Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

'I wouldn't send US troops to fight Nazis'

Posted by on Jan. 1, 2012 at 4:01 PM
  • 14 Replies

Blogger says that in 2009 Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul declared that if he was in office during WW2 he 'wouldn’t have risked American lives just to save Jews

Yitzhak Benhorin

Published: 12.27.11, 23:53 / Israel News

WASHINGTON – Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's past statements are coming back to haunt him – and this time it's about the US' role in ending World War 2 and the Holocaust. 


Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."

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."



פול.

An extreme isolationist? Paul (Photo: Reuters)


"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.


Shapiro added that he later contacted Eric Dondero, Paul's former top aide, who said that he had heard his boss make similar comments on various occasions.

"Dondero told me that Paul had made similar comments to him, that 'it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II.'"


"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.


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media outlets in the US, "they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4167841,00.html

 What do you think?  I could never vote for this person to lead our country. He seems sincerely indifferent and an extreme isolationist. I can see why many Liberals, Muslims, and Anarchists would welcome him, a dream come true in this hour of unrest.

by on Jan. 1, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
4kidz916
by Gold Member on Jan. 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I don't know everything there is to know about Ron Paul, but several of his statements about military actions has me concerned.

joey125
by Silver Member on Jan. 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM

He is different alright lol  Seems in a way like he is just throwing a wrench in the GOP race.  If he wins I think their heads will explode

cueballsmom
by Member on Jan. 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM
1 mom liked this
The fact was, we were asked by England to help. Honestly, we did a good thing, but we suffered for it. Once we got the taste of being big brother, it led to us instagating quite a few more "conflicts" that ended with us being diminished for no good reason.

Personally, if I know abuse of a friend is happening, I will do everything I can to remove the abused. But I will not step in and fight/kill the abuser. When you look at it this way, America is just wrong.

However, regarding hitler, he had taken over territories that were on our door step. We were afraid we would be next. Should we now claim that we fought for moral reasons, no, because the camps did not come to light until we were there.
grlygrlz2
by on Jan. 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM
This is what scares me about Paul. Would there be enough counter balance in congress to keep Paul in check on foreign issues?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
grlygrlz2
by on Jan. 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM
The way the primary system is set up? He won't win imo

Quoting joey125:

He is different alright lol  Seems in a way like he is just throwing a wrench in the GOP race.  If he wins I think their heads will explode

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
rccmom
by Gold Member on Jan. 1, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Can you imagine a Ron Paul Presidency? Part of it scares me, and part of it intrigues me. Would both sides of Congress have to work together in order to curn RP's more excessive views? He has some good ideas, but some of his ideas just go too far, and it would be interesting to see how Congress would work with his administration.  

Mamawto4
by Bronze Member on Jan. 1, 2012 at 5:41 PM
1 mom liked this

I first want to qualify myself a bit by saying that I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter.  His position of foreign policy is the biggest reason that I do not support him for the Presidency.

But I do feel compelled to play devil's advocate a little bit on this one.....

I feel that this journalist asked Dr. Paul a very loaded question, then presented it to the public in a misleading manner.

The reporter asked Dr. Paul "if he were the President of the United States during WW2 would he have sent troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews" and Dr. Paul answered "No".

Why is this misleading?  Because it is meant to make the reader believe that the reason US troops were sent to Nazi Germany was in fact to save the Jews.  Although most people now in hindsight would say that would have been a very noble reason to invade, I doubt seriously that the US would have gotten into the war at all for only that reason.  WW2 started 2 years before the US entered.  The US entered the war after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, to which the US declared war on Japan only.  Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US had declared it's neutrality to the war.  Shortly after the US declared war on Japan, Nazi Germany declared war on the United States.  Because the US had been very lax in keeping an established and well trained military, it took another year before any troops were ready to enter combat. 

Dr. Paul has always stuck to his belief that the use of the US military should be preserved for the defense of the US only.  So it is not at all surprising that he would say that as president he would not have sent troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews.  In fact at the time, the US was following what Dr. Paul's view are today.  The US had declared it's neutrality and only entered the war to protect itself.  The fact that much of the world benefited from this really has no baring.

As I have already stated, I disagree with Ron Paul and other Libertarians on issues of forign policy, because I feel we live in a very different world today, and feel it is important to protect the United States even before an attack is made upon us. 

But I do feel that if the reporter would have asked Dr. Paul say...."Would you have entered WW2 after Nazi Germany declared war on the United States?", he would have answered the question much differently.


Carpy
by Platinum Member on Jan. 1, 2012 at 7:11 PM
1 mom liked this

People like RP are the reason the US got their asses kicked the first yr of entry into  WWII

Abaco
by on Jan. 1, 2012 at 7:41 PM
1 mom liked this

This is just so sad.....my family and I have been watching movies of the Holocaust...."Anne Frank" and today "It's a Beautiful Life". Those poor people needed help from a desperate situation. I like to think our allies would do the same for us if and when we got into the same. This really concerns me about Paul : (

imamomzilla
by on Jan. 1, 2012 at 8:45 PM

 surprisedI'm speechless.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)