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

reply to post by Cynicaleye


it's not the presidents decision to make. god damn people are so used to living in dysfunctional image of what this country is suppose to be

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

That is such BS. You definately saved our asses with the Brits, Canada and lots of men from other countries and resistance fighters from occupied countries, I think the problem is that some Americans expect eternal loyalty and support for America in all its actions and ideology, in return.

As far I know the attack on your navy in Pearl Harbor got you in the war and it was probably inevitable.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


It just dawned on me op, that you have a couple other threads going, bashing Paul, moreover trolling and not having a viable reply for anything that I or anyone has offered you.

I shall stop feeding the troll

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban

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

That is such BS. You definately saved our asses with the Brits, Canada and lots of men from other countries and resistance fighters from occupied countries, I think the problem is that some Americans expect eternal loyalty and support for America in all its actions and ideology, in return.

As far I know the attack on your navy in Pearl Harbor got you in the war and it was probably inevitable.

Not really, admittedly the soviet union would have crushed Germany with or without American help.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

It just dawned on me op, that you have a couple other threads going, bashing Paul, moreover trolling and not having a viable reply for anything that I or anyone has offered you.

I shall stop feeding the troll

I don't believe I do...

Clearly you are not right in the head, Its disturbing when people think a man is crazy because he does NOT want to send people off to die in war fought over politics. These are smear tactics designed to discredited the only righteous candidate we have had in a loooong time. LISTEN and HEAR what this man has to say before you are quick to judge.

Originally posted by tonystark
Clearly you are not right in the head, Its disturbing when people think a man is crazy because he does NOT want to send people off to die in war fought over politics. These are smear tactics designed to discredited the only righteous candidate we have had in a loooong time. LISTEN and HEAR what this man has to say before you are quick to judge.

I've heard what he has had to say and it is quite frankly worrying. His racism and crazy foreign policy is clear for all to see, but still he is defended by his delusinal followers. The man is a hypocrite and should be treated as such. However, it seems that some people can't accept proof that Ron Paul wold be a bad president. Cult of personality comes to mind.

Ron paul is awsome.....MO.....we forgave bush for being a drug adict.....why not forgive paul for something he may or may not have said......Bush also started a BS war that cost us soooo much....and killed soooo many....

at least paul wants to end the madness.....

VIVA LA PAUL.....VIVA!!!!!!
Viva the end of dumb pointless wars.......VIVA!!!!!!

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Really, was that why the Russians were urging the Americans to get into the war?

If Germany would´ve had to fight on only one front they would never have been invaded by the Russians, and the Soviet Union didn´t exist yet.

Your historical sense seems to be off a bit.

It doesn´t even matter, Americans did fight to free us, wether it was needed or not, wich it was, and regardless of wich countrty can pee the furthest.

reply to post by Cynicaleye

His racism and crazy foreign policy is clear for all to see, but still he is defended by his delusinal followers. The man is a hypocrite and should be treated as such. However, it seems that some people can't accept proof that Ron Paul wold be a bad president. Cult of personality comes to mind.

Yes, his racism is QUITE clear to see when one won't even bother to look at the additional information that is presented them - as I did you earlier in this thread - or actually engage thought processes and check things out for themselves instead of just swallowing what the media tosses out.

Could you give me one single example of the "clear for all to see" racism outside the newsletters, which I've already addressed?

And Paul's "crazy foreign policy" is verified by the CIA, vindicated by historical record, and you yourself admitted that WWII would have been won without us - and the thread has already clearly addressed how it wasn't about saving jews in the first place, and how it's a moot point since Germany declared war on us in 1941 (as you can read here...) and we responded accordingly with Congress declaring war on them later in the year - Paul, as is clear on his record, would have taken the military, kicked the snot our of declared enemies, and been done with. You know, more or less like happened.

Now, instead of continuing to make broad (and ignorant) claims as to racism and foreign policy, validate them with something factual so we can either confirm your opinion as correct or rightfully discount it.

And just so we're clear - thus far no one has GIVEN any proof that Paul would be a bad president, they have instead put their hands over their ears and gone "LALALALALALALALA" anytime someone provides actual facts (terribly inconvenient things) to rebut various claims made against him.

Address facts and prove me wrong?

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

Really, was that why the Russians were urging the Americans to get into the war?

If Germany would´ve had to fight on only one front they would never have been invaded by the Russians, and the Soviet Union didn´t exist yet.

Your historical sense seems to be off a bit.

The USSR didn't exist in the 1940s? So Joseph Stalin, a Georgian, was the President of Russia? And you are telling someone else about history?

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

Really, was that why the Russians were urging the Americans to get into the war?

If Germany would´ve had to fight on only one front they would never have been invaded by the Russians, and the Soviet Union didn´t exist yet.

Your historical sense seems to be off a bit.

The USSR didn't exist in the 1940s? So Joseph Stalin, a Georgian, was the President of Russia? And you are telling someone else about history?

I'm sure that he will tell us that our version of history is a lie made by the msm...

reply to post by Cynicaleye
I'll go ahead and provide a little more information as regards his foreign policy, although I'm beginning to wonder if we'll hear back from you on this thread?:

Notwithstanding the damnable lies about Dr. Paul’s foreign policy constantly proclaimed by his fellow Republican candidates, leading pro-Israel/pro-intervention U.S.-citizens and their journalist friends, and most of the media, only the gentleman from Texas speaks for the Founders’ non-interventionist vision of America’s role in world affairs and for plain common sense. In the Founders’ non-interventionist design for U.S. foreign policy that is championed by Dr. Paul, Iowans will find a proven road to the maintenance of America’s sovereignty, independence, peace, and prosperity. In the realm of common sense, Dr. Paul beats his fellow candidates, the Obamaites, and the media hands down. Dr. Paul challenges the interventionists in both parties on their plans for spreading secular democracy — and causing wars thereby — on historical grounds that are irrefutable because they are just good common sense. We, the British, the Australians, and the Canadians have been building our republics/democracies since Magna Charta in 1215 — that is for nearly 800 years — and we are not yet quite perfect. If Iowans and all Americans truly think about what Dr. Paul is saying — and not what the interventionists say he is saying — they would respond favorably to the Texan’s logical conclusion that what we have not fully accomplished in eight centuries cannot possibly be attained in Egypt, Afghanistan, or elsewhere in the Muslim world in 6 weeks, 6 months, or six years, not least because none of those places separate church from state. Dr. Paul’s precise use of history and commonsense exposes the exorbitantly costly effort to build democracies in the Islamic world for what it is; namely, Washington throwing money down the drain for a cause that is impossibly lost from the start and one that will involve us in wars where we have no interests...

...For Iowans and Americans as a whole, then, the best choice for their children, grandchildren, and country clearly lies in the Founder’s foreign-policy wisdom and Dr. Paul’s sturdy advocacy and promised application thereof.

(from Iowa’s Choice: Ron Paul or U.S. Bankruptcy, More Wars, and Many More Dead Soldiers and Marines by Michael Scheuer).

The entire article would be very worth your time. Regarding Michael Scheuer:

Scheuer was born in Buffalo and graduated from Canisius College in 1974, and went on to earn an M.A. from Niagara University in 1976 and another M.A. from Carleton University in 1982. He also received a Ph.D. in British Empire-U.S.-Canada-U.K. relations from the University of Manitoba in 1986.

Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He was chief of the Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He worked as Special Adviser to the Chief of the bin Laden Unit from September 2001 to November 2004. He is now known to have been the anonymous author of both the 2004 book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and the earlier anonymous work, Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America

Perhaps the reason that Paul gets more support from the military than all of the other republicans combined AS WELL as more money from federal workers (video below) whose jobs will be under the budgetary ax if he's elected (!!) than all other republicans is because THEY are the people who actually understand what's going on well enough to know the true score, as it's their direct business:

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by CaptainInstaban

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

That is such BS. You definately saved our asses with the Brits, Canada and lots of men from other countries and resistance fighters from occupied countries, I think the problem is that some Americans expect eternal loyalty and support for America in all its actions and ideology, in return.

As far I know the attack on your navy in Pearl Harbor got you in the war and it was probably inevitable.

Not really, admittedly the soviet union would have crushed Germany with or without American help.

Yes, but it would have taken longer without US supplies. The Red Army went from Stalingrad to Berlin fuelled by spam carried on Studebakers.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

It just dawned on me op, that you have a couple other threads going, bashing Paul, moreover trolling and not having a viable reply for anything that I or anyone has offered you.

I shall stop feeding the troll

May I suggest we stop feeding them ALL? And I'm talking about every one of them online....

Originally posted by PaxVeritas

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by Cynicaleye

 

It just dawned on me op, that you have a couple other threads going, bashing Paul, moreover trolling and not having a viable reply for anything that I or anyone has offered you.

I shall stop feeding the troll

May I suggest we stop feeding them ALL? And I'm talking about every one of them online....

So anybody who doesn't like Paul is a troll?

reply to post by Cynicaleye
No, but it does get suspect when they refuse to listen or respond to information that discredits their wild allegations...

i don't like war as anyone should but saying that it has many cons but some pro's and the main thing i find a pro is the technological advances it creates . with out it we wouldn't have many of our technologies and we would have the planes we use today.
many of the things created by the nazi's we still use today and with out the nazi's we would have a space program and the usa would have put a men on the moon ( eventhough some people say they didn't ) .
if you don't want war we should have a non violance space race and we should set higher goals for mankind .
so if ron paul doesn't want to fight nazi's or wouldn't attack iran for its plans of getting nukes for terrorist groups which would attack usa and other place he should get nasa and dod into one agency which split the anual budget and set a high goal of building a space base for 1000 people by 2025 and getting crafts up to light speed and create a manhattan project for ftl drives ( which creates also a mean of getting more energy/power production methodes as by product )
then i will say yes i agree with ron paul on that front because the usa should get into things which they aren't supose to be in .
if you want to get iran on your knees with out war like ron paul wants you can only do that if you create a radical energy production shift towards thorium base nuclear plants and invest in fusion plants and even more exotic places. arrest all people lobying for big oil ect.

germany wasn't in war with usa i agree too that , usa had its war with japan so why it should have rolled in a war on the otherside of the world with a country which hadn't proclaimed war on the usa is something you can argue about but whats done is done and people are using this only to bring ron paul in discredit because they are afraid of him .. even the media because they have a big loby for congress for somethings and if ron paul is potus they have less to gain. and they know war sells big times as people will watch news coopartions and they will have commercials ect for income on tv websites newspapers ect and if for example the war against iran won't come they will lose income because of lower viewers and readers.

Shouldn't this be in the hoax bin?

Since he never said this.

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.

Interesting view.
Regarding his oath as a Dr to preserve life, does this mean he is against abortion?

Can you please share with the rest of the folks what his stance happens to be about abortion?

I don't think he has really touched on it, perhaps out of fear of losing support.