How Would President Paul Deal With An NK Invasion Of SK

[ProBlue33]

I am just wondering what you think he would do, he doesn't like to get involved in wars.
If no American troops were killed his response could be less.
However if massive American causalities occurred he would be boxed in on his options.

I wonder if he might just say "screw it" and tell the NK hey we can't afford another long conventional war, back off or we nuke you, you have 48 hours. One nuclear sub off the NK coast could wipe out the country. Not that this would be a good or best option. What else could he do? Let the South fall to the North? As much as he hates the UN would he say it's their problem to deal with, based on treaty?

Thoughts?

[TC95]

Under President Paul, there would be no American troops over there to be killed, so North and South Korea can duke it out until their hearts are content.

[CharlesTX]

under president paul, there would be no american troops over there to be killed, so north and south korea can duke it out until their hearts are content.

+1776

[Elwar]

On day 1 he would begin bringing the troops home from all parts of the world including South Korea.

If South Korea was attacked during the transition process I would imagine that he might support them up to the point that we can safely bring the troops home.

But North Korea wouldn't attack if the president wasn't directly involved in trying to get that to happen.

[t0rnado]

Let them defend themselves and if they can't, too fucking bad.

[pcosmar]

[B]How Would President Paul Deal With An NK Invasion Of SK [/

Edit
Opps my Bad

Misread the title.
Beat me, but let me live.

[Hugo]

What about treaties that the US has with South Korea? Its not like South Korea hasnt been involved in Afghanistan, which would legally oblige the US to assist if the treaties were still in effect by that time.

[TNforPaul45]

He would have breakfast......maybe an omelet. Perhaps some orange juice too. Then he would read lewrockwell.com on his iPad and drink some Fiji water.

Then.....maybe some calisthenics.

[SeanKim]

At this point in time, US would be dragged into a conflict if N. Korea was to attack S. Korea.

1. We have 30,000 troops there and even if they came home, we have thousands of soldiers in Japan who would be endangered.

2. We have 100,000 Americans living & working in Seoul. Would any US president sit idly while those Americans are killed? The chances are if war breaks out, it will be in an instant and there would probably not be time for those Americans to leave the country in time.

3. We have numerous defense pacts with S. Korea including providing nuclear umbrella.

Now, to decrease American presence/risk in the region, US could & should start decreasing number of troops from the region. BUT, to be fair to S. Korea, the ONLY reason why S. Korea DID NOT develop their own nuclear arsenal is because US stopped them from doing so. I think it would be COMPLETELY unfair for US to leave S. Korea and at the same time PREVENT them from obtaining nuclear weapons which they would need to defend themselves from N. Korea.

So, all in all, leave S. Korea alone & let them defend themselves but do not prevent them from developing NECESSARY capabilities to defend themselves. The political theory of MAD (mutually assured destruction) will keep peace between two Koreas. AND to be completely honest, most Koreans are grateful to America for defending them from communists in 1953 as I am also. BUT at this point in time, it is unnecessary for US to spend billions of dollars providing defense for S. Korea. S. Korea can afford its own defense. Also, many Koreans are looking at US as occupying force & sometimes US involvement gets in the way of meaningful talk between two Koreas.

As their ally, I think US can sell them weapons & etc that they wouldn't sell to N. Korea but I don't want US to be further dragged into a war there.

[hazek]

You are all wrong.

He wouldn't do nothing and he also wouldn't do something on his own.

As he him self said countless times, he'd ask congress if our national interest and security are in danger and if so they should declare war. And if they did, he'd go in and win it, if they didn't he'd let it go.


In other words he'd do what the constitution allows him to do. You'd think that'd be obvious by now.

[cswake]

+1. The President should have no decision in the matter under the law; however, I would expect him to send US diplomats to negotiate a truce.

[freshjiva]

You are all wrong.

He wouldn't do nothing and he also wouldn't do something on his own.

As he him self said countless times, he'd ask congress if out national interest and security are in danger and if so they should declare war. And if they did, he'd go in and win it, if they didn't he'd let it go.


In other words he'd do what the constitution allows him to do. You'd think that'd be obvious by now.

+1.

You got this 100% right, hazek. This is where a lot of Paul supporters confuse Ron's position on foreign policy and war. Ron is not anti-war, he's anti-undeclared-war.

Under President Paul, he'd defer to Congress to assess whether a North Korea/South Korea military conflict would endanger Americans, and if so, to go on the record and fully declare war.

[fisharmor]

When I was growing up, Ace Hardware stores were always staffed by old dudes who spent time in Korea and smoked Lucky Strikes.

President Paul would see to it that my kids would have the same experience, only probably minus the Lucky Strikes.

[Feeding the Abscess]

For those who think Ron would simply troll to Congress to ask if we should go to war if two countries were to essentially enter into civil war, have you read his objections to our foreign policy? It's not simply that it's not procedural.

He's more than anti-declared-war. He's also anti-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-our-national-security-war.

[hazek]

He's more than anti-declared-war. He's also anti-this-has-nothing-to-do-with-our-national-security-war.

He is. But that wouldn't matter. I'm pretty sure he'd state his view and try and persuade the Congress not to declare war but if they did, he'd go in and wage it. It's what the law says.

[Pericles]

He is. But that wouldn't matter. I'm pretty sure he'd state his view and try and persuade the Congress not to declare war but if they did, he'd go in and wage it. It's what the law says.

And my experience on this board to date indicates there are a number of members here that wish that was not true. They like it it when the President unilaterally does what they want, no matter what the Constitution says.

[Vessol]

There will never be an invasion of S. Korea by N. Korea unless N. Korea received the approval of China.

The only reason China would ever give approval is to attack a puppet regime of the U.S (S. Korea). If we removed ourselves from that region(including Japan), tensions between the U.S and China would greatly diminish. China would prefer to either keep things how they or, or support an invasion of N. Korea by S. Korea because S. Korea is a better trading partner for China.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He is. But that wouldn't matter. I'm pretty sure he'd state his view and try and persuade the Congress not to declare war but if they did, he'd go in and wage it. It's what the law says.

And if he objected and decided not to sign it into law?

[Pericles]

And if he objected and decided not to sign it into law?

The President does not have the option - that power is solely that of the Congress. Check out the views of President Madison and the War of 1812.

[tangent4ronpaul]

"Hay Carol, could you make some popcorn - lets go out and watch the fireworks...."

-t

[hazek]

I don't know what the law says about that.

[BuddyRey]

If and until the U.S. is directly attacked by either North or South Korea, I doubt Pres. Paul would see the necessity in imperiling countless American lives in yet another fruitless international d!@k-waving contest.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The President does not have the option - that power is solely that of the Congress. Check out the views of President Madison and the War of 1812.

Declarations are signed into law, like other bills originated in the Congress. I haven't found anything that says a President can't veto a declaration. Perhaps you can help me find that info? Not being antagonistic.

[Pericles]

I don't know what the law says about that.

In theory he could veto it as being the same as a bill or vote, but that language omits declarations, which can mean it is a sole power of Congress, or that declaration of war must originate in Congress.

[hazek]

Well regardless of what the law says I think it'd come down to who had the public behind them. If the public was behind the president I have a hard time imagining anyone being able to something against his objection to war without consequences. And if the Congress had the support then I think the president would feel major consequences if he objected.

[muzzled dogg]

what is there for a president to deal with?

[Pericles]

Well regardless of what the law says I think it'd come down to who had the public behind them. If the public was behind the president I have a hard time imagining anyone being able to something against his objection to war without consequences. And if the Congress had the support then I think the president would feel major consequences if he objected.

I am guided by William Rawle for a good view of original intent:

But although congress alone can subject us to the dubious results of formal war, a smaller portion of the government can restore us to peace. Hostilities may be terminated by a truce, which the president alone (it is conceived) may make. The duration of a truce is indefinite. It suspends all hostilities while it continues in force; but it does not revive treaties which were broken by the commencement of the war, or restore rights of any sort, which were suspended by it. It may be general or partial--it may extend to all places and to all the mutual forces of the belligerents, or it may be confined to particular places or particular armaments. When it ceases, it is unnecessary to repeat the declaration of war. But before its conventual termination, unless some fresh cause of complaint should have arisen, it would be inconsistent with good faith to renew hostilities.


Treaties, by which peace is completely restored, may, as already shown, be made by the president and senate alone, without the concurrence, and against the will of the house of representatives.


It has been made a subject of doubt, whether the power to make war and peace, should not be the same, and why a smaller part of the government should be entrusted with the latter, than the former. Sufficient reasons may certainly be assigned for the distinction. Peace is seldom effected without preparatory discussions, often of length and difficulty, the conduct of which, of course, belongs only to the president and senate. War is always an evil; peace is the cure of that evil. War should always be avoided as long as possible, and although it may happen to be brought on us as before observed, without the previous assent of congress, yet a regular and formal war should never be entered into, without the united approbation of the whole legislature.

[qh4dotcom]

You are all wrong.

He wouldn't do nothing and he also wouldn't do something on his own.

As he him self said countless times, he'd ask congress if our national interest and security are in danger and if so they should declare war. And if they did, he'd go in and win it, if they didn't he'd let it go.


In other words he'd do what the constitution allows him to do. You'd think that'd be obvious by now.

If a warmongerer congressman told you it was necessary to go to war, would you believe him? I don't think RP is that dumb to trust warmongerers.

[Pericles]

If a warmongerer congressman told you it was necessary to go to war, would you believe him? I don't think RP is that dumb to trust warmongerers.

I would think that a strict Constitutionalist would tend to defer to Congress unless the matter is (A) outside the bounds of the Constitution or (B) an area which requires approval from the President (treaties, foreign policy, etc.).

[starless]

We are very lucky as a nation that France didn't have the same foreign policy as most posters on this forum do back when we needed their help against the British during our revolution. There is something to be said for protecting weaker democracies against oppressors.

[Flash]

Why are South Korea & North Korea in the state they're in?



It seems like a hundred rather than ten years ago that the two Koreas were on the verge of an historic reconciliation. The leaders of a divided nation met for the first time in half a century, and many analysts were confident that Communist leader Kim Jong-il had decided North Korea must avoid complete economic collapse by opting for a “soft landing.” For a while, it looked like the “sunshine policy” of South Korean president Kim Dae-jung was going to succeed in preventing a catastrophic collapse of the Communist regime, a flood of refugees, or even the outbreak of war. The US, however, put the kibosh on that hopeful scenario. That didn’t stop the South Koreans, however: over US opposition, Dae-jung’s heir pursued the sunshine policy with even more vigor, traveling to North Korea and stepping over the physical border – but it was not to be. The liberal ascendancy in South Korean politics was ended, in 2008, by the election of President Lee Myung Bak, whose first act was to abolish the government department set up to facilitate national unification.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/11/23/korean-conundrum/

[hazek]

Why are South Korea & North Korea in the state they're in?




http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/11/23/korean-conundrum/

Well of course. Davide and conquer is the name of the game.

[Toureg89]

by letting SK kick NKs ass.

SK has 80% of the manpower that NK has while only using 2.5% of its gdp for its military, while NK uses 15% (i believe those are the right figures).

if NK upped the military defense spending to that of NKs /gdp, they could perfectly well handle themselves

[Brett]

you are all wrong.

He wouldn't do nothing and he also wouldn't do something on his own.

As he him self said countless times, he'd ask congress if our national interest and security are in danger and if so they should declare war. And if they did, he'd go in and win it, if they didn't he'd let it go.


In other words he'd do what the constitution allows him to do. You'd think that'd be obvious by now.

+2012

[SWATH]

Suggest to anyone wishing to defend South Korea to buy a gun and a plane ticket.

[RM918]

I like the suggestion I heard on this forum a short time ago, which is just have the U.S. finally let South Korea and Japan have their own nukes. China and North Korea will get a lot less blustery.

[Michael Landon]

I'm not sure how President Paul would deal with this but I do know how President Michael Landon would, let them deal with each other. If in the event that either of them decided to attack our homeland then President Landon would nuke them.

- ML

[SeanKim]

I like the suggestion I heard on this forum a short time ago, which is just have the U.S. finally let South Korea and Japan have their own nukes. China and North Korea will get a lot less blustery.

I made the suggestion as well in earlier post in this topic. I am not sure about Japan as Japan's security is not threatened as much or if at all by N. Korea & also Japanese constitution does not allow it to have standing army & I believe including nuclear weapon.

But, I take a position that S. Korea should just obtain its own nukes and therefore provide nuclear umbrella for Japan and thereby create MAD (mutually assured destruction) with N. Korea. I think only then, both countries with MAD, can come together on equal footing and work toward peace.

As for all the suggestions that U.S. shouldn't help or defend S. Korea, I agree wholeheartedly that U.S. soldiers shouldn't be there but how will you help the 100,000 Americans working/living in S. Korea? Just curious.

[tremendoustie]

I am just wondering what you think he would do, he doesn't like to get involved in wars.
If no American troops were killed his response could be less.
However if massive American causalities occurred he would be boxed in on his options.

I wonder if he might just say "screw it" and tell the NK hey we can't afford another long conventional war, back off or we nuke you, you have 48 hours. One nuclear sub off the NK coast could wipe out the country. Not that this would be a good or best option. What else could he do? Let the South fall to the North? As much as he hates the UN would he say it's their problem to deal with, based on treaty?

Thoughts?

I think he'd withdraw the troops from SK and stop acting like the policemen of the world, just like he says he would.

What you're suggesting is insane. To murder millions of people because of the actions of one dictator is madness.

[RCA]

He would...

YouTube - Beatles - Let It Be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEogJacjLTE)

[tremendoustie]

You are all wrong.

He wouldn't do nothing and he also wouldn't do something on his own.

As he him self said countless times, he'd ask congress if our national interest and security are in danger and if so they should declare war. And if they did, he'd go in and win it, if they didn't he'd let it go.

I don't know who you're listening to, but RP wants to withdraw the troops from around the world, and stop meddling militarily in foreign affairs.



In other words he'd do what the constitution allows him to do. You'd think that'd be obvious by now.

The fact that he points out the unconstitutionality of the current wars doesn't mean he supports war when it's declared. He said he'd vote against the declaration of war, you'll recall.

Some of you folks seem to have forgotten that RP is the peace candidate, in favor of minding our own business, instead of getting involved in endless war.

[tremendoustie]

+1.

You got this 100% right, hazek. This is where a lot of Paul supporters confuse Ron's position on foreign policy and war. Ron is not anti-war, he's anti-undeclared-war.


WRONG.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul707.html



Under President Paul, he'd defer to Congress to assess whether a North Korea/South Korea military conflict would endanger Americans, and if so, to go on the record and fully declare war.

He'd oppose an interventionist foreign policy.

Seriously, did you guys just wake up from under a rock or something? Ron paul is not your warmongering neocon homeboy.

[Pericles]

WRONG.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul707.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul707.html)



He'd oppose an interventionist foreign policy.

Seriously, did you guys just wake up from under a rock or something? Ron paul is not your warmongering neocon homeboy.

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, insisting that the House International Relations committee follow constitutional principles, yesterday introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq. The language of the declaration was very clear: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

"I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions," Paul stated yesterday after a committee hearing. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul continued. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed," while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be ‘frivolous.’ I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."

"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," Paul concluded. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war."

[hazek]

I know he'd bring all the troops home and close down the bases. I know he is for peace personally and would go to war only against an immediate threat but I also know he'd respect the rule of law, the constitution and if he is obligate to wage war if the Congress declares war then he'd do it. And if he can object, I believe he would although if the public thought he shouldn't it would probably cost him a reelection.

[oyarde]

Pretty soon the North Koreans will be eating each other .

[ProBlue33]

Most of these replies seem to ignore the possible deaths of American troops before they are withdrawn, a President Paul on his first day office would be meeting with the Joint Chiefs advising them of his plans to withdraw troops from all overseas bases.
So yes those troops would be coming home under his leadership, but what if NK strikes before they can be withdrawn. The President is constitutionally bound to protect American soldiers that did not attack, but are being attacked even overseas.

Congress would demand a strong reaction, and Paul would follow there vote, at least that's what he has been saying all along.

[SeanKim]

Well, not only American troops. How about American citizens?? There are more than 100,000 Americans living & working in Korea. This is a hard question..

[Feeding the Abscess]

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, insisting that the House International Relations committee follow constitutional principles, yesterday introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq. The language of the declaration was very clear: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

"I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions," Paul stated yesterday after a committee hearing. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul continued. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed," while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be ‘frivolous.’ I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."

"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," Paul concluded. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war."

Context, my friend. He's trolling Republicans and trying to get them to admit they're insane, bloodthirsty warmongers, with no respect for the Constitution.