N. Korea threatens to wipe America off the map. What would RP say about this?

[qh4dotcom]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear

Would Ron Paul cast a vote for war with this kind of threat? Or only after the US has been attacked?

[MCockerill08]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear

Don't invade them! The quote was contingent to a US preemption, which the NK nuclear program clearly is intended to deter.

The NK government, like the SU government, will never use their nuclear weapon, because doing so would get them wiped off the face of the world. They will (sadly) murder as many of their own people as they could get away with, but the chance of them nuking us is minimal.

[Master]

Bluffing.

[acptulsa]

What would RP say about it? Probably something along the lines of, 'Attempting that would be the greatest--and the last--mistake you ever made, Kim Jong-Il.'

[Krugerrand]

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.

My guess would be RP would state that he understands any country's desire to defend itself if attacked. He would reiterate our country's willingness to defend itself if attacked. He would hope that the Unites States would not instigate a war with any country - North Korea included. He would vote against a measure to instigate a war with N. Korea.

[FrankRep]

I want to see the real quote.

:rolleyes:

[Vessol]

The strongest offense is the best defense. Withdraw our troops from overseas, spend only a portion of our military operations costs on defense costs(missile shields and interceptors). Have a reserve force ready if needed. America should never be the aggressor, it just shows how imperialistic our current regime is.

[sratiug]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear

Would Ron Paul cast a vote for war with this kind of threat? Or only after the US has been attacked?

This post is ridiculous.

If you are saying that a threat is enough for pre-emptive war, you are condoning North Korea attacking us.

We have "told" them they cannot have nukes. We have said we are going to intercept their ships. How many of our ships would we let North Korea seize before we retaliated? I predict massive casualties at the first attempt to intercept and board a North Korean vessel. I don't know why anyone would not take these people very seriously.

[Arnack]

North Korea always uses this type of rhetoric, for many reasons. This is nothing important, but at least something worth mentioning. ultimately, false threat.

[JoshLowry]

North Korea always uses this type of rhetoric, for many reasons. This is nothing important, but at least something worth mentioning. ultimately, false threat.

Read the post above yours.

You can be damn sure that we would retaliate to a preemptive attack from another country if we were testing out weapons.

North Korea has the right to defend herself.

[pacelli]

After blockading the country and restricting their trade, I can't fault them for threatening war. The lawmakers of the US have provoked a reaction. Just walk into any bar, saddle up to the meanest looking guy or gal in the bar, and take their beer away from them. See what happens. Try it as an experiment.

[Brian4Liberty]

I have been terribly dissappointed by many people I thought were ex-neocons. It is so easy to talk some people into supporting pre-emptive attacks and war. This NK rhetoric has the chicken-hawks blowing hot air (again).

[apropos]

The most he would do is ask for a formal declaration of war from Congress and act accordingly.

[satchelmcqueen]

if the threat was real, and the actually acted aggressivly towards the usa with PROOF, then i know paul would burry them in a quick manner, then get out and let them be.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

N. Korea threatens to wipe America off the map.

If they ever say that about Israel, they'll be in deep, deep trouble.

[qh4dotcom]

Bump

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

"If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and people of Korea will ... wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all," the official Korean Central News Agency said.

Translation of the quote provided:

If the U.S. attacks us, we will defend ourselves with everything at our disposal.

I don't see what the problem here is. Would the U.S. not do the same if, say, China attacked the U.S.?

Anyway, many members of the ticker forum are salivating over the thought of going to war with North Korea:

http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=99864

Genesis
We have to board that ship.
We can't let it through - if we do, then we've declared that our so-called "resolution" isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Big_bear
we need to cap his ass ASAP ..

070969
I think that is good enough to justify a defensive attack....

Francisco
Better yet: a little sabotage with plausible deniability. It would be a shame if the Nork ship suddenly found its rudder stuck full starboard and it was forced to steam in circles until it ran out of fuel.

Trades50
A ploy used before in by the DOD and Navy seals when enriched weapons grade plutonium was on it's way to the middle east....
Plant a bomb in the engine room and sink the ship. The North Koreans think they had engine trouble which sank the ship. You can be very discrete.

Windu
Step 3: Nuke NK preemptively.
Step 4: Get a good night's sleep.

http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=99864

[Carole]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear

Would Ron Paul cast a vote for war with this kind of threat? Or only after the US has been attacked?

He probably would not get the CHANCE to vote. We now do pre-emptive war by decision of the President, like it or not. Unconstitutional, of course, but so what?

In any case, this sounds like another false flag incident and even if there were an incident, Congress should be forced to debate the facts of it before voting for or against war. Only if we are attacked "without" provocation should war even be discussed. However, if attacked without provocation, we can defend ourselves.

Some people are even now trying to fan the flames of war again. This does not appear to be a legitimate situation for demanding war or ANY action. Sabre rattling really, on both sides. Someone wants another Tonkin.

Dr. Paul, if the vote were taken with as little information as is now available, would vote NO!

[Carole]

Ditto :D

[Sandman33]

After blockading the country and restricting their trade, I can't fault them for threatening war. The lawmakers of the US have provoked a reaction. Just walk into any bar, saddle up to the meanest looking guy or gal in the bar, and take their beer away from them. See what happens. Try it as an experiment.

Exactly, we just need to GTFO of there.

[mediahasyou]

n. korea's economy is not strong enough to support a war.

[Dr.3D]

n. korea's economy is not strong enough to support a war.

Neither is ours.

[dannno]

How about get out of South Korea?

[Objectivist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear

Would Ron Paul cast a vote for war with this kind of threat? Or only after the US has been attacked?

What kind of attack? I sleep well with the knowledge that we have capabilities to prevent missiles from hitting our soil.

[Carole]

But then we would have to downsize our military. :D:D :D

I agree. And Europe, and over a hundred other places. :D

[Carole]

After blockading the country and restricting their trade, I can't fault them for threatening war. The lawmakers of the US have provoked a reaction. Just walk into any bar, saddle up to the meanest looking guy or gal in the bar, and take their beer away from them. See what happens. Try it as an experiment.

Isn't that how we provoked Japan into the Pearl Harbor thingy? :eek:

[torchbearer]

Isn't that how we provoked Japan into the Pearl Harbor thingy? :eek:

oil embargo.

[Feenix566]

Throughout the entire time since the first Korean war, the libertarian position on the issue has been that the United States should remove its troops from the peninsula and should not interfere in Korean trade or politics. If the US federal government had followed this advice, the situation would not be as tense as it is today. North Korea would probably be more similar to Iran at this point, with a funcitoning economy and a populace who is waking up to the reality of their tyrannical government.

[The_Orlonater]

It's not important or serious.

[catdd]

Dr Paul says they are like spoiled children who like to make a big scene occasionally just to be rewarded with monetary funding.

[mczerone]

n. korea's economy is not strong enough to support a war.

And N. Korea's military might couldn't wipe New Jersey off the map, let alone the whole of these USs of A.

[Sandman33]

What kind of attack? I sleep well with the knowledge that we have capabilities to prevent missiles from hitting our soil.

Yeah we can detect MISSILES and counter them.....yet planes appear free to nail our strongest buildings even after they've known about them being taken over for over an hour.....

[Arnack]

n. korea's economy is not strong enough to support a war.

Yes they do. I suggest you research their songun, army first, techniques, which is where about 80% of all their money is going to: their army. Let me assure you, they are always ready to fight a war, and with the 4th largest army in the world, and with the opposition of nukes, I'm sure they could start some trouble.

[KCIndy]

I can't believe how many people are getting worked up over this... un-freakin'believable!

Let's stop and think.

In order to hit the U.S. with even ONE atomic bomb - a bomb that would likely have less than half the explosive yield of the bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima - the North Koreans would have to:

1.) Be able to construct an atomic bomb small enough to fit into the warhead of an intercontinental missile. That's NOT an easy task, folks, and I'm guessing that they're not there yet. Anyone ever seen the pictures of the first U.S. atomic bombs, "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" that were used on Japan?

2.) Said long-range missile - and they have only one type that has the range to hit Alaska or Hawaii - would have to fire properly. The last couple they shot off, according to most sources, fizzled miserably and splashed into the Pacific.

3.) Said missile would have to be accurate enough to.... say.... HIT LAND. The better odds are for hitting some sort of land in Alaska, where the population is mostly pine trees and mosquitoes. The odds of hitting Hawaii, assuming the missile actually makes it that far, would probably be pretty slim. They might end up killing a coral reef, though.

4.) The bomb would actually have to function correctly and explode. Their first attempt was a partial misfire.


Last of all, by most of the intel I've heard discussed, the North Korean government has, at best, around half a dozen possibly-reliable bombs. I would be surprised if ANY of these is small enough to fit on the end of a missile. If they were actually insane enough to shoot a live one at us, and assuming we don't shoot it down, and assuming it doesn't fall apart right off the launch pad, and assuming it hits land, and assuming it hits a populated target, and assuming it's constructed well enough that it actually detonates.... assuming all this, they have to know we would practically level their little country, whether by conventional or nuclear means.

It's just a crazy little short dictator yelling empty threats, people.

Calm down.

[Elwar]

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Ron Paul: Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

Also:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-06/ron-paul-north-korea-is-not-a-threat-to-the-us/

"The North Koreans, they have a rocket, not an intercontinental ballistic missile. We don’t even know for sure if they have a bomb that they could launch, and we are now wondering, what are we going to do with this country?

I mean, they can’t even feed themselves. They do not have a Navy, what kind of an Air Force do they have, and yet it just seems like this is an excuse for the West, and in particular our military-industrial complex to have another excuse to have a massive build up.

It just seems so unnecessary. Ironically, it seems like the Chinese had the most measured response as they, “why don’t you just sit back a minute and think about this?” And I think that is what we ought to do.

The Koreans are not going to attack us. If they even did have a bomb, even if they made an attempt to do it, I mean, they would be wiped off on the face of the Earth within minutes.

It is just preposterous to think that the North Koreans are a threat. I think they are playing cat and mouse. I think they are laughing. I think they love to see us go nuts over this, but what they don’t understand is, they might not realize how much we might overreact, and this whole thing that some of our politicians are saying, “Well, we should have gone in there and bombed that site before the rocket even took off.”

But the technology there is so primitive and yet we are at this point of thinking that it is like Pearl Harbor again. Just think, we are concentrating on weapons and weapons are really important.

But what if we said for many years, “It is not the guns that kill, it is the people that kill.” And yet, we have politicians now claiming that we should practically go to war against North Korea at this moment.

Quite frankly, I think if we would not be in South Korea, which I have advocated for years, South Korea and North Korea probably would be unified and they would be westernized by now. But this whole idea that we are there and we persists with this confrontation…

Communism is a failure, and that is why the Soviet system collapsed. But when you play these games, just like we did with the communists in Cuba. Castro lasted a lot longer because we put sanctions on them, on Castro, and gave him cover, but that is going to come to an end eventually. After all these years, sanctions don’t work.

People are now crying for even more and more sanctions. So it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever for us to pursue these policies of antagonism. You say these people are a bit nuts. Well, if they don’t want to talk to us, fine. But if they would talk to us, I would not give them any money. So often when we talk to the North Koreans, we think they are going to do something, we give them money.

Why don’t we try this third option? Instead of either attacking people or giving them money, just offer out friendship. If they want to trade with us, fine. But communism fails, it will fail, their system is failing. The Soviet system, we didn’t have to attack it. They had thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons, and we didn’t have to confront them.

And now, we are acting hysterically over this whole notion that we have to attack them. Sure, they might be working on a weapon, but just think in the age in which we live. People need to understand and study what fourth generation warfare is.

They need to understand that we were really brought down and chaos was caused by 19 individuals with boxed blades. That is what we have to think about, but we have to understand fourth generation warfare. You have to understand why people want to attack us. You have to understand why we do these things and how fruitless they are.

We have to realize that our foreign policy has blowback to it and that is the biggest threat to us. The best thing that we could do is to take the advice of the founding fathers and say, “Look, let’s trade with people. Let’s talk with people, try to be friends with people, and be more tolerant with people, and look to our own problems.”

When we make our own mistakes, if we have imperfections in protecting human rights and civil liberties here in this country, let’s take care of it before we preach and lecture to everybody else and expect them to respond to us.

If we do that, I think we could come up with a much better chance of having peace in this world and certainly a lot more prosperity. We don’t need to be spending these hundreds of billions of dollars on international warfareism.

And some people expected our new administration to actually cut it back. They are increasing this military budget, and if you would have just listened to the comments from our administration today, they were more provocative than anything I have heard in weeks, if not months about what we must do about this.

We ought to just sit back and take a breath and realize that North Korea is not a threat to the United States of America."