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

www.ynetnews.com...

Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GOP's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative." "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.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," Shapiro wrote.

Ron Paul,folks.The man is clearly not right in the head.

Proof that said interview took place please? Keep in mind quotes aren't proof that this was said.

Until then, more smear campaign hearsay.

From the same link:

Shapiro noted that when he first presented Paul's startling statement about the Holocaust to major media outlets in the US, "they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now."

I think we can safely gather from this highly relevant statement, the comment was in all likelihood:

A) Never made; or,
B) Taken entirely out of context.

Either way, the MSM is NOT afraid to publish anything at anytime...Since they did not run with this at the time, I would submit the entire issue is BASELESS...

"I don't think that's because he's an anti-Semite. 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." Shapiro quoted Dondero as saying.

I would not be surprised that he said this, but I don't know if I would chalk it up to anti semitism.

It's pretty funny that they keep coming up with truly feeble swipes at Ron Paul's character and positions. This one is far from proven anyways and certainly taken somewhat out of context besides.

Is that the best they can come up with?

I'm for Ron Paul, and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But he does say some crazy things. He should just keep them to himself.
He's said he wouldn't have fought the Civil War. He clarified that he would have bought the slaves to free them. Sometimes Ron needs to be a politician and use a little more discretion.

Please keep in mind here that WW2 was never about saving the Jews, it was about saving Europe and possibly North America so the point of this thread is a distraction from why we fought in Europe to why we should not vote for Ron Paul......
I am Canadian but if I was just a bit south of the border here I would vote for Ron Paul
Regards, Iwinder

Europeans will tell you, they didnt need us for ww2. Did we help out? hell yea! but we were not needed.

HE, himself, WOULDN'T have...

He would have went to congress, they would have approved it because of Pearl Harbour, they would have sent troops into Europe, won it and came home.

Kind of like what happened.

Note, however, that Paul says *he* would not send the troops. One of the points he keeps making, again and again and again, is that the president cannot declare war and cannot send troops. That job falls to Congress.

Though I must admit that that probably wasn't what Paul was saying when making that comment. If this stance surprises anyone, though, the surprised parties clearly do not understand his international politics. Non-interventionism means non-interventionism. It is not for the federal government to make moral judgments or to engage in any acts that control the people of the US beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure relative safety and security. Injustice happens on a massive scale every day around the world and, quite frankly, I agree that the federal government in general and the president in particular do not have the right to decide what the people of the country do in response. Not until a coordinated defense is necessary. Note that he does not say anything about preventing *individuals* from using their *individual rights* to be proactive and to make efforts to help.

So here's a question to young American men who could be drafted. Are you a weapon that the federal government can wield to combat injustice, even when it has little or nothing to do with you? Or do you have the personal right to decide whether or not to offer your body, mind, time, health, etc. to combat injustice in someone else's land?

I anticipate arguments based on the concept of "unity as a human species" and whatnot. I really do find it to be a charming idea. It would be wonderful if we could all get along; if the human species could respond to injustice like an organism rejecting an infection, fighting it off in one cohesive gesture. But I don't think that this should undermine personal autonomy. Any arguments will almost inevitably boil down to that point--do you or do you not support the right of another person or group to violate your personal autonomy in order to combat an injustice?

I do not.

If he was president then and faced the scenario It would have NOT been his decision to send in troops.
I guess people don't know how the system works especially after Bush & Obama.

If needed then CONGRESS declares war and decides to send in troops not the president, so him saying he wouldn't send in troops was just stating the obvious being he actually believes and follows the Constitution.

I would advise anyone who is taking this seriously to not buy in to it. We have some guy saying Paul said this in reference to the Jews and the only source we have is in the OP where Paul is quoted as saying. "No I wouldn't" and "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." in response to saving the Jews???? Taken out of context much?? Give me a break. Even a baby can see this is total trash.

Even the MSM wouldn't report on it? LOL the same MSM that is trying to repeat the 20+ year old newsletters he didn't even write over and over again? That should tell you something...Even they aren't desperate enough to report on something so stupid.

Concerning his foreign policy the media is so "scared" about..Here is an interview with Paul about his foreign policy in 2007. It was about Iraq then, and he was right then. The media is doing this same thing about Iran now, and he's right once again today about Iran. It's the same thing, just a different country.

I am not at all offended or surprised by the comment.

Ron Paul is a doctor...It's his oath to try to preserve life.

I want a President that views our troops lives as precious.

I don't want another President so willing to send my kid off to die.

It may be a bad example...but at least he's consistent.

It doesn't matter if congress would send troops in anyway, the point is that if he had the final say then he would not fight a Fascist force which was committing genocide.

Is this worse than bush's grandfather supporting hitler? I'd rather have a leader not fighting the nazis as opposed to funding them. Plus this goes with ron paul's strict noninterventionist stance. If there were free trade instead of sanctions on germany maybe they would not have had a crippled economy and went to war. non intervention means non intervention, not mostly non intervention unless its the nazis. Remember that iran is stereotype as nazi, same with north korea and libya, all supposed enemies of free humanity. We heard that story before.

There is nothing wrong with what Ron Paul says here.

Many thousands of young Americans paid with their lives so the international bankers could re-establish control of Europe.

American and Commonwealth armies did not invade Europe because of the Holocaust. Infact, knowledge about the Jewish deaths were suppressed.

the United States Office of War Information had decided not to release information about the extermination of the Jews because it was felt that it would mislead the public into thinking the war was simply a Jewish problem

en.wikipedia.org...

The holocaust is mainly a post-WW2 topic.

Originally posted by whyamIhere
I am not at all offended or surprised by the comment.

Ron Paul is a doctor...It's his oath to try to preserve life.

I want a President that views our troops lives as precious.

I don't want another President so willing to send my kid off to die.

It may be a bad example...but at least he's consistent.

Perserving life is letting genocide occur?

reply to post by Cynicaleye


There are genocides occurring now. There is injustice around the world. By not going off and fighting to stop them, are *you* letting genocide occur? Is Obama, for not sending you?

Do you believe in the right of another person to decide that your personal autonomy has less value than your potential utility as a weapon? Does it really matter if this theoretical person with such power has the support of the American electoral system? Should ANY person have this level of power over another person?

Ron Paul seems to be giving an emphatic NO to this question--and neither falling for nor using the stupid emotional appeals used in almost every realm of political discourse.

Originally posted by timi0000
I'm for Ron Paul, and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But he does say some crazy things. He should just keep them to himself.
He's said he wouldn't have fought the Civil War. He clarified that he would have bought the slaves to free them. Sometimes Ron needs to be a politician and use a little more discretion.

So it's ok for a racist to run for president as-long as no-one knows that he's racist?

Nice, theres alot of good comments in here.
For me its a good reason to vote for Paul.
I hate war and it is true that USA went in Europe for the only matter to protect capitalism in Europe.
IBM, Coca Cola, probly General Motors were all complicit of Nazi Germany.
And most of you are ok with those companies.
I mean who is getting fascist here?
Not Ron Paul for sure.