Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul says that without US troops in Korea, Korea would be unified just like Vietnam. Hey, I support pulling U.S. forces out of Korea as much as the next guy (and I understand how as a libertarian, he might feel that it makes no difference to the U.S. whether South Koreans are eating grass and tree bark like their Northern brothers or not), but I fail to see how Seoul going the way of Saigon would have been good thing.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
45 Comments
I saw the interview clip, and I’m not too sure he actually meant that the reunification would be the result of a North Korean invasion. It kind of sounded like he was saying that the presence of U.S. troops on the peninsula is creating hostility that is preventing peaceful reunification efforts.
Does he mean that it would be a communist dictatorship where anyone who has had any association with the Americans will be persecuted? If that’s the case, given the way they treat people up north who have family in South Korea or Japan, I think he’s probably right.
So he would like to see 30 years of stagnation like what happened in Vietnam since the end of the war, before the economy finally started introducing open market reforms a couple of years ago. Except if the Norks communize the whole peninsula like they intend to do, then it could take 50 ears before the Kim dynasty finally fades into oblivion.
Korea certainly should not be an open ended committment. There comes a time when being in Korea is no longer in the U.S. interest, and U.S. troops must leave. Some would argue that this point has been reached within the recent past. Dr. Paul also has a valid constitutional point about committing U.S. troops to undeclared wars. The President has always had the power to wage contingency operations short of war, using the standing armed forces (and some would argue, after the Elihu Root reforms, the reserve forces). The question which has plagued U.S. politics for the past 57 years is: When is a congressional declaration of War required? Truman argued that it was not necessary for “Police Actions” which were thrust upon us by treaties to which the U.S. was party, and whcih Congress had ratified. Vietnam and Gulf War II have now given the electorate sufficient reason to raise the issue anew. Does the “war powers act” suffice? Or does congress need to take action that will force the President to seek a declaration of war any time he is about to commit the resources and treasure of the country to an armed conflict that could escalate into war. Those are not esoteric parameters, and one suspects that determining those issues will be what the coming elections and subsequent congressional battles will be about.
I second what James said. To me it sounded like he was talking about the presence of US troops, not the Korean war (although he has said in the past that the Korean war was unconstitutional because it was not declared by congress as required by the constitution).
Anyway, Ron Paul for President, seriously.
Dr Paul is unstoppable now that he has Occidentalism and the Katholik Shinja behind him.
he’s not electable. He’s just yapping, to set himself apart from the big 2.
peninsular aborigine, only half of Occidentalism is behind him, so he’s not unstoppable yet.
Ron Paul is the only candidate, from either party, who can reverse America’s descent into a fascist police state. If you don’t believe that, then enjoy your national I.D. card, microchip and legalized torture.
He’s leading in every poll and the Republican establishment is doing everything it can to marginalize him. That’s what happens in modern America when you are for liberty and the constitution.
And wjk, as usual, you don’t have the faintest idea what you’re talking about. Paul has been absolutely consistent in his positions since entering public life. Try doing a bit of research before you do your yapping.
“a couple of years ago.”
Right, tell yourself that. Vietnam’s economy has been ‘open’ for more than a couple of years. The US was simply the last one to clue in.
What’s next, you’re gonna tell us that Nixon opened China?
The Kim cult is what has prevented apeaceful reunification. U.S. troops have helped to prevent a bloody one.
Obviously Paul has no nunchi in this matter.
wjk, it’s a sad commentary that a man who advocates following the Constitution and the advice of the Founding Fathers is deemed unelectable. It is sadder still that those who see no problem with the US president going to the UN, not the Congress, to get permission to wage a war are deemed mainstream, electable candidates.
elvislovechild is right. Dr. Paul has been offering the same views in his ten terms in Congress. He’s been absolutely consistent in resisting what Murray Rothbard called the Welfare/Warfare State.
Blame “Honest” Abe.
I can’t help but be amused by the ironic confluence of events: another Asia blog is currently discussing the propriety of labeling another Abe (the prime minister of Japan) as a “nationalist.” When it comes to nationalism, he’s a piker compared to Lincoln. Lincoln trampled all over the fundamental law of the land as well as the principles on which it was based. He did this not out of the noble ends which are ascribed to him (not that it would absolve him if he had: non facias malum ut inde fiat bonum), but to advance his rabidly nationalist agenda of a “united” nation at any price, and one far more statist and militant than that which preceded him.
Why can’t we elect a strict constructionist? Lincoln. FDR. LBJ. Blame them.
Ut videam, I’m with you all the way. Lincoln’s cultus needs to be debunked before America can move on.
I’d expand your list to include Wilson and a few others. I’m a fan of Grover S. Cleveland.
WC,
Don’t forget Washington and the cherry tree, etc.
Unelectable.
“Ron Paul is the only candidate, from either party, who can reverse America’s descent into a fascist police state. If you don’t believe that, then enjoy your national I.D. card, microchip and legalized torture.”
I trust you’re joking. Right?
You have no idea how much I wish I was joking. Do your homework, or you just live up to your tag.
Ah; man-bear-pig.
This is one reason I left the US Libertarian Party. While on the one hand they mouth a lot about “liberty,” they fail to define any philosophical basis for that desire (Harry Browne years ago simply chalked it up to some sort of innate desire). So, you end up with subgroups like Christian Libertarians, White Power Libertarians, Marxist Libertarians, each advocating “liberation” from one negative thing or another. They constantly reverse cause — fundamental philosophical principles — and effect — the freedom Americans once enjoyed. From my reading of Paul’s comments and those of the Rothbard/Rockwell coterie, they’re doing it again in foreign policy, believing that an effect — US troops being in potential hotspots of anti-US threats — are somehow a cause — hatred of the US by dictators and totalitarians. Their policy ideas would seem to mean “liberating” US citizens, organizations and property from any protection they might enjoy overseas.
“You have no idea how much I wish I was joking. Do your homework, or you just live up to your tag.”
Maybe I came up with a different answer. This isn’t math class.
Seriously, Paul seems to be a very interesting guy with some good ideas; fortunately or unfortunately, guys who campaign to eliminate the IRS - as nice a notion as it may or may not be - don’t win. And I don’t think one guy not winning the election in 2008 will be the end of the world.
You don’t think that a guy who would never vote for a tax increase is electable? You don’t want somebody to the right of Bush? You don’t want to vote for a PhD? Pure Know-nothingism.
Latest Gallup poll results here. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598
Notice there was not a single person in the poll that supported Ron Paul. Yep, a big 0, not even a * which means less than 0.5% supported you.
Sad.
Latest Gallup poll results..
T
here was not a single person in the poll that supported Ron Paul. Yep, a big 0, not even a * which means less than 0.5% supported you.
Sad.
Ron Paul came first in the MSNBC internet based poll of people that saw the first republican debate on MSNBC. Ron Paul came second in the FOX phone message based poll of people that saw the second republican debate on FOX. When people actually see and hear his message, they tend to agree. Allowing the candidates to get their message out there is what the debates are for.
Ron Paul stands out because he was the only one of the 10 candidates to have voted against the Iraq war, and favors pulling out. He was also one of the 2 out of 10 candidates that opposed torture (the other one to be against it was Sen. McCain, who actually has been tortured).
Ron Paul’s influence on this election is zero. In the latest gallup poll his support was a big goose egg. That’s right, not a single person said they would vote for him.
Dr. Paul is simply a man that remembers that American conservatives used to write books with titles like Our Enemy, the State.
Nowadays, what passes for “conservative” “thought” is the latest idiotic utterance by Hannity, Coulter, or Malkin.
It is still too early for the gallop poll to have any definitive meaning. All it means that people that were actually polled have never heard of him. The gallop poll was also taken before all the press Ron Paul got from the second debate. The gallop poll also puts Rudy Giuliani in front, but does anyone think that he will be the Republican nominee?
Big difference. The Washington legend is ultimately harmless. The Lincoln hagiography, by contrast, protects his Constitution-wrecking legacy from critical examination.
Dick Morris, Mr Clinton’s toe-sucking co-religionist, has been saying for months that next year’s primaries will be (basically) wrapped up this year. Think what you want about Mr Morris, but some of the times his political judgement is spot on. This may be one of those times.
If that’s the case, Ron Paul might want to start to get moving.
I like the idea of reducing the power (getting rid of the IRS), not that that is realistic, but the isolationist ideals of some libertarians is not a good option for the US. The US needs oil and most of it’s in the Middle East. That’s the problem. I don’t see a pull-out from the Middle East as helping the US in any way. Maybe if we can ween the country off of oil and find alternatives, etc, just possibly we could be free of oil in 50, 70, 100 years? Before then, any idea of getting completely out of the Middle East is like saying that we are willing to downsize our lives due to the lack of energy supplies.
Also, regarding Ron Paul’s comments about how Korea could be unified, as Vietnam is, I doubt too many South Koreans would trade their present lives for those of Vietnamese. Most would rather be rich and divided than poor and ‘one in solidarity’.
If the US were to turn isolationist, would the net balance be better for the world? If the answer is “no,” doesn’t the (affluent) US have a duty to help others in terms of magnanimity? I often find isolationism to be heartlessly cold.
“Isolationism” is merely a perjorative term for non-interventionism, which was America’s original foreign policy.
Pat Buchanan has always said America should be the first on the ground in case of a disaster like an earthquake or tsunami in any part of the world.
Victims of American interventionism might not see “isolationism” as “heartlessly cold.” Heartlessly cold would be Madeleine Albright’s response to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children directly caused by the Clinton sanctions: “It’s worth it.”
‘Heartlessly cold would be Madeleine Albright’s response to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children directly caused by the Clinton sanctions: “It’s worth it.”’
Clinton and Albright are to blame for maintaining sanctions - which were cold, unfair, and did result in the suffering of countless innocent Iraqi chidren and other innocents - but UN Security Council Resolutions 661 and 687 date back to 1990 and 1991 respectively. If Bill Clinton was sworn in as President in 1993, does that really make them “Clinton sanctions”?
Do South Koreans vote in US elections?
“If Bill Clinton was sworn in as President in 1993, does that really make them ‘Clinton sanctions’?”
Maybe not, but it was that scumbag who bombed the country to enforce them.
Matter of fact, I seem to recall that he had quite a penchant for bombing and/or lobbing cruise missiles as a one-size-fits-all solution for any problem that came down the pike: broken sanctions in Iraq, political heat at home…
Yep. And Clinton bombed at the behest of the UN or NATO, not the Congress, which should trouble anyone who thinks the Constitution is more than a piece of paper.
“Matter of fact, I seem to recall that he had quite a penchant for bombing and/or lobbing cruise missiles as a one-size-fits-all solution for any problem that came down the pike: broken sanctions in Iraq, political heat at home…”
Don’t disagree with you. Hardly unique to the Clinton presidency, but a fair assessment.
“And Clinton bombed at the behest of the UN or NATO, not the Congress, which should trouble anyone who thinks the Constitution is more than a piece of paper.”
Were Americans compelled to go to war in the Balkans as a result of membership in either the UN or NATO? Do you think that Clinton’s military actions were actually dictated by the UN or NATO? Were US forces in either Bosnia or Kosovo under the operational command of a Dutch, Belgian, or Icelandic general? Or politicians from NATO countries? I think not. If the US chose to involve themselves in conflicts through the UN or NATO, it was their call alone to do so, plus they would have been the ones calling the shots. Literally.
40 - The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war. That the President has been able to bypass that since WWII is just one of many nails in the coffin of the Old Republic.
41 - I agree with you that wars should go through Congress. I would just like to point out that some of Clinton bashers might also choose to bring up Grenada, Iran-Contra, and a list of Latin American interventions/invasions too lengthy to catalog here when it comes to Congress being, how should I say, “overlooked” in terms of declaring and/or conducting war.
I think that Republican and Democratic Administrations have plenty of blame to share between them for bypassing Congress (especially since WWII, as you rightly pointed out).
42 - No argument here whatsoever, except perhaps to quibble with your inclusion of Iran-Contra as an example.
What can I say, I have a soft spot for the Gipper.
42 - I’m in full agreement with every point you make. I’m fully bipartisan when it comes to criticizing foreign policy. What we need is for the Legislative branch to step up to the plate.
43 - It’s hard not to have a soft spot for the Gipper. He made a few blunders, but he was the best president in my lifetime. Here’s a review of a book that he stood for “freedom, peace, disarmament, self-reliance, earthly happiness, the dreams of the imagination and the desires of the heart”:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119735.html
At this point it’s been 66 years since the last formal declaration of war by US Congress. Don’t you think you have to look elsewhere for the reason for this?
(By “elsewhere” I mean other than some idea of infernal clever manipulation by the various US presidential administrations of this period).
The end of the Cold War represented an opportunity for the Congress as an institution to “take back” in a “real” way the war declaration power, but when push came to shove they were just too darn scared to do it. Congressmen/Senators of the “old Republic” must have looked down from heaven (ok, looked up from the nether regions) and snorted in disgust.
They did come close in the Senate, with the barely adequate 52-47 vote authorizing the first Gulf War. But when it came to actually having to look the voters in the eye with a “hard vote” behind them, the Senators just couldn’t quite bring themselves to take the risk, could they? (To include the current heartthrob of the people Al Gore, who was a Senator then and who voted “yes” to authorize the war (Jan 91)).
Of course by Jan 91 everything was in place to start the US attack from Saudi Arabia to liberate Kuwait anyway; the Congress hadn’t taken positive action in preceding months to stop the funding paying for the US troop move into SA, just like they can’t bring themselves currently to vote to stop the funding for Iraq.
I surprised myself at the time by my own internal discovery as to a visceral opposition to the first Gulf War. We (the US) had no formal treaty of any kind with the Kuwaiti government.
It’s almost forgotten now, but the Kuwaitis had been quite content to be a “neutral” in the 70’s and 80’s, indeed indulging in the mandatory occasional posturing against the US; evidently they thought that their immense good fortune as to oil made them the chosen of God and invulnerable to life’s little viscisitudes.
(I point out that prior to the UK withdrawal from “east of Suez” (approx 1968), the Brits had intervened in the late 50’s/early 60’s a couple of times to prevent previous Iraqi regimes from swallowing up Kuwait. Too bad the Brits couldn’t have kept a couple of battalions and an air wing in Kuwait (the way they do now in the Falklands); had they done so, perhaps all this current mess could have been avoided).
There was a good panel debate on C-Span several months ago on this “demise” of the Congressional war declaration power, accompanied by plenty of the weeping and moaning that comes up about this topic every so often.
One participant (the “notorious” John Yoo of UC Berkeley law school) made this same point (ie at this point in the history of the republic, evidently the American people are satisfied with the way the war powers are arranged).
It will take some courage from their elected Congressional representatives to get this changed (ie something other than “I was agsinst the vote for the war before I was for it”, or whatever that exact quote of Kerry’s was).
The US presence in the ROK would be a great place to start. We (the US) have certainly met in Korea all the criteria for the US troop withdrawal that are supposed to be stipulated currently for Iraq (ie the ROK has a reasonably stable democratic government in place).
One Trackback
Ron Paul: the Kang Jeong-koo of the Republican Party?…
…