Community | October 18, 2011 | 169 comments

Ron Paul suggests he wouldn't have aided UK against Nazi Germany

source: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/ron-paul-suggests-he-wouldnt-have-aided-uk-against-nazi-ge...

Image
ibrake4rappers13
Texas Rep. Ron Paul bashed neoconservatives Monday and said that he wouldn’t use taxpayer money to aid an ally even if it was in mortal danger.*

Paul made the comment while taking questions from the press after he unveiled his economic plan to a raucous crowd of supporters at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas. Part of Paul’s economic proposal calls for an end to foreign aid. In light of that, The Daily Caller asked Paul whether he would support aid to an ally that was in “mortal danger,” such as when America provided aid through Lend-Lease to Great Britain (and other countries) to fight Nazi Germany, starting before American entry into World War II.

“I would let the banks make their own decisions, I wouldn’t prohibit them. But I wouldn’t take money from these people to give it,” he said, referring to taking tax money from the audience.

Paul went on to criticize foreign aid more generally as “taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to the rich people in those poor countries.” He also said choosing sides in conflicts abroad is often futile.

“This administration is getting involved in Uganda now!” he exclaimed. “What I am convinced of is that when you pick up foreign aid and send it to these countries, you say, ‘well, yes, you can’t be so cold and heartless, these people are starving, why can’t we just send them food and help them out.’ Well, it turns out they are always fighting!”

Asked by a member of the press to address criticism from “neoconservatives” and “foreign policy hawks” who suggest Paul is too liberal on foreign policy, Paul expressed bafflement at what he views as the changing definition of conservatism.

“We have to be careful on our definitions because there was a time when conservative meant you didn’t want to spend money,” he said. (RELATED: Paul promises to save $1 trillion in first year of his presidency)

Paul then proceeded to bash neoconservative foreign policy proposals.

“It sounds like neoconservatives want endless wars and they don’t want the Congress to make decisions,” he said. “They want the president to go to wars at will and that money has no bearing.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/ron-paul-suggests-he-wouldnt-have-aided-uk-aga...

http://www.meredith.edu/summer-reading/roosevelt/images/411212DecofWarGerItal.jp...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Anti-Imperialist League
  2. tags:
    Ron Paul Sucks,  Fake,  Bullshit,  Ron Paul 2012,  3 more
  3.     
    |

169 comments // Ron Paul suggests he wouldn't have aided UK against Nazi Germany

  • Richard_Wyatt
  • MrCreosote
  • Vic_Romano
  • OscarLevant
  • maasanova
    • -1
      maasanova  

    • Ron Paul is right with regards to foreign policy; just like he was right about the economy.

      Instead of asking him about WW2, the Nazis and Great Britain, the reporter should have asked him about all the war propaganda lies that have led us to war over the past 25 years, and how these wars have benefitted the average America.

      I'm talking about about babies being thrown from incubators (lie from first pre Gulf War invasion), Mohammed Atta getting anthrax from Iraqi officials (lie from pre-Iraq War invasions), and Saddam's weapons of mass distruction (lie from pre-Iraq War invasions) and on and on....

    • 7 months ago
  • OscarLevant
  • maasanova
    • -2
      maasanova  
    • OscarLevant:

      No I wasn't suggesting atrocities brought to pass by the Nazis were lies.

      Emotions must be clouding your comprension OscarLevant, because I specifically said that the reporter should have asked him about more relevant issues ie. issues that are NOT related to World War 2.

      But now that you mentioned it, there were lots of WW2 post war atrocity lies about soap and lampshades (thoroughly debunked even by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial) that are right up there with the aforementioned pre-war lies in my other post.

    • 7 months ago
  • OscarLevant
    • +2
      OscarLevant  
    • maasanova:

      His historical outlook is very relevant, maasanova as it gives us an insight on how he would react to similar situations today.

      The question wasn't about WW2, it was about Ron Pauls values.

      And your contention that the "soap" and "lampshades" stories were lies only tells me that you are either aloof of history as these items (as well the gold extracted from the teeth of Jews, their hair, etc.) are well documented and on display, or willfully ignorant of the truth.

    • 7 months ago
  • maasanova
    • -1
      maasanova  
    • OscarLevant:

      Tell me where the soap and lampshades are currently on display.

      The point I was making was that Ron Paul, if elected president, probably will not go to war with Iran based on hair-brained used car salesman schemes imagined by our FBI, at least not without properly investigative the hair-brained schemes for validity.

      Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war because he knew based on the intelligence at the time that Saddam did not have WMD, just like he is aware that the current intelligence tells us that Iran has abandoned their nuclear program in 2003.

    • 7 months ago
  • GavinTheMother
    • 0
      GavinTheMother  
    • maasanova:

      I don't know who voted this down but you are right on...we've helped create all the enemies we "had to" fight against over the last 100 years in one way or another. That includes WWII.

      Japan received a majority of its steel and petroleum that made their empire possible from the US. In fact, they attacked us because we placed an embargo on them (the first act of war between the two countries). We shouldn't have been supporting their evil empire in the first place.

      Hitler's ascent was ironically on the back of US and British financing. US Fed banks were still financing Germany AFTER they invaded Poland. The financing for 50% of Germany's infrastructure came from the US.

      The peaceful revolution that overthrew the Czar in Russia previous to WWII was taken over by the violent Bolsheviks...you guessed it, because the US and Britain financed them allowing a minority element the power to violently overcome the other socialist (however peaceful) factions.

      90% of the people who argue against RP don't know his arguments well and/or don't know the history of US intervention or the history of money. It's totally fine to disagree with him, but know your topics

    • 7 months ago
  • GavinTheMother
    • -2
      GavinTheMother  
    • OscarLevant:

      Missing the point. WWII is ironically used as an argument for all the wars we have fought since. The only similarities between that intervention (yes, it was an intervention) and those since is that we financed and supported our future enemy. Why ask what he would have done as a non-interventionist after considering that US intervention was a major cause of the problem? It's like asking what an honest man would do in a situation where it would require his own lies to create the situation in the first place.

      RP doesn't have the only good ideas, however, his arguments only sound crazy because the average Americans' mind exists in a historical vacuum. Most of his detractors lack relevant historical knowledge or context.

      American folklore is not history

      btw his foreign policy is highly supported by "liberal" historians and writers, such as Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, and Noam Chomsky

    • 7 months ago
  • maasanova
  • SpecialAgent86
  • maasanova
    • -2
      maasanova  
    • SpecialAgent86:

      I went to the Simon Weisenthal Center website like you suggested and used their search engine. I searched for both soap and lampshades.

      http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/s/search.asp?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4442915

      Nothing found.

      No soap no lampshades. Sorry...

      This authoritative Jewish site even quotes Andrew Breitbart from the Simon Weisenthat Center saying that there was no evidence of soap.

      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/soap.html

      Even the lampshade story is questionable. Personally, I would think that people would be happy that Jews weren't made into soap and lampshades and not pissed off and calling me names and such.

      I was hoping that OscarLevant would be confident enough in his convictions to reply to me and show me where the soap and lampshades are on display especially, since he took the opportunity to call me an anti-semite.

      But I gues that's not going to happen.

      I didn't even want this to be a debate on holocaust war atrocity lies, but OscarLevant took the liberty to bring it up, so it is what is is you know.

    • 7 months ago
  • SpecialAgent86
    • +2
      SpecialAgent86 [removed]  
    • maasanova:

      Try again.

      "The Yad Vashem Memorial has stated that the Nazis did not produce soap from Jewish corpses on an INDUSTRIAL SCALE, saying that rumors that soap from human corpses was being mass-produced and distributed were used by the Nazis to frighten camp inmates.

      EVIDENCE DOES EXIST, however, which indicates that German researchers had developed a process for the industrial production of soap from human bodies.

      Also..

      http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Buchenwald/Atrocities.html

      You want to ignore history? Fine.

    • 7 months ago
  • MrCreosote
  • AugusteLumiere
  • maasanova
    • +1
      maasanova  
    • SpecialAgent86:

      Both you and OscarLevant claimed that Jewish soap and lampshades are on display. I've proved that so such thing exists, and that you cannot find such items on display anywhere.

      I've even used your own biased source the Simon Weisenthal Center to prove you wrong, and using their own search engine which anyone can verify for themselves. Remember, this is what you yourself recommended.

      You've provided a source (from holocaust denier website btw lol) that some evidence exists that there was a process, but that doesn't mean that camp prisoners were turned into soap.

      Who is the denier now?

      These lies are still being told to school children today, with some holocaust promoters even bringing bars of soap into classrooms to scare the hell out of children.

      Telling lies to children is wrong and it must stop.

    • 7 months ago
  • GavinTheMother
    • +1
      GavinTheMother  
    • maasanova:

      Thank you. I have one thing to say to the people who voted this down. Read "liberal" (by "liberal" I mean "accurate") history. Such as Howard Zinn and Chomsky. Then come back and vote this up. Cause knowledge is a good thing.

    • 7 months ago
  • GavinTheMother
  • JohnA
  • RaceBannon
    • +1
      RaceBannon  

    • Generally I try to avoid ww2 details, because everyone who watched pearl harbor or played call of duty seems to be an expert :)

      I can only say what I've dug through and I'm not certain on it but somethings do stand out in retrospect. My guess is that ww2 was a series of accidents, egos and business opportunities exploited with many players, nations and poor souls involved. In the end I doubt anyone who had the ability to make things move pers say knew how things would turn out hence all the flip-flopping when things looked sour for their interest. Further most of the western world had a wonderful time using the moral urgency of patriotic war to kill all massively popular internationalist worker-communist movements (even Stalin hated them) among the working class, who some feared would turn the tables over and dethrone the powers that be of the time, if anything every country was happy to send many young working class men to kill each other for that reason alone..

      for the US there was no moral ambiguity, if there was any morality it was meant for the public when their governments needed good loyal bodies for the "cause". During the war, in America there was a very actively open Nazi party which was known to harass jews, and a large amount of business leaders who loved the idea of fascism so much they paid for it of course with clever resource filled contracts favoring fascist governments. The US involvement against the fascist/axis was really a matter of infighting in government, popular socialist elements (not powerful), and of course good business as war often is the case. Your grandpa might have thought he was whooping Nazi butt he was just a very patriotic rook, no fault of their own as the atmosphere of propaganda was almost sickeningly Yankee doodle even I might have run like a madman into d-day with a butter knife in hand...

      In the UK until Hitler made his land grabs the great man people seem to quote too often, Winstron Churchill referred favorably of Mussolini as a great reformer even when he was whipping up the working class (petite bourgeois) in southern Italy by promising them landed gentry status in sense giving the families power over their ready made serfs in order to prevent the spread of socialist workers movements which opposed his rise to power. A practice so clever its still practiced today in southern Italy by the mafia but these days not to stop socialist just for money... For the most part the UK got stuck between a crap situation of either: ok, fascism seems to be winning or lets fight em.. good for us i guess they chose the latter

      I'm leaving France alone because de Gaulle proved he was just an boring conservative pseudo-royalist, in other words he only cared about France. Plus anyone who stood in the way of may '68 will always occupy the space in my heart for the worlds grumpy old a#$hol@s...

      Japan cared only about getting into the game of empires, lets be honest they had some national psyche issues to work through like being accepted by the west as what they may have thought to be a civilized nation capable of its own colonial empires (it was the thing at the time, colonialism) of course with the same civility all colonial nations imposed upon their colonies (a little rape, a little torture) maybe more extremely.

      Russia was just that Russia of course it was Stalin who lets be mean here was in all ways a psuedo-fascist which is why he got along so well with Hitler...He just used communism as a mantra to kill socialist or the worst anarchist dissidents (he didn't like those types at all) whom had the nerve to call his bluff. Anything Russia did was pretty much in many ways similar to the US or Germany, resources, good pr and of course economics.

      *Ron Pauls comment is just speculation, its not even worth debating as WW2 was a series of events, etc exploited when opportunities emerged, no Illuminati, no templars and no conspiracy that wasn't at least obvious if one paid attention to whose sides people allied with during the war.
      ok may not be the full story but as mentioned this is roughly what I've concluded

    • 7 months ago
  • Scott_Pert
  • Nick19
    • 0
      Nick19  
    • Scott_Pert:

      Well here is the thing, WW2 destroyed the infrastructure of most of the World except for the US. The industrial capacity remained untouched by bombings and hence, the US held a monopoly on production after WW2.

    • 7 months ago
  • OscarLevant
  • Almibry
    • +4
      Almibry  

    • Aww, and he seemed so promising for a while there. At least his batshit crazy side started showing before he stood a real chance at getting into office, but then again, I think there are just enough batshit crazy people in America that he could become really popular.

    • 7 months ago
  • Ambill94
    • +1
      Ambill94  

    • The guy has a couple of good ideas, but every so often he makes it really clear while he is a fringe thinker who is too scary for words...

    • 7 months ago
  • OscarLevant
  • Andover
  • alexandrek
  • AugusteLumiere
  • BKsaysAction
  • uvthestars
  • OscarLevant
  • freecrack
  • OscarLevant
  • TaGgInUrBlOcKuP
  • uvthestars
  • MrCreosote
  • AugusteLumiere
  • JohnA
    • -2
      JohnA  

    • So where is the headline where Bachman said Israel was our strongest ally, when dispite her's and Obama's opinions, the UK always has been?

    • 7 months ago
  • OscarLevant
  • JohnA
    • -5
      JohnA  

    • What a horseshit headline. He is for cutting foriegn aid, which we all agree needs to be cut, and someone twists it like that? That spin made me dizzy.

    • 7 months ago
  • OscarLevant
  • JohnA
    • -4
      JohnA  
    • OscarLevant:

      He's for cutting foriegn aid! We have a national debt out of control! Are you in favor of America borrowing money from other countries to be paid back, with interest, with American taxpayer dollars, to give it to other countries to waste as they will? That is ludicrus, that is one of the first things that need to be cut. Spin, pure and simple, I have seen dozens of posts on this board in favor of cutting foriegn aid payments, and they need to be, but when Paul says it, now we are helping the Nazis? What total hypocritical bullshit!

    • 7 months ago
  • OscarLevant
  • JohnA
  • OscarLevant
  • JohnA
  • OscarLevant
    • +5
      OscarLevant  
    • JohnA:

      When did I ever say that?

      Please stop trying to divert this discussion to something that it isn’t about.

      Red herrings and mindlessly transparent misdirections like this childishly predictable example are posted for one reason only.

      They are due to the fact that some people are devoid of any ability to formulate any of their own thoughts on the subject at hand… or the wherewithal to propose any convincing arguments based on the actual merits put forth.

      Please have another go at it.

      Or not.

    • 7 months ago
  • alexandrek
  • OscarLevant
  • alexandrek
  • Almibry
  • JohnA
  • OscarLevant
  • OscarLevant
  • theoutcrop
    • +5
      theoutcrop  

    • Ron Paul has shown us how near sighted, selfish and heartless he is and how his vision of the US will be if he is elected. Thankfully that will never happen.

    • 7 months ago
  • OscarLevant
  • faye59
    • +7
      faye59  

    • At last people should heed his words. He's just what he says he is, a selfish and greedy pol who thinks of only himself.

    • 7 months ago
  • OlBlue
  • AugusteLumiere
  • David_H
  • David_H
  • OscarLevant
  • faye59
    • +3
      faye59  
    • David_H:

      What exactly do you think the Japanese or Hitler would have done , if following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we said," sorry a war would be too expensive?" That is exactly what Paul implies in his statements. We stayed out of the war a long time until they foolishly attacked us.

    • 7 months ago
  • David_H
  • OscarLevant
  • David_H
  • David_H
  • OscarLevant
  • AugusteLumiere
  • freecrack
    • 0
      freecrack  
    • David_H:

      hitlers flaw (as if their were oly one) was biting off more than he could chew.he did ok when he turned on the itialians, and held out against the soviets for a good while.
      but if we didnt back up the british, would have allowed half his force,after conquering the brits, to relocate all to the one front line left.

      and at that point he could have very well negotiated with stalin, as he was way closer to the a-bomb than the russians were.even with out it i think russia would have not tried to crush the nazis.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoViVf3p_Rk
      point being if the brits fell, the nazis to a massive degree could have won.
      a video just for funsies

    • 7 months ago
  • David_H
  • faye59
    • +1
      faye59  
    • David_H:

      You are not telling the entire story. Japan and Italy were both in the axis with Germany. Tooj decided to try to stop our involvement, which was supplying the allies only. He concocted the scheme to attack Pearl Harbor.Those are important details that you left out.

    • 7 months ago
  • David_H
  • freecrack
  • darudmon
  • David_H
  • darudmon
    • 0
      darudmon  
    • David_H:

      No attempt to redirect, and carpet bombing civilians was horrible. However, you can't believe the US was as bad as the people who started the war, tried to eliminate a whole race of people, and in Stalin's case even killed millions of his own people, can you?

      I'm not so naive as to believe we're blameless in foreign policy matters. The British and Americans supported dictators in the middle east just to make sure they had access to oil. Democratic and Republican administrations share blame for those policies. It's why we've been involved in wars that make no sense since then.

      Also many, even during WWII, were against the carpet bombing. Yet many good people sincerely believed it was the only way to end the war. Sure, looking back from the 21st century, we now have smart bombs and hindsight is always 20/20. But "war is hell" is not just an expression. Things get out of hand, it's one of many reasons why war is bad for civilization.

      Do you think that if you lived during the war and had friends and loved ones being killed, you'd ALWAYS be able to think so clearly and dispassionately? We just wanted to bring the war to an end. There are some things in life that you can't really understand unless you were there. I wasn't.

    • 7 months ago
  • David_H
  • OlBlue
    • 0
      OlBlue  
    • David_H:

      What would Stalin then have done with Ron Paul's isolationism? I can't argue about the fact that we Americans have devastated many places in the world and I'm not happy about it. Could those places have been devastated by other parties instead? I don't know. I guess when it comes down to it, it's all speculation and Monday morning quarterbacking.

    • 7 months ago
  • darudmon
    • +1
      darudmon  
    • David_H:

      Thanks, you took this discussion forward were I was going. In no way am I justifying current misdeeds. I don't think Patriotism means never having to say you're sorry.

      Our country has done a lot wrong - genocide against native Americans, racial discrimination, sexism and more. But being a Progressive I think we have made a lot of progress. Unfortunately we're in a time where conservatives aren't our big concern. It's the regressives who want to take us back to a time when these terrible things were accepted by all too many people.

    • 7 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • SpecialAgent86
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • JanforGore
  • SpecialAgent86
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • JanforGore
  • SpecialAgent86
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • OscarLevant
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • OscarLevant
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • -3
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • OscarLevant:

      Well youre right he was trying to make a point. but you know the fed has alot to do with inflation and prices of goods going up. So you could say the federal reserve is pretty much the root of the problem. Ending the fed bailout of big banks would help alot

    • 7 months ago
  • SpecialAgent86
  • Milieu
  • ibrake4rappers13
12
1 - 100 of 169
more from Community:
from the community

top videos