'I wouldn't send US troops to fight Nazis' - Ron Paul

There are maybe other justifications. Such as that the Jews were being eradicated in Europe. And that the Arabs/Muslims expelled 600,000 of them from their Arab homes between 1948 - 1972.

 

Except that Paul denies it. He says he WOULD have taken us to war, because Germany declared war on us, and because Congress executed its Constitutional authority and declared war on Germany...

 

Which is a sensible answer. Let's look at the original question:

"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't."

Analyzing the question, I don't think I would send troops to Germany for this purpose either, at least through August 1939. Once Germany invaded other countries would be a game changer for me.

 

Paul's point is that he would not go to war with any country, because only Congress can declare war according to the constitution. He has said that if Congress declares a war, he will expeditiously and vigorously carry out that declaration. But that he will not UNILATERALLY conduct military action without going through Constitutional channels.

To me, this is great. I am sick of the presidents acting as if they are dictators who can just go attack whoever they wish. This is not some fiefdom, ruled by a king.

 

Jews weren't being slaughtered in the 1930's. Discriminated against yes, rounded up and gassed, no. As I said once Germany invaded Poland, I would have moved against Germany.

 

Good post! Thanks.

 

Yep that was his point 4 days later, after he'd had time to think about it, and it was a good save.

"...I asked him:

"Congressman Paul, a former aide of yours said yesterday that you think the U.S. shouldn't have fought Hitler--shouldn't have invaded Europe during World War II--that that's the extent of your isolationism. Can you say whether or not that's true?"
​

"Paul remained silent, so I asked him again. He did not respond, again. But he clearly heard both questions, as we were walking side-by-side, and no one else was speaking at the time."


"Following his speech at the insurance agency, I walked up to him again to ask the same question, but he did not respond."

 

That sounds consistent with previous statements made by RP.

 

Do you know how many videos there are of OTHER candidates refusing to answer questions? They are counseled not to answer questions by random reporters running up to them right before the primary begins, because a soundbite taken out of context, shown the last couple of days before a primary, can devastate a candidate. They ALL do this.

 

Ron Paul is no isolationist. He would open up trade, not close it down.

But telling lies about someone you disagree with IS a sin.


A common criticism of Coolidge is that during his tenure, America adopted an isolationist foreign policy. This, however, is false. Isolationism, one recalls, entails the militarizing of a country's borders and the cessation of trade or diplomatic relations with any foreign nation, much like North Korea has done in recent decades. On the contrary, the Coolidge administration did the opposite. Coolidge disavowed the aggressive policies of Teddy and Woodrow in favor of a stronger national defense and more pronounced support of trade relations. The result was the opening of new markets for American merchants while avoiding costly entanglements that would lead to increased taxation and spending while threatening American citizens' freedom as promised by the Constitution. Coolidge's foreign policy, in fact, cleaved to non-interventionism much more than it did to isolationism.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...#ixzz1i9L5Q9Yj

 

Indeed it does. Isolationism definately has a constituancy these days. But if you have to think about whether or not to invade Europe in WWII you're pretty much outside the loop.

 

Really? Didn't know there were any isolationists running. Nor do I know anyone who didn't want to attack Europe.

Of course, silence DOES speak volumes...like the silence of hundreds of thousands of dead children from senseless, undeclared "police actions" which were taken contrary to the Constitution.

If you want a dictator to rule over you so badly, why don't you go live in Iran? Oh, wait, the Neo Cons are going to be bombing there soon, before Iran can develop dangerous "Bi Planes"...

 

Yes, so Ron Paul has been saying for years.

 

Sometimes someone knows when someone else is trying to trap him in his words. It's an old ploy of the jews. Jesus could instantly deflect them, but we don't all walk on water.

Let's take this question back to you. The wholesale slaughter of infants here in the U.S., when does one take up arms against the murderers?

Were the jews in Germany more important than the infants in America are today? Were they some how worth more? Honestly, is what is going on in abortion clinics any different, any less heinous, than what was described in Auschwitz and Dachau? Nearly 40 million Americans have been slaughtered. When does that equal 6 million jews? Tell me O, insightful one. Surely you know. One who so readily condemns a man who hesitates to trade the blood of Americans must just as readily praise the man who ended Tiller's reign of terror.

So, would you as President, send troops to close down abortion clinics no matter what congress or the supreme court might have to say?

(See how the question seems to change when one takes the word "jew" out of it?)

 

Oh that's just not fair Aaron! You know that sending troops to kill people in other countries is OK. It's all like a fairy tale. It happens so far away that it's like it really isn't happening. In fact it's almost like rooting for your favorite football team. You can rah-rah about killing people and even wear t-shirts about killing people. It's all just a big game when troops kill people in other countries. You simply can't compare that to using troops to killing people where we might see it!

 

Ron Paul would have never stood by all silent and let London and Wall Street finance Hitler's rise to power. That would be too extreme wouldn't it?

 

Good post Aaron. It's ALL about their Golden Calf, Israel, to the dispensational premillenialists. Nothing else matters, not America's needs, not their own children's future, nor their children's or their children's future. It doesn't matter that we've put them so far in the red financially that they'll never know the America that we knew; it's perfectly acceptable to the dispies for America to borrow even MORE money for even MORE war, but only in the Middle East, and only for the Golden Calf.

Since Obama's been in, the adrenaline rush that these 'last days' junkies thrive on has about dried up. The dispies want a Likud candidate, period. They've got the gall to accuse Paul of being a RINO because of his Libertarian beliefs, yet all the while their own loyalties lie with the party of a foreign country. Go figure who the RINOs really are.

 

Excellent articulation. The dispensational premillenial theology has produced just this kind of divorcement from reality.

Webdog wants war, then he should be willing to be 'first in'.