If Paul was President during WWI/WWII...

[nickcoons]

I'm not a WWI or WWII expert, so I'd like some help with this one.

I am a Ron Paul supporter, and have been for a long time. I consider myself fairly well-versed on his positions, but this has more to do with history and how his positions would have worked in a practical sense during WWI and WWII.

As I understand, WWII began in 1939, but the US didn't intervene until Pearl Harbor in 1941. Some say that Pearl Harbor was "just the excuse we were looking for" to get into WWII; I don't know whether or not that is true. Some also say that if we didn't get involved, Nazism would have spread through Europe, and by the time Hitler came to the US, he would have been too powerful for us to stop. Or even if we had the ability to stop him, it would have been much worse on us. It seems that under a Paul administration, our non-interventionism tactics might have been more dangerous for us.

I think a non-interventionist policy makes a lot of sense, especially with everything that I know post-1950. But again, being a non-expert on WWI and WWII, I would ask that someone more versed than I explain to me how non-intervention would have been a better position to take during these times.

 

[Perry]

I'm not a WWI or WWII expert, so I'd like some help with this one.

I am a Ron Paul supporter, and have been for a long time. I consider myself fairly well-versed on his positions, but this has more to do with history and how his positions would have worked in a practical sense during WWI and WWII.

As I understand, WWII began in 1939, but the US didn't intervene until Pearl Harbor in 1941. Some say that Pearl Harbor was "just the excuse we were looking for" to get into WWII; I don't know whether or not that is true. Some also say that if we didn't get involved, Nazism would have spread through Europe, and by the time Hitler came to the US, he would have been too powerful for us to stop. Or even if we had the ability to stop him, it would have been much worse on us. It seems that under a Paul administration, our non-interventionism tactics might have been more dangerous for us.

I think a non-interventionist policy makes a lot of sense, especially with everything that I know post-1950. But again, being a non-expert on WWI and WWII, I would ask that someone more versed than I explain to me how non-intervention would have been a better position to take during these times.

You say that you have been a Paul supporter for a long time but you don't seem to understand his positions. Paul is far from being an isolationist and is neither anti-war. What he has said about WWI & WWII is that they were avoidable wars and not that we would have stayed out of them completely. I am quite certain that under a Paul administration he would have agreed with the congress when they voted that the attack on Pearle Harbor threatened our national security.
Perhaps you should search the forums and do some reading so that you might have a better grasp on the issues.
This smells like a troll thread. No offense intended.

 

[terlinguatx]

...

 

[Primbs]

It made a lot of sense to try to stay out of a senseless war like WWI.

We went in after our ships got attacked. It was such a terrible war and nothing seemed to be accomplished. In that context, Americans were justified not jumping in the next european war in the 1930's.

Americans had seen the horrors of chemical weapons and the huge cost of WWI.

Strategic bombing wasn't in use yet, so the US could feel safe from future German attack. Very few people could envision an atomic bomb. America felt protected by the oceans. Almost everybody had a gun in their house.

The Japs knew this and did not relish taking the war to the mainland.

 

[nickcoons]

You say that you have been a Paul supporter for a long time but you don't seem to understand his positions. Paul is far from being an isolationist and is neither anti-war.

I understand his positions well. I don't claim he is an isolationist. I understand well the vast differences between isolationism and non-interventionism.

What I don't understand are the events of WWI and WWII that either justified our intervention, or if not, how we would be better off without intervening.

What he has said about WWI & WWII is that they were avoidable wars and not that we would have stayed out of them completely. I am quite certain that under a Paul administration he would have agreed with the congress when they voted that the attack on Pearle Harbor threatened our national security.

I agree with that. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Japan attacked us, not Germany. It sounds like we should have done nothing more than defend ourselves from Japan, no?

Perhaps you should search the forums and do some reading so that you might have a better grasp on the issues.

I did a search on the forums for "world war" first to see if I could find an answer before I asked the question.

This smells like a troll thread. No offense intended.

Would you like me to prove my credentials?

 

[0zzy]

It made a lot of sense to try to stay out of a senseless war like WWI.

We went in after our ships got attacked. It was such a terrible war and nothing seemed to be accomplished. In that context, Americans were justified not jumping in the next european war in the 1930's.

Americans had seen the horrors of chemical weapons and the huge cost of WWI.

Strategic bombing wasn't in use yet, so the US could feel safe from future German attack. Very few people could envision an atomic bomb. America felt protected by the oceans. Almost everybody had a gun in their house.

The Japs knew this and did not relish taking the war to the mainland.

He's similar to Robert Taft. Taft opposed getting into WW2 until Japan attacked. After they attacked us, hell unleashed and we defeated the Japanese (and the Nazis who declared war upon us). However, he wouldn't have used a nuclear weapon.

 

[Primbs]

There is a debate that one of the targets for the nuclear weapons were not military enough and that too many civilians got killed.

Tactically, we would have wanted to preserve certain cities that were nuked because many in those cities would have been helpful to us after the war was over.

 

[nickcoons]

When someone starts out with this statement you know you have a troll in your midst,

You "know" incorrectly.

are you with huckabee or romney?

I'm new to these forums, but not new to Ron Paul, libertarianism, or politics in general. I'm surprised that I come here to ask an honest question, and the first two replies accuse me of being a troll. It is posts such as these that cause people to question the sanity of Ron Paul supporters and make ad hominem attacks.

I can prove my "Ron Paul supporter" credentials:

- Firstly, check out my blog at http://www.nickcoons.com where I've posted numerous libertarian-supporting and Paul-supporting entries over the years.
- I'm a member of Ron Paul Meetup Group 7 in Phoenix, and marched in both national marches (the one in August and again a few weeks ago), and have been involved in multiple sign-waving events on the corner of busy intersections.
- I have screen shots of my name being displayed on the campaign website as a "recent donor" for the multiple donations I've made to the campaign.
- I've made countless comments on YouTube videos supporting Ron Paul's positions.
- And probably the hardest thing of all, I switched my registration from Libertarian to Republican so I could vote for him in the primaries.

I keep a copy of the Constitution on me at all times, and it's all to clear that none of the other Presidential candidates have either read it, or if they have, knowingly disregard it.

So if I can digress from proving my loyalties, can we please get back to the question I asked?

 

[nickcoons]

It made a lot of sense to try to stay out of a senseless war like WWI.

We went in after our ships got attacked. It was such a terrible war and nothing seemed to be accomplished. In that context, Americans were justified not jumping in the next european war in the 1930's.

I'm not sure I understand this (I know less about WWI than I do about WWII). If our ships were attacked, yet we should not have been involved, what would an appropriate response have been?

Strategic bombing wasn't in use yet, so the US could feel safe from future German attack. Very few people could envision an atomic bomb. America felt protected by the oceans. Almost everybody had a gun in their house.

Is that to say that we should not have been involved in WWII to the degree that we were; rather only in responding to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

 

[Perry]

You "know" incorrectly.



I'm new to these forums, but not new to Ron Paul, libertarianism, or politics in general. I'm surprised that I come here to ask an honest question, and the first two replies accuse me of being a troll. It is posts such as these that cause people to question the sanity of Ron Paul supporters and make ad hominem attacks.

I can prove my "Ron Paul supporter" credentials:

- Firstly, check out my blog at http://www.nickcoons.com where I've posted numerous libertarian-supporting and Paul-supporting entries over the years.
- I'm a member of Ron Paul Meetup Group 7 in Phoenix, and marched in both national marches (the one in August and again a few weeks ago), and have been involved in multiple sign-waving events on the corner of busy intersections.
- I have screen shots of my name being displayed on the campaign website as a "recent donor" for the multiple donations I've made to the campaign.
- I've made countless comments on YouTube videos supporting Ron Paul's positions.
- And probably the hardest thing of all, I switched my registration from Libertarian to Republican so I could vote for him in the primaries.

I keep a copy of the Constitution on me at all times, and it's all to clear that none of the other Presidential candidates have either read it, or if they have, knowingly disregard it.

So if I can digress from proving my loyalties, can we please get back to the question I asked?

You did not respond to my post. Your assertions in your first post are absolutely inaccurate. You link to your supposed "blogsite" is non-functional. How about respond to my post instead of starting a debate concerning positions that have no basis in reality.
You are still treading on thin water. Again no offense but your behavior fits perfectly the pattern of a troll. If you are not one there is no need to take offense as we will find out for sure soon enough.

 

[NewEnd]

WW II was the continuation of WW I

had we stayed out of WW I like a vast majority of Americans wanted (Woodrow Wilson was elected on "he kept us out of the war", and Harding, was from a different party, and won the biggest landslide victory ever, after Wilson)...

it is very unlikely Germany would have had the persecution complex it developed. We should have let the Europeans fight it out.

There was no reason for us to go into WW I, except power, and Wilson's misguided belief he could end war with war, and create a world government. (League of Nations)

 

[nickcoons]

He's similar to Robert Taft. Taft opposed getting into WW2 until Japan attacked. After they attacked us, hell unleashed and we defeated the Japanese (and the Nazis who declared war upon us). However, he wouldn't have used a nuclear weapon.

According to:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm

Germany declared war on us on December 11, 1941 in response to our acts against them beginning on September 11, 1941. Obviously, once they've declared war on us, we're at war, and involvement is warranted. But I could imagine that Paul probably would not have given the order that Roosevelt did to fire on all German subs on-sight, unless there's something I don't know about this.

So if we didn't antagonize Germany, and they therefore didn't declare war on us, where we therefore would not have been at war with them, is it predicted that they would have conquered Europe, and eventually have made their way to the United States?

 

[bbachtung]

I'm not sure I understand this (I know less about WWI than I do about WWII). If our ships were attacked, yet we should not have been involved, what would an appropriate response have been?

The Germans were attacking "our" ships because the U.S. was shipping weapons and war materiel to Great Britain -- the enemy of Germany -- while maintaining that the U.S. was "neutral."

 

[gRegor]

You did not respond to my post. Your assertions in your first post are absolutely inaccurate. You link to your supposed "blogsite" is non-functional. How about respond to my post instead of starting a debate concerning positions that have no basis in reality.
You are still treading on thin water. Again no offense but your behavior fits perfectly the pattern of a troll. If you are not one there is no need to take offense as we will find out for sure soon enough.

His site works fine for me, and all I see in his starting this thread is some honest questions; they're not even that inflammatory and he admits his lacking knowledge of the topic.

I know I'm new here, but I'm not new to internet forums; nothing seems trollish about this currently.

 

[NewEnd]

According to:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm

Germany declared war on us on December 11, 1941 in response to our acts against them beginning on September 11, 1941. Obviously, once they've declared war on us, we're at war, and involvement is warranted. But I could imagine that Paul probably would not have given the order that Roosevelt did to fire on all German subs on-sight, unless there's something I don't know about this.

So if we didn't antagonize Germany, and they therefore didn't declare war on us, where we therefore would not have been at war with them, is it predicted that they would have conquered Europe, and eventually have made their way to the United States?

Germany needed Japan to harass Britain and Russia

Japan needed resources

Japan and Germany were allies

war with Germany was inevitable

the declaration of war was calculated, and planned before Pearl Harbor. Hitler definitley knew Japans intentions.

You are asking about hypotheticals that did not happen. I do get annoyed by historical hypotheticals, because they leave out so many realities.

 

[Primbs]

I'm not sure I understand this (I know less about WWI than I do about WWII). If our ships were attacked, yet we should not have been involved, what would an appropriate response have been?

We tried to stay out of WWI for many years. But Germany started to sink our commercial ships. Once our ships were attacked then we would go to war to protect our ships.

Is that to say that we should not have been involved in WWII to the degree that we were; rather only in responding to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

Once the Japs attacked us we had the right to declare war on the Japs. As someone else posted, Germany declared war on us.

It is probably better to look at current events now rather speculate about WWI and WWII.

The current big question is will the US attack Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. Things can go out of control if you sometimes avoid war, but sometime things can spiral out of control if you intervene in some war situations.

De Borchgrave talks about bombing Iran could bring about unintended consequences.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071028/COMMENTARY/110280008&SearchID=7329784607744

 

[JimDude]

Having not read much of the above. Ron Paul has said that if were going to go to war, we should declare it, win it and come home.

In the case of world war I and II, one could make the case that it was in our best interest to get involved in those wars, because our own security and interests were at stake. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to go to war when there is a serious threat to us.
Basically, if we never invaded Iraq, its not like the world would of ended. But if we never got involved in WWII, the world may very well have ended....
Was the all the bloodshed of WWII necessary? Probably not. But most of the american public went along with the war, despite the fact that most of them did not want to get involved before pearl harbor.

In the end, its not really's the President's decision whether or not we should go to war, Its the people and the congress who decide. The President just executes it. But the problem with bush is that instead of the people, he decided who to go to war with. and Thats not american. As long as we follow the consitution, thats what matters in the end. or does it..? o_0

 

[nickcoons]

You did not respond to my post.

I'm not with Huckabee or Romney. While not directly answering that question, I thought my response made it pretty clear.

Your assertions in your first post are absolutely inaccurate.

Then please correct me where I'm wrong.. that's the reason I asked. I certainly didn't ask a question with the implication that altering views were incorrect. That wouldn't even make sense

You link to your supposed "blogsite" is non-functional.

Great -- What a time for Apache to crash . It's back up.

How about respond to my post

See above.

instead of starting a debate concerning positions that have no basis in reality.

My post regarding WWI/WWII was clearly not intended to start a debate.

You are still treading on thin water.

Oh please! First of all, the saying is "thin ice". Secondly, I am nowhere near "troll" status.

Again no offense but your behavior fits perfectly the pattern of a troll. If you are not one there is no need to take offense as we will find out for sure soon enough.

Of course there is! I came to ask a question, and the first two responses are attacks on me while completely ignoring the question.

If "we will find out for sure soon enough", then there's no need for you to even bring up your suspicions of me. Simply address the question I've asked, and observe my future posts in these forums.

People say Ron Paul supporters are rude, and it's because there are a small minority that attack new-comers and opposing views. Please don't contribute to the stereotype.

For argument's sake, let's say that I was a supporter of another candidate. How does your response help your cause?

 

[Primbs]

I agree. Ron Paul is also upset at this undeclared war that appears to have little backing of the American People.

We can defeat major powers in WWII in just four or five years, yet we can't seem to overcome a small third world country like Iraq in five years.

 

[nickcoons]

You are asking about hypotheticals that did not happen. I do get annoyed by historical hypotheticals, because they leave out so many realities.

This discussion is only academic, of course, for the reasons you've mentioned. I encounter people all the time that I'm working to "convert" to Paul-supporters, so I like to be armed with answers to as many questions possible.

I was encountered with this question today, and by a WWII veteran and knows much more about than I do. I felt inclined to gather information, and where better to do that than here?

Generally, most of the general public that even knows Ron Paul knows that we should not have gone into Iraq because it didn't involve us. Some people will take this to mean that he would not have involved us in WWI or WWII. For me to be able to provide them with any insight (or at least, more than what the MSM gives them), I would have to understand our involvement in these wars, and what might have happened had Paul's policies been in place. If I can assure them that under a Paul administration, the outcomes *likely* (predicting to any real degree of accuracy is near impossible) would have been equal or better, that makes them feel more comfortable about his positions and credibility as a candidate.