PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on North Korea 5/30/09




IPSecure
05-30-2009, 12:08 PM
YouTube - Dr. Paul on North Korea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDTu-JBDlzs)
Dr. Paul discusses the NPRK's detonation of an atomic device, how they achieved that technology using subsidies from the Clinton Administration, and the importance of a noninterventionist foreign policy.

MRoCkEd
05-30-2009, 01:06 PM
common sense

HOLLYWOOD
05-30-2009, 01:14 PM
The REAL motives:

The US government gotta keep those DOD agencies and Military Industrial Complex money flowing.

Have to justify all those Billion dollar Spy centers in every country... uh, I mean US Embassies and Consulates.

Reason
05-30-2009, 08:34 PM
interesting

zach
05-30-2009, 09:22 PM
he has lively books, that's for sure..

they're blinking everywhere!

Join The Paul Side
05-31-2009, 01:18 AM
Finally some sanity about this situation. Thank you Dr. Paul. :)

Anybody else notice the MSM beating the war drums over this North Korea drama? :eek:

GunnyFreedom
05-31-2009, 03:47 AM
Very long and probably highly controversial post alert.

For the first time, I have finally found something that I disagree with Ron Paul on. Oh, it's a very minor point and it doesn't really change the policies that result. Or maybe only slightly.

Ron Paul says that NK has no desire to attack people. That's just not true. Their state religion is based on NK dominating other nations. Some by politics and some by brute force. In North Korea, The dead Kim Il Sung is their God, and his long-dead body remains on display to this very day. The President Kim Jong Il is the Son of God, and the Reverend Sung Young Moon is the Messiah of the Korean Race. Their salvation, and what will bring their God back to life, the the conquering of nations in a self-imposed Armageddon.

This is not scare-tactics. This is their religion. The State-imposed religion. you can say well most of them probably don't believe it really. Don't bet on it buddy.

The ONLY bit I disagreed with, was whether NK wants to attack others. Behind a porcelain facade, NK is a foaming-at-the-mouth pitbull bouncing off of a leash thirsty for any throat it can sink it's teeth into, and it doesn't really care that much which throat it finds. That is the simple truth. The reason I don't talk about it much is because the Neocons will use that to justify preemption, and I am too tired of explaining the difference between just defense according to NAP, and Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

And the more I think about it, the more I agree with Mark Sanford that if I had good intel that in 2 days Pyongyang would launch ICBM X against San Diego, and the missile itself was clearly identified and verified, then I would not hesitate to surgically remove that missile. I am thinking this "EMP Weapon" of his was intended as a pinpoint strike, not a general one.

Before you get horrified on me -- Liken national defense to personal defense. If the Fed is the agent of the people, then what right do the people as INDIVIDUALS have to ordinary self defense?

If I were a citizen and NiKita were a mugger, then the "surgical removal of an active NK missile on the launching pad, on countdown to strike San Diego," would be akin to 'shooting the revolver out of the mugger's hand.'

That is similar to Thomas Jefferson's use of the military against the Barbary Pirates, I believe. Unlike some here, I do not consider that the Barbary Pirates "war" was against the Constitution. Our citizens were seized and empressed and enslaved. We went in and took them back. And then went home. End of story.

The actual combat action which some here might wrongly classify as an "intervention" only lasted about 18-22 months. We came in and took their capitol, Tripoli, and said "Return our citizens or else we will declare war, and then we will take your whole damn country for ourselves." (confederacy more than country but anyway)

So they gave us our citizens back, and then we went home. The several other years of engagements in the Barbary Pirates "war" were mostly naval engagements with active pirates. So I felt that President Jefferson was within the Constitution in that undeclared war, and acted properly according to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).

"Twenty-two months!" you protest. Remember it was a very different time just after the Revolution. Combat was done with brigades in formation moving around like chess pieces massing around fortified targets etc. No Delta Force to snatch-and-grab the hostages.

The concept Jefferson exemplified, I believe, was that to attack another sovereign state, one must have a formal declaration of war. But to defend America against the attacks of another sovereign state, you apply the NAP and then seek a Declaration if required.

Further, I believe that Jefferson's strategy was brilliant. By specifically NOT declaring war, it added the threat: "If you fail to comply with the demand to return our citizens, then we will declare war, and you will lose your whole nation."

And how to understand defense WRT North Korea, would be to imagine all 135 nations are in a single neighborhood, and every nation is it's own house. What rights you personally have to defend yourself and your homes and your families in that neighborhood, are similar to what rights a nation has to defend it's homes and families.

Right now, NK is an old koot fiddlin around in his window with a shotgun, where everybody can see him, and his family is cheering. No real concern there. Not much he can do with a shotgun from inside his house and all shuttered up.

But IF NK pulled out a bolt action rifle and pointed it at me in my house, then I would take up my own rifle and watch him through my scope. If in my scope, I saw him thumb off the safety and then still his breathing -- then guess what -- I'm taking the shot.

Apply the personal Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) at the national level. I believe that is appropriate given our supposed status as a Sovereign Republic of Individual Sovereigns (We The People). What is correct according to NAP for the individual Sovereign, is likewise correct according to NAP for the Sovereign State which is is agent.

PLEASE do not take my support for what some of you will surely view as support for an act of aggression (I would vehemently disagree) as though I would have supported ANY of the other undeclared wars in our history. NONE of the undeclared wars since the Barbary Pirates were just according to NAP, as far as I can see.

This is probably because after 1830-ish (Revolutionary Generation dying out) we began to forget the concept of the Sovereign Citizen. Without the sovereign individual, the government sought for power, and war was used as a tool to acquire it.

Now think of yourself as a sovereign citizen. In a neighborhood, and 3 blocks down where the road ends there is some jackass behind a wall of sandbags with a .308 and his cross-hairs on your ass. Turns out you are one hell of a shot yourself, so you get out your .30-'06 and chamber a round with your own scope on him.

Now, it turns out you are one hell of a shot, and you can just destroy his rifle without hurting him much. You watch through your scope and can see him thumb off the safety. You watch through the scope and he slowly lets out his breath and pauses.

At this point, what do you do?

and you can use the following to frame your response to that difficult, and wholly theoretical question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle



PS - I believe the recent US Navy SEAL hostage rescue was a just use of force and justified in the NAP. From microcosm to macrocosm, taking out "just the missile" before they hit the launch button is a similar concept, I think. I don't believe they have that level of technology at this point so we are still discussing in the theoretic here.



Now, all of that having been said, Ron Paul was absolutely right.

The real solution to the problem/crisis is found in trade, not weapons. You want to connect to the North Korean people in a way that transforms them from enemies into allies? Use trade to do it like we did with Vietnam. We could have been working on these people for the last 50 years but no. We walled them off and just hoped they would go away. They didn't. :( Some foreign policy! It worked so well in Cuba. :rolleyes:

Reason
05-31-2009, 10:16 AM
Very long and probably highly controversial post alert.

For the first time, I have finally found something that I disagree with Ron Paul on. Oh, it's a very minor point and it doesn't really change the policies that result. Or maybe only slightly.

Ron Paul says that NK has no desire to attack people. That's just not true. Their state religion is based on NK dominating other nations. Some by politics and some by brute force. In North Korea, The dead Kim Il Sung is their God, and his long-dead body remains on display to this very day. The President Kim Jong Il is the Son of God, and the Reverend Sung Young Moon is the Messiah of the Korean Race. Their salvation, and what will bring their God back to life, the the conquering of nations in a self-imposed Armageddon.

This is not scare-tactics. This is their religion. The State-imposed religion. you can say well most of them probably don't believe it really. Don't bet on it buddy.

The ONLY bit I disagreed with, was whether NK wants to attack others. Behind a porcelain facade, NK is a foaming-at-the-mouth pitbull bouncing off of a leash thirsty for any throat it can sink it's teeth into, and it doesn't really care that much which throat it finds. That is the simple truth. The reason I don't talk about it much is because the Neocons will use that to justify preemption, and I am too tired of explaining the difference between just defense according to NAP, and Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

And the more I think about it, the more I agree with Mark Sanford that if I had good intel that in 2 days Pyongyang would launch ICBM X against San Diego, and the missile itself was clearly identified and verified, then I would not hesitate to surgically remove that missile. I am thinking this "EMP Weapon" of his was intended as a pinpoint strike, not a general one.

Before you get horrified on me -- Liken national defense to personal defense. If the Fed is the agent of the people, then what right do the people as INDIVIDUALS have to ordinary self defense?

If I were a citizen and NiKita were a mugger, then the "surgical removal of an active NK missile on the launching pad, on countdown to strike San Diego," would be akin to 'shooting the revolver out of the mugger's hand.'

That is similar to Thomas Jefferson's use of the military against the Barbary Pirates, I believe. Unlike some here, I do not consider that the Barbary Pirates "war" was against the Constitution. Our citizens were seized and empressed and enslaved. We went in and took them back. And then went home. End of story.

The actual combat action which some here might wrongly classify as an "intervention" only lasted about 18-22 months. We came in and took their capitol, Tripoli, and said "Return our citizens or else we will declare war, and then we will take your whole damn country for ourselves." (confederacy more than country but anyway)

So they gave us our citizens back, and then we went home. The several other years of engagements in the Barbary Pirates "war" were mostly naval engagements with active pirates. So I felt that President Jefferson was within the Constitution in that undeclared war, and acted properly according to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).

"Twenty-two months!" you protest. Remember it was a very different time just after the Revolution. Combat was done with brigades in formation moving around like chess pieces massing around fortified targets etc. No Delta Force to snatch-and-grab the hostages.

The concept Jefferson exemplified, I believe, was that to attack another sovereign state, one must have a formal declaration of war. But to defend America against the attacks of another sovereign state, you apply the NAP and then seek a Declaration if required.

Further, I believe that Jefferson's strategy was brilliant. By specifically NOT declaring war, it added the threat: "If you fail to comply with the demand to return our citizens, then we will declare war, and you will lose your whole nation."

And how to understand defense WRT North Korea, would be to imagine all 135 nations are in a single neighborhood, and every nation is it's own house. What rights you personally have to defend yourself and your homes and your families in that neighborhood, are similar to what rights a nation has to defend it's homes and families.

Right now, NK is an old koot fiddlin around in his window with a shotgun, where everybody can see him, and his family is cheering. No real concern there. Not much he can do with a shotgun from inside his house and all shuttered up.

But IF NK pulled out a bolt action rifle and pointed it at me in my house, then I would take up my own rifle and watch him through my scope. If in my scope, I saw him thumb off the safety and then still his breathing -- then guess what -- I'm taking the shot.

Apply the personal Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) at the national level. I believe that is appropriate given our supposed status as a Sovereign Republic of Individual Sovereigns (We The People). What is correct according to NAP for the individual Sovereign, is likewise correct according to NAP for the Sovereign State which is is agent.

PLEASE do not take my support for what some of you will surely view as support for an act of aggression (I would vehemently disagree) as though I would have supported ANY of the other undeclared wars in our history. NONE of the undeclared wars since the Barbary Pirates were just according to NAP, as far as I can see.

This is probably because after 1830-ish (Revolutionary Generation dying out) we began to forget the concept of the Sovereign Citizen. Without the sovereign individual, the government sought for power, and war was used as a tool to acquire it.

Now think of yourself as a sovereign citizen. In a neighborhood, and 3 blocks down where the road ends there is some jackass behind a wall of sandbags with a .308 and his cross-hairs on your ass. Turns out you are one hell of a shot yourself, so you get out your .30-'06 and chamber a round with your own scope on him.

Now, it turns out you are one hell of a shot, and you can just destroy his rifle without hurting him much. You watch through your scope and can see him thumb off the safety. You watch through the scope and he slowly lets out his breath and pauses.

At this point, what do you do?

and you can use the following to frame your response to that difficult, and wholly theoretical question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle



PS - I believe the recent US Navy SEAL hostage rescue was a just use of force and justified in the NAP. From microcosm to macrocosm, taking out "just the missile" before they hit the launch button is a similar concept, I think. I don't believe they have that level of technology at this point so we are still discussing in the theoretic here.



Now, all of that having been said, Ron Paul was absolutely right.

The real solution to the problem/crisis is found in trade, not weapons. You want to connect to the North Korean people in a way that transforms them from enemies into allies? Use trade to do it like we did with Vietnam. We could have been working on these people for the last 50 years but no. We walled them off and just hoped they would go away. They didn't. :( Some foreign policy! It worked so well in Cuba. :rolleyes:

With all the research I have done on NK I can say that I agree with you completely.

GunnyFreedom
05-31-2009, 02:21 PM
With all the research I have done on NK I can say that I agree with you completely.

Well that's refreshing. On this particular subject I expected a litany of tirades about how aggressive I was being. The reality is, and I believe Thomas Jefferson demonstrated it for us, that we as Sovereign Citizens transfer our individual NAP onto the Sovereign State. That the State has exactly the same right to defense against foreign aggression as you or I do to defend ourselves against thugs and lunatics.

"Non-Intervention" must become a well explained, nuanced yet clearly defined policy for us if we are going to win elections on the national stage. People may understand us better if we called it "Non Aggression." And it is important to keep an account to NAP as we map out policy for the electorate, AND once we get elected. Once they understand that we are not in favor of just laying out our throat and providing no defense (a mistaken conclusion that they have always held about Ron Paul) it will be easier for them to vote for us, I think.

NK is not Iraq. We mess with NK, then we get war. Real war. Not a 72 hour blitzkrieg followed by a general police action. Ron Paul said that North Korea does not want to attack it's neighbors because they know it would be suicide. That's not true. NK citizens are taught from birth that the coming war will spark the chain of events that resurrects their god, Kim Il Sung, and makes them invincible in conquering the world for their Messiah, Sun Young Moon.

Where there was not a threat in Iraq that I ever saw, there is a genuine threat from NK. IMHO.

The question is how to properly deal with the threat under NAP. The best answer is of course trade. Trade brings ideas, and ideas you cannot kill. But have we lost that opportunity to ally them with trade alone now on account of former imcompetence? So now what do we do? Maybe we can still make it work peacefully, but we need options to present to the public about our platform, and we need them now.

If Honolulu evaporates beneath a mushroom cloud next month, and we had no answers ahead of time at least circulating within the marketplace of ideas on how to solve/stop/prevent the attack given our noninterventionist policies, then Constitutionalists will NEVER get elected. Bet on it. But even if it is completely ignored, if we come up with the right ideas and make them known now; then it will be known to the public that we never had any intention of just laying down and getting raped.

And best case scenario -- our ideas are taken seriously and we actually prevent such an attack with as little harm to ourselves or other nations as possible.

Philmanoman
06-01-2009, 07:37 AM
Who has North Korea attacked in the last 50-100 years?

Who has the United States attacked in the last 50-100 yeras?

Who should you be more afraid of?

GunnyFreedom
06-01-2009, 08:04 AM
Who has North Korea attacked in the last 50-100 years?

Who has the United States attacked in the last 50-100 yeras?

Who should you be more afraid of?

I'm not sure that this is a logical argument.

From the 'judicial' perspective; prior bad acts, in a court of law, can go to pattern. The lack of prior bad acts may go to sentencing, but does not establish a lack of guilt.

From a purely logical standpoint, the argument itself makes little sense. I could just as easily say, "Joe has never lost his virginity before, so he probably will not lose it in the future either." I am sure that even that obvious nonsense will make sense to /someone/ even though the statistics would be against them.

Another point towards fallacy is the conflation of an internal threat vs an external threat. OBVIOUSLY the US is more likely to attack some random nation than NK. But that is more about simple resources, and it does not affect the likeliness of NK to attack in any way. Fact is NK is more /inclined/ to attack a random nation than the US, but given their state religion they have been waiting 'for the right moment' when they have enough power to carry their drive across the whole planet. In their freakish schizophrenic meticulously constructed fantasy world -- that 'right moment' may well come when they feel they have enough accurate nuclear ICBM's to keep the world at bay while they conquer.

I happen to know...not guess, but know that North Korea has a strong desire to do violence to it's neighbors and nations around the world. I know because I was in USMC Intelligence and I studied them almost exclusively for 3 years. You can say, "we obviously have nothing to worry about from NK." 1000 times a day, but saying it won't make it so.

I firmly and fully believe in the NAP. I also believe that false intelligence was proffered prior to Iraq to make the electorate wrongly believe that Iraq was pursued according to the basic principles of NAP; so I can understand the fear/concern/unwillingness to address this very real problem.

But where the threat of Iraq was manufactured whole cloth (and I said so at the time, to as many people as I could bend their ear), the threat of NK is real.

Philmanoman
06-01-2009, 08:42 AM
It wasnt an arguement...just questions.
"I know they want to attack us...because Ive studied them."

That is an arguement.

So just because "intelligence" says its so...it must be.I can do the same thing as well...You can say "NK is going to attack us any day now" 1000 times a day,but saying it wont make it so either.


So let me ask this...whats the best option...which option could possibly have the least devastating effects.

1. Attack NK and see what happens (IMO I just dont think a strike will solve the problem,will just create more)

2. Stay the hell out of the Koreans business (after all this time we've been there maybe its time to try a different approach)



I dont have the "logical" answers to solve this problem.Is it possible there are no logical answers.Just something tells me a military strike is a bad idea.

GunnyFreedom
06-01-2009, 10:06 AM
A strike-first "solution" will pretty much always do more harm than good. About the ONLY "strike first" scenario I could agree to would be IF we know they have an ICBM on the launchpad, targeted at us and tipped with a nuke, and on countdown to launch, then I would be agreeable to take out that missile ONLY (as opposed to 'the whole facility' including personnel that I am sure some people [not here on RPF's] may favor)

And the reality is that we HAVE pretty much ignored NK for 50 years and their ideology has only gotten more extreme in the interim.

No, I have not suggested attacking them. In fact, I have stated several times that they are the last place on earth we should attack, even from a purely utilitarian point of view and quite aside from the principles of non-aggression which I also hold.

What I would do if I were commander in chief, would be to establish a multi-layered naval-based integrated missile defense cordon prepared to destroy any missiles not obviously targeted at empty water, and then try to work out a trade agreement that allows the global marketplace of ideas to reach into and influence the NK population at large.

However, due to the fact that a threat from NK is far more of an imminent danger than Iraq or Iran would be even given another 50 years of development, I would be forced to consider such options such as taking out 'just the missile on the pad' with some kind of surgical strike to minimize any collateral damage outside of the missile itself. And be prepared to use such options in case they become necessary. And by that I mean genuinely necessary as opposed to Bill Clinton's useless and pointless cruise missile attack on an aspirin factory after the USS Cole because he wanted to let the world know "I can pull the trigger if I want to."

The best case scenario, of course, would be that the integrated missile defense cordon would be good practice, not needed, and the trade agreement would open up the NK population to exposure to the rest of the planet, and eventually the threat goes away via cultural assimilation. But with NK you could never count on that until it actually happens.

So we'd have to pursue that as much as possible, but be johnnie-on-the-spot ready to defend against attack on a moment's notice...including nuclear attack via short, medium, long-range, and ICBM missiles.

I also agree that in a perfect world, we leave Japan to defend themselves. However, WE (the United States) are the ones who quite intentionally left Japan almost defenseless after WW2. Yes, they have a small Defense force (JDF) but WE are the onese who have prevented them from building a defense adequate to the threat. So we should drop the requirement for Japan to not have an army, and take responsibility for defending Japan from NK missile strikes ONLY AS LONG AS IT TAKES FOR THEM TO BUILD UP THEIR OWN CAPABILITY.

We should not have to do that, and ordinarily I would never suggest that we do. Problem is their current lack of defense capability was because WE TOLD THEM they were not allowed to defend themselves and that we would do it for them.

We can let them out of that bad contract by allowing them to raise an army/navy etc; but since we put them in the situation they are now in (through bad US policy) then I think until they are capable of defending themselves against an NK strike, that we should at least provide a missile cordon for them while they gear up to take over that job from us; and then we can leave Japan to their own devices.

Philmanoman
06-01-2009, 10:41 AM
Thank you for the constructive conversation Gunny.I think I misunderstood some things and thats my fault.I believe you do have a good understanding and grasp on the situation.

I wouldnt disagree that an immenent threat should be cause for military response.It would depend on the exact situation at hand and the intelligence that was out there of course.I guess I just dont have much faith that with the current situation the proper response will be used and maybe some things are being overblown...I could easily be wrong.

dannno
06-01-2009, 10:53 AM
Ronery... I'm so ronery...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=apyB93-1FHk

Philmanoman
06-01-2009, 11:07 AM
whats that mean danno...im a noob??:confused: lol

sure is a creepy video though :eek:

dannno
06-01-2009, 11:12 AM
That's Kim Jong Il in from the movie Team America singing "I'm so lonely"

steph3n
06-01-2009, 11:21 AM
CFL videos are looking better now, the quality if much much improved!

However someone needs to tell them that a disco ball is not the proper lighting for a video creation session ;)

GunnyFreedom
06-01-2009, 11:45 AM
Thank you for the constructive conversation Gunny.I think I misunderstood some things and thats my fault.I believe you do have a good understanding and grasp on the situation.

I wouldnt disagree that an immenent threat should be cause for military response.It would depend on the exact situation at hand and the intelligence that was out there of course.I guess I just dont have much faith that with the current situation the proper response will be used and maybe some things are being overblown...I could easily be wrong.

Oh no worries, none of us have ever gotten everything the first time; and a lot of what I say can get hard to follow as I drift off into jargon or chasing some random rabbit trail.

I agree with you that I do not trust the current government to respond properly, but the only thing I think that is being overblown is a timeframe.

NK could not within 30 days launch an ICBM at CONUS. Maybe they could in 6 months if they really sweated it out and spent a lot of resources; but the reality is more like 12-18 months, I am guessing here of course. I am no longer read-in but from the progression of their missile and detonation tests this is what I am thinking...12 to 18 months before such a critical situation can arise.

I am worried about the potential for rhetoric saying "we need to go in and stop NK before they can build a weapon...yadda yadda yadda." That would obviously be improper when no formal state of war exists between us and NK.

There are other factors to consider also. For instance, there was never a truce in Korea, and the undeclared 'war' there never officially ended. There has only been a temporary cease fire all this time. To this day, rifles are trained across the border locked, loaded, with safeties off, and fingers on the trigger on both sides of the DMZ.

What that means, is that Obama would not need further Congressional approval to go nuts in NK if he wanted to (under the current interpretation of federal power) because we are still operating under wartime conditions and approvals dated from 1950. Especially now that NK has "officially" dropped the cease-fire agreement a couple days ago.

So there is incredible potential for Executive abuse here, and no, I have no expectation whatever that Obama will handle this right.