. . . until Hitler had started attacking the U.S. en masse . . .[/quote]
Nazi Germany launching a full scale attack on the US? Across an ocean? While turning its back on the Red Army? Hard to imagine.
Ron Paul is a global free-trader. He is not an isolationist. He just prefers our foreign entanglements to be peaceful and based on commerce and voluntary exchange rather than military force.
The isolationists in the 1930s favored tariffs and trade barriers. Ron Paul opposes tariffs and trade barriers.
Isolationists in the 1930's were nationalists and expansionists. Ron Paul is neither of those.
. . . until Hitler had started attacking the U.S. en masse . . .[/quote]
Nazi Germany launching a full scale attack on the US? Across an ocean? While turning its back on the Red Army? Hard to imagine.[/quote]
The attack against the U.S would have come. Operation DRUMBEAT was one step to use U-Boats against U.S. shipping on the east coast. Because Hitler failed to successfully invade England and erred in attacking Russia or having failed to defeat it, Germany failed to achieve the critical mass of U-Boats Doenitz recommended. Hitler's Air Force had also developed a long-range bomber with the intent to eventually begin bombing of the U.S. coast.
Could it have invaded the U.S.? Maybe not, but it would have choked it and bombed it long enough to get the V-2 rockets improved. Again this is a bit of "what if" had Hitler succeeded on the Eurasian continent. But the U.S. was an eventual target of his. That is historically accurate.
My fear is that Dr. Paul has uttered the equivalent of "Who am I? Why am I here?"
And if the media has its way, it will be.
I have heard him speak a lot, and read even more of his writings, and my first comment is that he was clearly off his game tonight. Perhaps he is tired.
My second comment is that he did not say -- nor has he implied in anything I've heard or read -- that our presence in the middle east justified 9/11. Only that it played a part in the motivation. I don't disagree with this, and I have not read about any credible sources that disagree, either. In fact, one of the motivations often attributed to bin Laden is his objection to our intervention in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries.
I think it's wise to understand what motivates terrorists and/or other enemies of this country. But too often, people seem to be afraid to talk about such things, mostly because too many people -- and media -- get emotional about it, at which time their ears clog up.
My third comment is that my understanding of Dr. Paul's stance on the war is that he is against it because he believes that the "war on terror" was not entered into legally, using our own Constitution.
It is commonly accepted that a declaration of war is a declaration issued by one national government upon and one or more other national governments.I suppose it would not be unacceptable to consider it to be one national government upon one or more specific groups of people.
Neither is true in the case of the War on Terror. In essence, by allowing a declaration of war on terror or on terrorists, Congress gives carte blanche to the President to wage war on whomever he wishes to wage war on, as long as he decrees them terrorists. Granted, it may be that we should declare war on Iraq. But we have not done that. We are conducting a war in Iraq because, right or wrong, the President has declared that we are fighting terrorism and terrorists there.
Clearly, the founders did not have this in mind when they drafted the war powers idea.
I should probably go on, but I won't. I am, as I said, not a Constitutional scholar, and it is getting late and I am starting to babble.
My final comment is that I am still backing Ron Paul. I believe he is the most consistent and most conservative conservative in the running so far.
Regarding the WW2 references, it is worth remembering that France and Britain attacked Germany as a response to the German invasion of Poland. There were intense negotiation between Germany and England to avoid war, but the British stood by their pact with the Poles. In terms of potential conquest, Hitler's eyes were primarily on the east.
I do not question whether Hitler had a global scheme that included the US. I was addressing the speculation in your initial post that if he'd succeeded in taking England, he would then have attacked the US "en masse" before the US fully mobilized. My point was only that [i]if[/i] he had taken England (at great military cost) he still had the Eastern Front to maintain, and that the US's geographical separation from Europe makes a trans-Atlantic attack [i]wicked[/i] tough, even today, let alone 1941. V-2 rockets or not-- the Nazi's version of shock-and-awe --he would have needed boots on the ground, more boots than he had available. A Nazi attack on the US at that point is too unlikely.
[quote="Lefty"]Did anyone see Ron Paul completely make an idiot out of himself with his "Bombing Iraq For 10 Years caused 9/11" ??
I think anyone taking him seriously has ended tonight![/quote]
I agree, he ended his run last night.
[quote="Virgil Kane"]Actium Blue,
I do not question whether Hitler had a global scheme that included the US. I was addressing the speculation in your initial post that if he'd succeeded in taking England, he would then have attacked the US "en masse" before the US fully mobilized. My point was only that [i]if[/i] he had taken England (at great military cost) he still had the Eastern Front to maintain, and that the US's geographical separation from Europe makes a trans-Atlantic attack [i]wicked[/i] tough, even today, let alone 1941. V-2 rockets or not-- the Nazi's version of shock-and-awe --he would have needed boots on the ground, more boots than he had available. A Nazi attack on the US at that point is too unlikely.[/quote]
I understand that, but Operation SEA LION, the proposed invasion of England, was a full year before BARBAROSSA, which was the invasion of Russia. What I'm saying is that Hitler made a lot of strategic blunders. At the time he attacked Britain, he was still an "ally" of the Soviet Union. When the allies provided Stalin with intelligence that Hitler planned on attacking Russia, Stalin did not believe them.
Would a transatlantic attack have succeeded? Again, speculation, but had Hitler defeated England and Russia (or not attacked the latter), Germany could have had the forces and technology necessary to mount a serious campaign between U-Boats and strategic aircraft probably based in Iceland and Bermuda (a British territory), and unimpeded pocket battleships. He was even building a carrier. The U.S. was not fully mobilizing or united until Pearl Harbor. Had that not happened, I'm not convinced the U.S. would have prepared for war against Germany even after England fell.
Anyway, this is way off topic for this thread. Sorry about that.
Dan, there is a lot of ground in between internationalism and isolationism. Ron Paul is not an isolationist.
Purely anecdotal evidence, correlated to popular culture and the large number of erectile disfunction ads.
Dr. Paul never had a chance in hell anyway and he definitely doesn't now. I don't care about text message poll results (good organizing can win these). I think that he and others Brownback (sorry GOPstudent), Tommy Thompson, Gilmore, and even Huckabee (although he was funny) should be dropped from future debates. I think Tancredo and Hunter should stay in because they raise serious issues that the top tier need to address.
All I can say about the debate at this point is - I can't wait until FDT is involved.
Ron Paul was already a second or third tier candidate as it is, so this just sinks him further. The only people that have a chance of winning are Guiliani, McCain, and Romney, no one else is going to get it ok? So we should start looking at these three closer.
[i]Ron Paul was already a second or third tier candidate as it is, so this just sinks him further.[/i]
Agreed - definitely fringe. If this is what defines being a libertarian, I guess I'm not one.
Saying we have problems with Islam because they hate our freedom ties for the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It ties with saying Islam is a religion of peace and Republicans have earned another 4 years in the White House.
[quote="Apollo"]Ron Paul was already a second or third tier candidate as it is, so this just sinks him further. The only people that have a chance of winning are Guiliani, McCain, and Romney, no one else is going to get it ok? So we should start looking at these three closer.[/quote]
Huckabee's polling is going to improve dramtically, by June. He will be in a contender soon.
I did not hear Dr Paul say WE caused 911. I heard him say our government's policy did. Ask yourself, how many foreign countries have troops in America? How many countries, (including Islamic) do we have troops in. We are supposed to be the strongest military nation in the world. They only have people willing to die to get foreign (American) troops out of their country. These people will continue to use any means available to them to get foreign occupiers out of their country. How many countries have used force to change American leadership. How many times have our government used force to change the leadership in other countries? Ask yourself, why are we at this time, the most hated and feared in the world? Just what reasons do the Iranian people to have the distrust our government? I agree with Dr paul, Our governments actions, more than likely caused 911. Dr Paul was the winner last night.
Huckabee was funny - perhaps he should stick around. But please, somebody yank Gilmore, Paul, Thompson and Brownback off the stage. They are either a total embarassment like Paul, or useless, boring props like the rest I just named.
Our declaration of war in 1941 led to the Battle of Cassablanca in 1943. We didn't invade Germany or Japan in 1943. We invaded a possession of Vichy France. We did so because it was reasonably necessary to the war effort. The Battleship Massachusetts sank the French Battleship Jean Barte at the docks.
Once war is on, you do what you need to do.
I always thought it was pretty weird that the Libertarian Party prided itself on personal liberty and no government interference, but then be the only political party that requires you to sign some kind of loyalty oath. Even the Democrats don't require you to sign a loyalty oath.
"Members of the Party shall be those [u]persons who have certified in writing [/u]that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. "
I didn't think Dr. Paul had a chance to win the nomination as well, but I'm glad he's in the race. He is scaring the crap out of the establishment by presenting arguements that have never seen the light in the media or in debates prior to this year. My hats off to Dr. Paul, who entered this race only because he was encouraged to run by many citizens who are just so fed up with what's happening in this country.
I love the idea that he's an isolationist. In the global economy, this would be a disaster, and would lead us into a war. When you can move billions of dollars at the click of the mouse, and we are so dependent on foreign trade, we would be like Japan before Parry sailed into Tokyo, and when China decided to turn into an isolationist, their people were starving.
And finally, the point of the debate when Dr. Paul blamed our policies for the "blowback" that occured, let me just say this. How many think that there's a difference between America, and the traditions and values and it's people, and the government that represents the interests of its people?
If you think that there is no difference, well then you must have received high mark in the indoctrination centers, ie public schools.
In closing, if and when Dr. Paul leaves the race, I just want to say this. If Rudy, or Mitt, or Johnnie boy get elected, and the government gets larger, and eats up more of your money, and tramples on your rights, remember the moment when you had a clear choice on rolling back the intrusive government we have. And frankly, keep your mouth shut, because some of us aren't interested in hearing your belling aching.
I can't believe some of you think Ron Paul is good to have around in these debates. He is good for Guiliani as a foil perhaps. Come on, some of the stuff he was saying is moonbat city. He sounds like Rosie. I wonder if suscribes to move on.org 911 conspiracy theorys. He is so far to the libertarian side his views end up on the left.
It's a shame Ron Paul took the opportunity to prove himself a clown on foreign policy. The Republican party desperately needs the pull of limited government advocates to bring it back from the edge. None of the other candidates, first or second tier have given so much as a nod to limited government. Unfortunately, Paul's cluelessness on the thinking and motives of the jihadis undercuts his credibilty on other issues.
Ron Paul's official views on [url=http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/issue-War_fx.html]War and Foreign Policy[/url].
[quote="Mike G"]Purely anecdotal evidence, correlated to popular culture and the large number of erectile disfunction ads.[/quote]
LOL. I hope not.
But I must say here that until he lost the election, I had no idea the breadth of Sen. Dole's sense of humor.
Here's a video including the Paul-Rudy flap last night, with commentary from Mike Scheuer, who was in charge of Alec Station at the CIA. Alec Station was the chief area in CIA that was tracking Bin Laden. Oh, BTW, for those who are for this stupid and dumb war, Alec Station has been closed, and closed for over a year now. So much for going after the person responsible for the murder of over 3,000 people. And what's this, we now have a war czar. So much for the commander-in-chief, and the Sec. of Defense, and Sec. of Homeland Security. What a joke!!!
I once said that I liked some of Ron Paul's ideas. He should stick to government spending and not talk about his foreign policy beliefs. Tough to do considering foreign policy is a major part of the job he is looking to fill.
Even one of his adversaries praised Rudy for his response to Paul. McCain said after the debate: "I thought Mayor Giuliani's intercession there was appropriate, and frankly, very, very excellent" (FNC).
Newsday.com's Janison says Rudy hit the "righteousness home run." NRO's Lowry says the Paul-Giuliani exchange "probably means Rudy won this debate."
"Policies over many years caused and elicited hatred toward us so somebody was willing to commit suicide" -- Ron Paul, still talking after the debate (FNC).
My God, he doesn't sound any different than the appeasement surrender monkey liberals in Congress right now, or people like Cindy Sheehan. Blaming America for the acts of terrorists. Unbelievable.
Ron Paul is just silly. Everyone knows 9/11 was God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuals and feminists.