and made the same mistake as Napoleons in trying to invade the vastness of Russia.

  • Arghaeri

    Pardon?

  • Arghaeri

    Deary me, you are the one making the claim, you are the one who should back it up, it’s not exactly rocket science.

    Lets start as you ask with UK :- JCB

    God that was tough 30 seconds.

  • seouldout

    Read on, friend. Watch the wiggles grow ever more frantic.

    BTW, JCB… it’s a red herring.

  • seouldout

    “Liebherr = Germany”

    Liebherr is Swiss. :p How many US bases are in Switzerland? .

    “Daewoo Heavy = Korea”

    Daewoo Heavy hasn’t existed for years. Of the 6 remaining
    Daewoo companies none manufacture excavators, dozers, etc.

  • kyrifles

    But the US hasn’t had to lose 40K dead defending Israel. Not to mention huge amounts of ammo and equipment used up or destroyed during the Korean conflict.

  • kaizenmx

    So your point is that US is only staying in Korea just because they got their ass kicked by the Chinese forces?

  • wangkon936

    Germany may have possibly had a better logistical system infrastructure, but America’s logistics were better simply because they had more supplies to run through their system.

  • Arghaeri

    Ah, so now it’s not logistics, it’s more weapons, and still nothing to do with the fact that Germany was fighting on several fronts, having made the same mistake Napoleon did. got it.

  • Arghaeri

    A fcking big red herring LOL