EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul in 2009–‘I Wouldn’t Risk American Lives’ to End the Holocaust
by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
On the evening of Sept. 16, 2009, I was invited to a function for Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform.
I had been invited by a friend of mine via Facebook who was a passionate supporter of Ron Paul. Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students.
I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening.
And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?
And the Congressman answered:
“No, I wouldn’t. 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.”
Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement. Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response.
When I first presented the story of Paul’s comments about the Holocaust to major news media outlets two years ago, they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now.
I went to great lengths afterwards to learn more about the basis for Paul’s comments. I spoke to Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Paul, in February 2010. Dondero is quoted in a Weekly Standard article today about Paul’s isolationist beliefs.
When I called Dondero again this morning, and told him I was finally going forward with the story, he told me that Paul had made similar comments to him.
“He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.”
Calls to Rep. Paul’s congressional office and campaign office last week and this morning were not returned.
The Holocaust of World War II is not the only historical tragedy that Paul’s isolationism would disregard.
In 2007, the Congressman actually faulted Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery in the Civil War: “He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them.”
Editors told me two years ago that they couldn’t believe Paul would respond in the same way to a question about the Holocaust, but I wasn’t surprised. Paul’s answer is actually consistent with much of what he’s been saying for years.
Yet philosophical consistency doesn’t always translate into a policy that is practical–or presidential.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
692 Comments
Let the bots begin…
*Yawn* Another lame smear attempt.
Paul's a non-interventionist. What a shocker! Because intervention has always worked out so well.
the only bots are the Anti-Paul bots and their endless attempts to smear him because of their incapability of understanding that we are bankrupting ourselves fulfilling our desire to involve ourselves all over the world.
Another day…another…
And yet the Jews in America by and large voted for, and continue to support, Barack Hussein Obama.
The question I have for Jews is why do Jews overwhelmingly support Flaming Liberals in the United States of America?
Do you have an answer, Shapiro?
HIT PIECE!
I hear your superiority, Sig Heil.
Ron Paul is a "libertarian". He IS just being consistent with that so-called "philosophy"…
Another difference between "libertarian" and Objectivist.
Ron Paul WILL assure Obamas victory in 2012.
He must step aside for the good of this nation.
If he dose not or will not he should be treated as though he were a traitor.
Ron Paul can not win.
Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism
http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-...
You might find this amusing:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_jews_t...
And the Congressman answered:
“No, I wouldn’t. 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."
As the Imam begins the stroke that will cleave Ron Paul's head from his shoulders will Ron have any regrets?
Not exactly…read his former staffer of 12 yrs lenghty statement
http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-...
"I wouldn't do that"
Somewhat ambiguous response Mr. Shapiro…he wouldn't volunteer as an individual to crusade against a 20th-century pogrom? Or, he wouldn't commit the lives of 400K+ Americans as the US President to save Europe from the most recent iteration of their centuries-old process of religious fratricide?
Nice attempt to smear…let me ask you…if you suspected that defending Israel against Iran would lead to a the death of hundreds of thousand if not millions of Americans to sustain your Zionist aspirations, what would you do?
At least Mr. Paul has the decency to put America lives before citizens of another country.
My French grandmother and great aunt wouldn't have survived if it hadn't been for the American soldiers like my grandfather landing in Normandy. Getting Hitler and his regeme out.
Sorry Ron, but you're too dangerous to be POTUS.
Gee, the only candidate left is Mitt Romney! Everybody else has been slimed off the ballot. Palin, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, the Donald, now Paul. Personally, I could care less about Paul and his wild-eyed disciples but he crossed the threshhold and might "have a chance" (doubtful, but there you are).
Must have something really juicy saved up for Romney.
Where do you think all these sleazy stories come from, anyway? Funny how we never see any deep research on Obama, ain't it? Ever.
Who can? Newt?
Actually, part of the answer is right there in the article.
Every time a substantial opening appears to separate Jews from the Democrats, the Republicans throw up somebody like Ron Paul.
The last time it was Pat Buchanan.
I am sure the next time it will be somebody else.
It is kind of hard to convince a group on a group level to switch their political tendencies when each time they get ready to do it you have a different "reformer" telling them just how much they aren't wanted.
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.
Hum? Guess some people don't get constitutional government or refuse to print it. Paul is on record that if the people want to go to war and the congress representing the people declares war he will go to war to win. No holds barred, nor with the troops hands tied behind their back by political correctness, the UN, or NATO. Regardless of weather he thinks the war is the right thing to do he will as president abide by the congresses war resolution. If you want a dictator to manage the world police then vote for Obama or any of the other republican nominees.
Aaaah yes lets pick one of the Chest Beating Chicken Hawks. How bout that big tuff guy Rick Santorum? How bout the other Rick? How bout Newt? You know who I'm talkin' bout, the guy who was banging his present wife on the side for 6 years while he was married to wife #2! BWAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone. I'm away for a few weeks but tried to catch up on the events. First of all, I would like to say that it was not only the Jews that got gassed in the chambers of evil. A lot of my family members succumbed to Hitler's arian ambitions.
Our American soldiers saved some of them and they went on to Ellis Island to be immersed in this great country of ours. I'm sorry but that statement of Ron Paul's is very pathetic. God bless our soldiers.
What would he say if one of those emaciated victims were one of his family members????? My uncle's job was to cut up bodies of the victim's and feed the parts to the Furhrer's pet geese. Let's all think about this. I don't agree with the Vietnam war but Hitler needed to be put down. Period.
Looks like the Bigs are in the tank for Newt Gingrich by the looks of the front page.
Yeah, that guy was around last time, too. Apparently he got fired and then announced all this bad stuff, if I'm not mistaken. I'd take what he says with a grain of salt.
Maybe the GOP should try running someone that is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (in other words "I don't care what you do as long as I don't have to pay for it"), and non-interventionist but pro-defense.
Note that preemptive strikes and good intelligence are pro-defense, as well as space based and border defenses.
We have a bunch of big government conservatives and Ron Paul. Out of that bunch, I choose Ron Paul.
Spot on gb8898 but most won't get it that read this site. All they can think about is slinging mud to get Newt Gingrich elected like redstate, hotair and the others that are on a massive spaming mission.
Excellent statement – thanks!
You're something like ten times more likely to drown in a bathtub than be killed by terrorists. Besides, I'd be more worried about your own government coming after you because of your dissent than some sand-people coming after you because we let women drive cars.
Ron Paul has about as much to do with the National Republican Party as Barack Hussein Obama has to do with the United States of America.
Paul claims to be a Republican, Obama claims to be an American, both highly suspect claims.
If Paul wins the Republican Nomination then Jews need to worry… but, as noted, Jews supported Obama more often than not in 2008, and Ron Paul was not running, John McCain was.
I find this view by Ron Paul to be disturbing and it makes no sense so if there is another atrocity like the Holocost he won't stop it by using American Troops. That's unacceptable.
Ron Paul was merely pointing out that America is bound by laws, as president he would be bound by the constitution. He seems to be the last politician left who recognizes a US president doesn't wield dictatorial powers. As Paul correctly states, 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.
Yes and read the comments that clearly show Dondero's agenda and how they debunk all that is written in the article. Geez you folks looking to ruin Ron Paul are weak-minded at best. Did you graduate from 8th grade?
You mean the way the government during the Revolutionary War conscripted people to fight in foreign countries?
You mean the way the government during the Indian Wars conscripted people to fight in foreign . . . somethings? (The legal implications of Indian territories is very complex.)
You mean the way the government during the War of 1812 conscripted people to fight in foreign countries?
How is it the Founders managed to justify including mandatory militia service and federalization in the Constitution and laws of the First Congress without suffering any terminal angst as to whether or not it was moral to do so, but the moment it becomes a question of fighting National Socialists, Stalinists, Maoists, or their flunkies and successors, it suddenly becomes a critical issue of freedom for those who claim to speak for the Founders?
All other candidates need to step aside for the good of the country or we will get the same regardless of party affiliation in the Executive branch
Paranoid Communist….check
>Initializing Paulbot Ver. 2.3 (2011)
Load argumentation algorithims:
*Ad hominem: Loaded
*Non sequitur: Loaded
*Tu quoque: Loaded
*Anti-semitism: Loaded
**Spittle-flecked sub-routine: Loaded
Load stock sloganeering algorithims:
*Gold! *Drugs! *The Fed! *Neocons! *Israel is evil! *The Founding Fathers! *Arglebarglefarg!
**Warning! Kuulaide Virus Detected!**
Delete: Y/N?
N
>RUN Paulbot
(Gratuitously stolen from others.)
Traitors are put to death. Are you calling for Paul's death, yes or no.?
First off he wouldn't have authority to send troop's, since it is CONGRESS that declares WAR. Remember that was a DECLARED WAR? so the premise of the question is off base..and a trap question, typical neocon premise for war
Watch BLACK HAWK DOWN! Read the government transcripts. Remember Vietnam? Korea? Guatamala? "WE" , no, my military fight on my behalf. No thank you. No good job. A week after obama ended the "WAR" in Iraq I read that Americans wonder 'If it was worth it?". I'm with Paul. Let these savages kill each other and let God sort them out. I'm tired of working for an unappreciative world. God bless and hopefully they are willing to keep us (U.S.) safe.
You're disturbing. let me guess, you're a chest beating chicken hawk? I thought so.
I agree with you completely.
Then again, I stopped voting Democrat around 20 years ago.
(Zen Riddle: What can make a man love George H. W. Bush unreservedly? It starts with a "Pat" and ends with a "Buchanan".)
It remains that Paul is running as a Republican right now, and the Democrats and their Media Lapdogs will make sure Jews know about that for the next 20 years.
As for 2008, Paul made a run, and Buchanan was still lurking in the fringes. That was enough for the older Jews to stay away and the younger ones to be subverted. It is unfortunate but there it is.
I don't really care whether the founders thought conscription was moral or not. Many of them also believed slavery was moral. They were right on many points and wrong on many points, and we should expect as much since they lived in an entirely different age from our own. The Constitution as it is written is a wonderful document. The Declaration of Independence, in my opinion, is even better. On forced military service, I think Reagan summed it up best:
"It [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea."
—Ronald Reagan
"it should have been done is do like the British Empire did"
Um, yeah…
You might want to read up on that one, buddy. Instrumental in the way the British Empire dealt with slavery was to have the West Africa Squadron blockade the coast of Africa throughout the 19th century and routinely search, seize of pummel the crap out of slaver vessels and ports. The overwhelming number of which were, of course, non-British.
And while what you're (unwittingly) proposing was highly successful in accelerating and initiating the demise of slavery throughout Latin America (and, amazingly, parts of the Muslim world), it is one of history's most striking examples of military intervention in other nations' affairs leading to lasting good in the world.
Just thought you'd like to know.
That has got to be the most inane reply I have ever received. How can you talk with sand in your mouth, do you have a periscope? Yes I am worried about my own government but at the same time I will not make things worse by inviting our demise through ignoring a clear and present danger. If you cannot see the inherent evil in islam and the danger it presents to the US you are wearing Ron colored glasses. Ron Paul's answer tells me what kind of thoughtless, Polyannish isolationist he is. I would not want to live in a world where Ron Paul types decide whose lives are worth saving and whose aren't. What an insufferable jerk.
How is repeating Ron Paul's own words a smear?
Do you agree with with Paul? Would you have let all those Jews die if you could have prevented it?
LOL!
[yawn]
Another report of Herr Doktor Paul's kookiness in his own words.
Ayn Rand believed that freedom has its enemies. Libertarians don't seem to recognize this.
The Libertarian Party also seem to attract a lot of fringe. Though Rand has attracted her own share of fringe, the rigors of understanding the philosophy of Objectivism tends to weed them out.
America has freed untold millions from slavery and tyranny.
But you paulbots think that slavery and tyranny are just honky-dorey, don't you?
Perhaps you should ask Ron Paul if he would have turned away Jewish refugees like the progressive hero FDR did. Had America had a rational immigration policy perhaps the number of death camp residents would have been substantially reduced.
Also, for the truly ignorant – World War II in Europe was not fought to free Jewish death camps. It was fought to save Joseph Stalin. The commies were the isolationists right up until Germany attacked Russia. Then they flipped and Roosevelt was all too anxious to commit American troops since as a progressive he loved war and thought it could unite the country.
Now ask Ron Paul if he would have sacrificed 200,000 Americans in Europe to save the world for Communism?
Would you want to live in a world where the government can force you to fight and die in a foreign country? Because that's precisely what conscription in WWII represented. Is that hard to understand? Your government will always be a far greater threat to your liberty than people who live thousands of miles away.
The bathtub information is true, by the way. The people who shrug it off are the ones who are most easily frightened into submission by a government hell-bent on centralizing power even more than it already has. But by all means, keep looking waaay over there — and miss what's going on right under your nose.
[EDIT: I had these exact same arguments with Republicans in 2008, which tells me the party will run either Newt or Mitt against Obama and lose all over again. Folks have apparently learned absolutely nothing over the last three years are and are easily led by "conservative" pundits.]
If you do not care what the Founders thought about conscription then do not try and wrap yourself in their cloak to justify your positions.
Likewise seeing as how Ron Paul left the Republican Party because of Ronald Reagan it is rather specious to try quoting him now in support of this.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ obama supporter ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ – check!
Hey paulbots with your abject failure to win converts here what do you think Paul's chances are once he is the republican nominee? You think he can survive the 24-7 media firestorm? The 15 second sound bite news?
Yeah vote for Paul so we can have 4 more years of Obama.
Besides non intervention is all fine and good in theory on the other hand if we practiced that in WW2 Korea and Vietnam what would the world look like today? THINK ABOUT IT.
"Ron Paul has about as much to do with the National Republican Party as Barack Hussein Obama has to do with the United States of America."
Then why is he running as a Republican?
Shouldn't be running as the candidate of the Silly Party? Or the Losertarians?
Ok, to the looney paulbots, reporting Ron PAul's own words is now a HIT PIECE!
Great Cthulu on a soda cracker, you people are insane.
Yes.
Hell, the Republicans could run Rocky and Bullwinkle against the SCOAMF and still win in a landslide.
So, you're voting for Obama then.
That was Priceless!
I believe Dr. Paul stands for ideas exposed by our founders and maybe they should be reexamined. The holocaust was a tragedy but what was the result of WWII? Stalin ruled Eastern Europe with an Irion fist. Historians now believe that the number of people killed in Stalin’s gulags was a few times greater than Hitler’s death camps. Another example is Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. The US and China supported Pol Pot who had enslaved the majority of the Cambodian population in death camps when Pol Pot attacked Vietnam and the Vietnamese retaliated.. It is estimated that over 2 million Cambodians were killed by the regime. The Vietnamese became the liberators of Cambodia while the US and China appeared to have aided genocide for geopolitical reasons. Where is the outrage? Next time you have the opportunity to talk to Dr. Paul ask him if he would have supported Pol Pot.
As a southerner I have my own views on King Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression but you probably won’t like them as you seem to have been brain washed by the federal educational system that taught you the WNA was all about slavery. When the southern states seceded they took away the majority of federal revenue. King Lincoln stated something to the affect “we can’t let them leave, where we will obtain the revenue”. The war was about power and control of a region the slavery aspect was a political/military feat. King Lincoln also “stated in order to save the union I had to destroy the republic”. What we have today is King Lincoln’s legacy, an empire…..History shows that all empires crash and burn. Why should the yankee empire be any different? I further your education I suggest you read this: http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda...
"Would you want to live in a world where the government can force you to fight and die in a foreign country?"
YEAH, LEAVE THOSE NAZIS AND IMPERIAL JAPANESE ALONE!!!!!!
"Nice attempt to smear…"
Paul smeared himself.
Or revealed himself, yet again, for the lunatic he really is.
Lunatic…..check.
And your MOS was…..what?
And your MOS was……what?
"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."
-George Orwell
"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay–and claims a halo for his dishonesty."
-Robert A. Heinlein
Really, since I don't drink the Ron Paul Kool Aid, I am Chicken Hawk? I served my country with honor so I am hardly a chicken hawk ass clown.
exactly… We wait for this buffoon's answer. I am sure he was 11B…
I see that. Seems they want a military dictator to run the world police too.
Paul is a freakin' nut!
RonBots can't be reasoned with because they're dangerous, brainwashed anti-semites. The calling of all the rest of the field "Chest Beating Chicken Hawks" demonstrates this fact perfectly. Ron Paul is NOT a Republican and anyone who'd support this clown is not supporting America or the Constitution, they're supporting someone USING the GOP and a Constitution the Founding Fathers would not recognized. PLEASE tell your Iowan friends about this column, our future depends on it.
Because…………….. obviously they would never have designs to attack us. By the way, no one is beyond the reach of those who intend their destruction. This is 2011 not pre 1000 AD and you are an @zz if you think that those who don't support RP aren't aware of the dangers our overreaching government presents to us. We certainly don't need those who are willing to ignore the inherent threat that islam presents to the US and then to further blame the US for their actions in power as well. Who do you and RP blame for the attacks on all of the Christian churches in Nigeria, the US?
"The rigors"… Yep. A lot of "libertarians" are just "right wing" hippies who don't want the government to bother them because they like to do drugs. A lot of them are good people too, but sometimes the dogma is too blinding.
Rand also said it was just for any free nation to attack or make war on any non-free nation at any time if it decided that it served a national interest…
Is Paul's open borders stance regarding Mexican illegal immigration/ amnesty part of upholding and defending the constitution???
Do I have an individual right to be protected from paying taxes to support Mexican welfare mothers, aka baby factories?
Should of heard what my nephew who just got back from 3 tours in Iraq and 1 in Afganistan had to say at our Christmas celebration. Wasn't what you hear here, but more like something you would hear at a Ron Paul rally. He is still active duty so he can't say too much against Obama and the neo-con republicans out of fear of bieng repremanded. That is why the troops are quite but speak loudly if you look at the money they give to Paul compared to all the others.
Should of heard what my nephew who just got back from 3 tours in Iraq and 1 in Afganistan had to say at our Christmas celebration. Wasn't what you hear here, but more like something you would hear at a Ron Paul rally. He is still active duty so he can't say too much against Obama and the neo-con republicans out of fear of bieng repremanded. That is why the ACTIVE duty troops are quite about Paul but speak loudly if you look at the money they give to Paul compared to all the others combined.
No, we lost around 410,000 men just a little more than every man, woman, and child in St. Louis.
They don't disagree with his words – just recognize that it's not going to enhance his electability.
So, yes, insane.
If we sat back while parts of the world are in armed conflict with one another, before long we would be like Israel…..having enemies coming at us in waves, and having to deal with them on our turf.
Rand ONLY favored war in the case of self-defense. She had said clearly that you cannot fight for other people's freedom.
She felt the same way about WW2 until Pearl Harbor. Then it became self-defense. (and she happens to be a Jew)
They are not going to begin thinking now just because you challenged them to. To bad really…… they have their own selfish reasons in mind.
If FDR wanted to end the holocaust and/or protect the Jews we would've entered the war years earlier and saved millions of lives.
Paul is being "Cain-ed"
Paul on racism:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/2543/Racism–Ron-Pa...
Sometimes it actually has. You're being incredibly shortsighted, at best.
Who have we saved lately?
Oh that's right Iraq, which will soon be an Islamist Republic or part of Iran.
How do you pick and choose who to save? How do you know who is a tyrant and who is not? Many people throughout the world think America is the tyrant, including many Americans. Should we free ourselves from ourselves?
It would be nice if you people were at least honest, even with yourselves.
not cool jimbo
Have you noticed Ron Paul is the only candidate who is ever asked these kinds of questions? What would he have done in the Civil War? WWII? Hey how about the Spanish-American War? What if Ron Paul was Queen Elizabeth I…how would he have handled the Mary of Scotland situation? It's just stupid. They know he's a libertarian and they know that his answers about past events have nothing to do with today's world.
The other funny thing is how obvious it is that none of the anti-Paul bots have read one thing the guy has written, he has laid it all out time and time again about foreign policy.
Gees,
Anti Israel and a racist. Mr. Mcgoo, you might as well join the Nobama team. You will fit right in.
Question is who is going to save us as we slide down the slippery slope of tyranny, go bankrupt, and watch the Bill of Rights being trampled?
"…….intervention has always worked out so well………"
Just one example is good enough for an intelligent person.
Just ask the South Koreans.
Intervention has worked every time it has been tried with totality.
You missed something pretty big. Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He voted to use force in Afghanistan after we were attacked. That's not pacifism.
He believes in self defense, with an emphasis on "SELF".
Great point BZ.
What selfish reasons? How do any of you think you know what WWII, Korea or Vietnam would have looked now? Would be have Kim in Korea? Would we have had Pol Pot? We do know that chances are we would have never had Hitler had it not been for the treaties after WWI which gave someone like HItler a chance to rise to power in a poverty stricken hungry for nationalism Germany.
You just want to believe that intervening on other's business always works out for the best. It doesn't.
It's you who do not think.
Hey Bronx I think your friends on the Stormfront forum are looking for you.
How anti-semite? Why should we pay for Israel? We should not give aid to Israel or anyone else. Israel would then fight their own battles without our holding them back and telling them they cannot destroy their enemies. Did you ever think that if we left Israel alone they would have made sure that Iran will never be a nuclear power? Instead we give money to Israel AND the wanna-be Palestine. What sense does that make?
Churchill said it best when he noted that "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head."
What the Republican Party needs is Purity Tests. Non-Conservatives need to be Excommunicated.
The only reason we stopped the Holocaust was because Germany declared war on the US. Had that not been the case we probably wouldn’t have intervened in Europe during WWII at all. The US doesn't care about genocide, not really. See Rwanda… Cambodia… Hell, hundreds of thousands of people are starving to death in North Korea every year, we aren’t lining up to invade there. RP’s policy on it is the same as every other past presidents. We’ll stop it if we have other interests that are also satisfied. If not, Oh Well…. Sucks to be you.
You must be logged in to post a comment.