Originally posted by Mairuzu
Show me which "rhetoric" that is
Here you go, pal:
Originally posted by Mairuzu
"Paul believes the military should be used solely for the defense of this nation. I understand the desire by some people to intervene all around the world in an attempt to prevent atrocities, but we'll never be able to stop all of them, and the question then becomes how we choose when to intervene and when not to intervene.And in the case of WWII, the more important question is whether it was justified to conscript people into the military and force them to go fight in another country. It's a bit different today when we're talking about an all-volunteer force, but we still bump up against the question of whether a particular conflict is necessary because it's a direct threat to national security or because it involves an ally or because it's a humanitarian crisis.
So do we ignore something like what happened in Rwanda? What about the current mess in Darfur? Myanmar? What about the scuffle between Russia and Georgia a few years ago? Are they not of some importance, too? What makes them less important? People tend to forget we went to war with Germany because they declared war on us — not because we were trying to prevent the Holocaust from occurring.
So read the alleged quote from Paul again: "I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that." Taxes are paid and armies are raised for the defense of this country. Any time the government deviates from that arrangement, it is misusing our money and our troops, and there is always the threat of government force against us if we refuse to go along with it. That is why Paul objects.
Paul's belief, as well as that of the founders, is that the President's primary duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution — and by extension the individual rights of American citizens. An important component of that duty is the recognition that it is not only misguided and impossible to intervene all over the planet, but that it is also immoral to force American citizens to participate in such circumstances. "
400,000 american lives gone. Believes the troops are meant to defend. He doesn't believe he should have the power to force people overseas. Someone who wants to run off to defend another country or another people should be free to do so, but should not be able to use government to force others.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
You said by "his" rhetoric meaning Ron Pauls rhetoric right? Because Ron Paul didn't write any of that lol.Gtfo troll crylaugh
Woosh in one ear out the other. Its like you guys focus more on trying to be right than to have common sense.
So playing the semantics game? Trolololollo?
Clearly that article is of the position of "this is what Ron Paul believes". So the article is incorrect now, and you posted it why?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Americans involvment in WW2 was because we were attacked by Japan. You understand that right?WE WERE ATTACKED.
Declared war on japan. Germany declares war on us. We declare it on germany as well. Congress has that power.
ok... but remember when you said this:
Originally posted by Mairuzu
To obtain global domination he would have to attack USA and its allies no?
or this:
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Then when the allies call for assistance we shall intervene.
both of those things had happened, years before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor...
by your own justification, America held out for too long
Lol well lets see here.
You claim the truth that ron paul wouldnt aid his allies by that "rhetoric" of which I posted. God only knows how you came to that conclusion but instead of making baseless assumptions you should take 30 minutes out your day instead of reading a whole lot of garbo here on this forum to listen to what ron paul has to say himself
stoned
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol well lets see here.You claim the truth that ron paul wouldnt aid his allies by that "rhetoric" of which I posted. God only knows how you came to that conclusion but instead of making baseless assumptions you should take 30 minutes out your day instead of reading a whole lot of garbo here on this forum to listen to what ron paul has to say himself
stoned
Originally posted by Robtard
So playing the semantics game? Trolololollo?Clearly that article is of the position of "this is what Ron Paul believes". So the article is incorrect now, and you posted it why?
lol you're useless rob. Its a summary of certain policies of ron paul and his stance on the holocaust. What in the article has made you think ron paul wouldn't aid his allies?
Originally posted by inimalist
ok... but remember when you said this:or this:
both of those things had happened, years before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor...
by your own justification, America held out for too long
Which allies have begged for american assistance and didnt recieve it? Looks to me like congress wasn't going a good job. As always.
I have no problem with a diminished US global presence so long as its still there.
My issue with the notion of total non-intervention as a means of avoiding meddling/policing the globe (which is the approach Paul and his supporters take to varying degrees) is that it ignores that there's often a reasonable means of determining whether its proper or not to intervene.
To put it in an example: imagine if you hear and see your neighbor beating his wife savagely, to put it in clearer terms, you know for a fact that he's beating his wife. You know for a fact no one else sees/hears this or that no one else is in a position to stop it (maybe the only other witnesses are kids and old folks). Do you conclude that since it's not happening in your house it's alright, indeed morally commendable to do nothing?
My biggest issue with this part of the Libertarian message is that it suggests that there's no reasonable way to go about playing an active role in the world.
I'd contrast Libya (for the most part, there were some less than commendable moments there) with Iraq as examples of the right way and wrong way to intervene.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Britain for one. The Democratic president of the US, would have nothing to do with that European problem.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
lol you're useless rob. Its a summary of certain policies of ron paul and his stance on the holocaust. What in the article has made you think ron paul wouldn't aid his allies?
That "summary" you posted as being Ron Paul's views and not being Ron Paul's views, depending on which way you're flippity-flopping. That's what.
""Paul believes the military should be used solely for the defense of this nation. I understand the desire by some people to intervene all around the world in an attempt to prevent atrocities, but we'll never be able to stop all of them, and the question then becomes how we choose when to intervene and when not to intervene.
And in the case of WWII, the more important question is whether it was justified to conscript people into the military and force them to go fight in another country."
America didn't go to war in WW2 because of the holocaust, so it's irrelevant what Ron Paul views and doesn't view according to that article in terms of the holocaust in this "if Ron Paul had been President during WW2" hypothetical.
Originally posted by Robtard
That "summary" you posted as being Ron Paul's views and not being Ron Paul's views, depending on which way you're flippity-flopping. That.
What the hell are you saying now? 😆
I was replying to Sym and his twist of words about Ron Pauls stance on the holocaust question he recieved. And yes the question itself is irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up for me. stoned
Originally posted by Robtard
America didn't go to war in WW2 because of the holocaust, so it's irrelevant what Ron Paul views and doesn't view according to that article in terms of the holocaust in this "if Ron Paul had been President during WW2" hypothetical.
Glad we agree. But like I said, I was replying to Sym. I don't even know where you came from out of all this lol.
Are you alright haermm
Originally posted by Omega Vision
...
FDR was very much interested with "that European problem", he only kept out of the war as long as he did because he worried about reelection and going to war would mean he'd lose the support of moderates and the Anti-War Republicans would gain ground.
So, Republicans are against war? I get it... 😉 😉 😉 😉 😉
Originally posted by Bardock42
From all the criticism that one can put forth against Ron Paul you are really going for "he would have let the Holocaust happen"?That doesn't strike anyone as a bit ridiculous?
Yeah... like racist newletters that never belonged to him haermm
Or the fact that his name consist of two first names. Da fuq is up with that?