Issue: Foreign Policy: Isolationism and WWII

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

Dr. Paul frequently gets labeled as an isolationist and I think that hurts him with the average American. One of the only military conflicts in the last century that most people have no objection to is our involvement in World War II. I am curious what Dr. Paul would have done had he been president at the time. He seems opposed to World War I, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, but what about World War II?

 

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

After just watching Dr. Paul on CNN I got my answer. He was asked about North Korea invading South Korea, and he said the Congress has to determine if there is a threat to national security and declare war if necessary. So it is obvious that he would have been in favor of American involvement in WWII. Hopefully the "isolationist" tag doesn't get misunderstood by the average Americans.

 

[mdh]

You have to understand the context here, too, though. Ron Paul didn't say that, the constitution said that. Ron Paul merely adheres to the US Constitution. Even if a president wants to go around invading the world, they aren't allowed to do so. That rule has been broken, and well... heck, no one stopped it, so it continues to be today!

 

[Brandybuck]

There's also a world of difference between isolationism and non-intervention. Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

 

[NMCB3]

There's also a world of difference between isolationism and non-intervention. Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

I`ve explained the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism literally hundreds of times on the internet. Usually the same people I have previously set straight a few days earlier come back with the exact same false accusations. Obviously their mind is set, and the facts are irrelevant to them, its mostly neocons that act this way. I guess when your "Hannitzed" there is no room for truth, only blind ideology.

 

[Gee]

Well, you have to remember that Japan's attack on Perl Harbor was blowback from our oil and scrap metal embargos on them. So the question would be, would Dr. Paul have created those embargos?

 

[literatim]

World War 2 wasn't really our fight. The only reason we got in it was because of entangling alliances with Britain and France. We also provoked Japan to attack us.

 

[mdh]

There are some theories of varying credibility about how deep the "provocation" went with regards to the Pearl Harbor attacks. Some have said the trade embargos were design to invoke just that sort of response, and fore-warnings of the fleet en route were ignored willfully. Sadly, most of the people who could tell the truth about any of this stuff took it to their graves, so... we'll probably never really know. We can only go on what real facts we know exist.

 

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

Anyone got any recommended reading that gives an objective analysis of Japan's reasons for attacking Pearl Harbor?

 

[Gee]

Wikipedia has an article on it. Its pretty simple, really. Japan has nearly no natural resourses, and our iron and oil embargo would completely destroy their ability to make war in the pacific. So... they attacked us.

 

[Craig_R]

Anyone got any recommended reading that gives an objective analysis of Japan's reasons for attacking Pearl Harbor?

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

 

[megiddo]

This requires spin control.

When people accuse him of isolationism, responding with "non-interventionism" is too confusing.

The proper phrase is "No Military Adventurism."

If they want details, point out that at the same time we fought against communism in Vietnam we gave handouts of billions of dollars to Russia and the East Bloc countries. Every dollar in food we gave them was a dollar in guns they could buy for the Vietnamese. We funded both sides because of Military Adventurism.

Point out the war in the Falklands. We had mutual defense treaties with both Argentina and Great Britain. When they went to war, whose side do we choose?

Look at Israel in 1981 vs. Lebanon (or today). We supplied both sides with guns. When Israel was about to kill the PLO, we stepped in and rescued the PLO. After our bombs blew up Lebanon, our taxpayers footed the bill to rebuild it. This is Military Adventurism.

Military Adventurism is handing out guns, hoping everyone shoots at each other. The only logical conclusion is that we want war to make money. These "wars" had no purpose other than to use up ammo and people so we could sell more guns.