Ron Paul on Threatening China Over Korea: Grandstanding… Or Wise Diplomacy?

Just days before President Trump is set to meet Chinese Premier Xi Jinping he let loose with a threat: either China “solves” North Korea or the US will do it. One way would be good for China, the other would not, he added. But how much sway does China really have over Kim Jong-Un and his nuclear policy? Could Trump be miscalculating? What’s at stake? We look at the possibilities in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

9 thoughts on “Ron Paul on Threatening China Over Korea: Grandstanding… Or Wise Diplomacy?”

  1. Ron and Daniel once again hedge their bets. it’s obviously a threat against China, even if the bluff works.

    Ron and Daniel not being clear on that is an indication that they are willing to accept Trump’s bluff on war with China.

    This is just behaviour that’s as bad as Raimondo’s support of Trump.

    Both are stealing legitimacy from this site’s antiwar cause.

  2. Korea is in China’s back yard. I’d kinda wanted Trump to resolve Korea via different means. I hope things work out :)

    1. I buy electronics from China, and virtually every part of my motorized bicycle is from China. Oh, and the oil industry execs who don’t want Solar Panels proliferating in America would love to see China as “enemy combatants” and perhaps India and Pakistan as well. Because that’s our sources for them.

      On the other hand, the resulting war has already spun out wildly, and it might be time to say farewell.

      1. Well, it’d be nice to have trade protections such that solar panels are made in the US. Practically all of our trading partners use WTO legal trade protections. No one minds.

        We don’t need military involvement. We could cut the military by 90%, and it’d still have plenty to defend us with.

        Supporting this stupid military is another wasteful expense, along with the bad trade. The US should stop wasting money.

        1. And the decisions are made by Capitalists. Who say they have destroyed all OTHER economic systems. At the expense of destroying their own through always looking for the Big Score. The war debt isn’t even mentioned in real terms, the Congress mostly and periodically the Presidency make speeches or as they call it “information” and for some reason in those speeches they conveniently forget to calculate the interest on Bonds. They can almost legitimately get around actually acknowledging it. Bonds go over decades, and regular ‘pocket change’ budget cycles are quarterly. Picture a really high-stakes poker game. The Bonds players get paid steadily no matter what hands they’re dealt. Throw in that the people financing those hands are selling their goods and services at gunpoint. Very expensive gunpoint. And they’re not only absent from the casino, they’re not even in the same nation. Throw in the notion they really strongly resent that. Ungrateful wretches, they are.

          The people not in the casino but in the virtual employ of that casino, and physically in the same national boundaries, based on elections which statistically come out at a 50-50 ratio, fully half of all the people will not be in voluntary compliance. But all are obligated to contribute, either by their low wages subsidizing the Players, austerity on the part of the employees but ostentatious consumption on the part of the players. … or fighting wars to keep the surly ungrateful wretches in other countries in a similar wage slavery. Keep them from nationalizing their oil or other big ticket purchases. Water is about to be more expensive than oil, in ways not calculated as the base price. But the base price never reflects the Military Spending, financed by bonds, which have compound interest accruing, the pile of chips in the metaphoric poker game accumulating ….

          We’re still paying on World War 2 bonds. The bonds issued to hide the massive spending on the Iraq-Afghan campaigns at 10% annual interest they doubled, and are now gaining 20% of the initial bonds. We the people in the Blue Collar sector are paying those bonds by our underpaid labor, and because we make up the vast majority of the Military.

          Add in the “conspiracy theory” that the Big Players are manipulating the wars and trade agreements, on no other evidence that they have the means and a several trillion dollars worth of motive, of course those paragons of every virtue would refrain from rigging up wars for which they pay nothing and gain everything.
          Throw in the Puppet Dictators in those tributary nations being supported in a measure of wealth their subjects can’t attain, ever, and throw in the resentment of such treatment by the Big Players, and the similar resentment by the Third World Lackey status given to our own formerly middle class “labor pool”… which can be twisted into hatred for the people in the other countries who are in the same situation… Bang… Wars and rumors of wars with no projected end and which seamlessly run into each other.

          And it makes not one bit of difference what our religions or ethnic identities are. Not for our niche in the economy or in the metaphoric poker game players.

          1. It is a sad situation.

            C-Corporations are really worse than traditional “capitalists”. They end up pursuing near-term profit by any means possible.

            Ironically were the US gov to pass a flat trade protection and otherwise ignore trade, America would grow wealthier and foreigners would resent us less. The US should of course not enforce US property ownership in foreign sovereign territory.

            The downside to a wealthy America is you’d again hear how superior America is :p And a wealthy America is one that can afford more senseless war.

            And just as the stockholders are sometimes tricked by management, voters (and Congress) are similarly tricked into a new war.

            Were the US to pursue its interests, it likely wouldn’t need to fight any wars ever. But as with the corporation, management wants its payout. And I think Pat Buchanan’s recent article is accurate: It’s fun to play the game of global politics, to feel that power as if a god.

            There’s something rotten in the “Deep State”. I expect the intelligence agencies manipulate the sitting presidents. Obama didn’t want war, got dragged into Libya. Trump didn’t want war but now seems open to it.

            I suspect they’re receiving “fake news” in those intelligence reports.

            Trump wants to reform the US, but he underestimates just how rotten things are. Most any system can be made to work well or ill with the right people.

            Trump’s limited by Congress, but he can do some things. And he could also talk to the American public just as FDR held fireside chats. I’ll judge the man after his presidency is up, but he has the potential to do much good, as did Obama, as did Bush.

          2. What I’m condemning roughly is James Burnham’s “Managerial Elite.” (Managers who manage other people’s assets, and badly, in both the private and public sectors.)

            I’m not sure you’d like my alternative. I tend to favour aristocracy. However, my ideal aristocracy is one where the rulers are kept poor, thus removing at least the greed motive. Part of America’s problem is we don’t even know our interests. We’d be better off with a specialised elite.

            Some argue an aristocracy must have interests of its own defend, suggesting it needs wealth. Well, fine. But the wealthy in the world tend to feel as “citizens of the world” beholden to only their individual pursuit of profit and vanity by force, fraud, and legitimate means. So, limiting that wealth motive and grounding the rulers seems necessary.

            An aristocracy in theory is the most conservative form of government, because it wishes to preserve what power and prestige it has and has irrational attachment to the polity and people.

            Machiavelli wrote how a polity can be designed to either preserve what it has (slowly decaying over time) or to expand, taking from others. I favour the former.

  3. Oh look everybody, we’re already contemplating possible nuclear war and we’re already two months into Trump’s fuc-ing reign of terror.

    Good choice of a president to put your support behind Raimondo!

Comments are closed.