« Morals of church | Main | Decency flees accident »

March 12, 2012

Ron Paul for president?

Isolationism in the 1930s was the major contributing factor leading to World War II. Winston Churchill and other visionaries warned America and the world that Germany was building a large military force in violation of the Geneva Convention. Adolf Hitler denied such accusations.

Isolationist U.S. senators said the situation was being blown out of proportion, and Europe was none of our business. Only when Germany invaded Poland did President Franklin Roosevelt persuade Congress to get involved.

But the dye was cast and America and the world paid a horrific price for failing to grasp Hitler’s intentions earlier.

Would an isolationist President Ron Paul have stood up to the Soviets?

Most likely, he would say that this was none of our business, and we should not get involved.

President Ronald Reagan went to Germany and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and indeed in time the wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. Would an isolationist President Paul have done this or would this also have been none of our business?

Today, America and Europe, with the tacit support of several Islamic nations, has threatened sanctions against Iran unless it proves that it is not building atomic bombs. Iran claims that it is not working on bombs but only on the peaceful development of nuclear energy. In the interim Iran has built vast underground facilities to keep prying eyes from seeing what they are doing.

Evidently Paul believes Iran and says that we should not get involved. Unfortunately, today’s rockets that can deliver nuclear blasts within minutes remove the deterrent that time and distance once afforded the United States.

Like it or not, America should and must be involved with what is going on throughout the world and be prepared to react promptly if situations demand it.

Paul Warner

Leawood

 

Comments

Bisky

What a ridiculous article. The media is trying to change the definition of the word "isolationists" from the traditional meaning- use of protective tarrifs to isolate ones economy, to the opposition to occupation and nation building, something the Republican party was against in 2000. Since the US is the only one trying to occupy the world that would make every other country an "isolationist". RP uses our relations with the Soviets as a model for dealing with hostile countries. And anyone that thinks Iran will attack the US so we must preempt needs their head examined.

pirate4 paul

here we go again with this isolation nonsense. ive read over a thousand articles on this election season. i can assure you Dr. Paul is not an isolationist. what this articles is, is just another propaganda piece.

i agree with Dr. Paul on his foreign policy. it is obvious the many in the military agree aswell. foreign powers to delegate our military forces should never be allowed, ever.

i thank Dr. Paul for bringing to the public the issues we face and the dangers they bring, exposing the neocon agendas that are inline with the U.N. agenda 21.

J4y8

We should not be practicing preemptive anything, no mater what the case is perceived to be. It's like taking a pretty girl to a party and punching every man in the face because they might hit on her. You just create bad relations with others when you act out of accord. The proper action to take is to take it easy and wait to see how things play out. If at some point later in the evening you need to punch somebody, for aggressing on you and your date, then it is acceptable and warranted in the eyes of others. If you do so ahead of time (preemptively) then you're simply just a gaint bully. Think about it people and put the weapons down. ;)

:P

Below is a video that claims 16 intelligent agencies around the world said there's no threat from Iran. Our beloved politicans and the media say differenly. And I believe them because they are tall and handsome and they look like presidents... Stupid claims that they're in "bed" with the big corporations, taking unlimited superpac money from wall street, special interests? What does it mean anyway? So what if it's all true? They must have good reasons because corporations are people too. Economy is fine, what inflation? Gas is still cheap... How dare you? you bunch of robots that supports what? liberty? Are you joking? We are americans and we can do whatever we want because we are always honorable. All the people we killed overseas because they are terrorists and they deserve to die. I found bunch of terrorists under my bed last night, yup, I killed them. We invented superman and spiderman for god sake. Do you know how superman deal with terrorist? He'd kill them all. You liberal robots, I pity you, you made me sick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V05xjpgMO9M

Kate

US, Isn't that the definition of a conservative - he's a liberal who's been mugged by Paulbots.

Uncommon sense

100...I actually didn't think anyone was actually paying attention to what others were writing on here or I wouldn't have used the tone I did. I guess I was trying to illicit a response. Nonetheless, you heard it here folks...I'm a neocon.

So much anger from the Paulbots.

Nathan

" If you do, you get a declaration of war and you fight it and you win it and get it over with. " - Ron Paul.

Doom

Generally people get furious when someone says negative things about our foreign policy. People usually believe our Government's intentions for involving in other countries are noble and just. Even Ron Paul calls for stop "policing" the world. But in truth, I believe, our policy makers only concern one thing: securing the best interest for our country and our government. I actually would have no issue if that is really the case. However, for "our country and our government", I mean for the special intersest and greedy corporations that are behind the policy makers (our so-call patroitic politicians that are eagerly wage war for israel even israel told us not to). There are many tragedies around the world, why is our government only focus on certain countries? It is, of course, to maintain the US world power. Do you believe the US involve in these wars is to export freedom and democracy? Really? When our freedom and democracy are being attacked by our own government (Patroit act, NDAA, rigged elections) Why do the people who support Ron Paul are so energetic? Why is the voters turn out for GOP is all time low? There is a big contrast. Dying to defend your country is noble, dying to defend the greedy corporations balance sheet is far from noble.
Most say there is no connection between govenment and gas prices. I don't know but I am curious to know why they systematically shutdown many oil refinary plants in the US to drive up gas price just during the election year? Why do we sell gasoline outside of the country instead of keeping steady inventory here? In this bad economy, people are driving less, buying more efficient cars, and have less demand on gasoline. Why is gasoline price keep going up? What happen to the basic supply/demand rule?

The Enlightened One

Uncommon Sense -

I like how you struggle to admit the difference between isolationism and non-intervention. Non-intervention is not sending Americans to war when we or our allies have not been attached. Isolationism is isolating our country from the world both militarily and economically. So you can see that there is a very big difference and it is not semantics to try to use the correct word when describing someone's political philosophy.

To answer your questions, yes he would call the cops because you have been attacked. Just like we would go to war if we were attacked and Ron Paul was president. Please remember that he did vote for the authority to go after Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. It was the nation building in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq that Ron Paul rejected as they never attacked us like in your cute little scenario.

"I'm not a hawk...far from it." Your right, you're not a Hawk. You're a Chicken Hawk. A person who will send anyone you don't know and love to war as long as it isn't you or your loved one.

One last point that most Neocon idiots don't seem to understand, Congress votes to go to war, not the President. If Ron Paul was President and War was declared by Congress then he would take us to War (as would be his job). It is a lot tougher to get Congress to vote for declaring war when we have not been attacked than a dictator in the Oval office deciding on a whim. That is why the founding fathers set it up this way. I assume you argue for following the constitution on many other issues but not when you don't like how it affects your views. You're no different than the democrats that want violate the constitution to give everyone free healthcare, courtesy of the taxpayer. You're all the same and you're all destroying this country. Enjoy the downfall, as the speculative market for oil continuous to skyrocket gas prices until people can’t afford to drive to work anymore while Neocons like you beat the drums of war like someone actually did something to you. Enjoy the downfall, as the government intrudes more and more into your lifestyle, listening to your phone calls, your private conversations, watching you with more and more cameras, touching you, your children, and your grandmother at the airport and the increasing number of checkpoints across the country, monitoring your internet usage, shutting down websites they don't like. Enjoy the militarized police force with drone aircraft, assault weapons and vehicles of war busting into to America homes with no warrant or judge to review the evidence. Enjoy the assassination of American Citizens whose only due process was being put on a kill list by a President you probably didn't vote for. All this under the guise of searching for jihadists under the bed at night. Enjoy... because it is your fault.

A bystander

To Uncommon sense, For someone who uses that username you have very little common sense how is liberating countries working out for you? I may not be a ron paul supporter. Not because of his foreign policy but because of his free market the cure for all, kind of thinking. If there are many just fights to be fought why aren't other first world countries fighting the good fight on a scale we are. Why must we go bankrupt.Would paul call the cops if he saw your housing being robbed of course he will , well at least I hope he would. Ron paul is advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy not a way of life. There's a big difference. I have an idea lets stop invading countries under the false pretense of liberating. Mexico citizens need your help too and they are our closest neighbor should we go help too since you are so willing to help other countries so far away from us, how about our closest neighbors south of the border. Why stop there why not police the whole world.

Uncommon sense

I'll even give ye'all another freebie. I adore your word play about this huge distinction between isolationist and a non-interventionist. Didn't Chamberlain try the non-interventionist route prior to WWII? Didn't Stalin sign a non-aggression treaty with Hitler? I would say that is pretty non-interventionist. I find it odd that all of you harp on the same semantics and then talk about history as if the two of you are intimate lovers.

Here's a question, that I know I won't get an answer to but hey. If Paul is a non-interventionist and not an isolationist (and I wince at even using these terms), would Paul call the cops if he saw my house being robbed if he were my neighbor or would he just go about his business? If he saw someone being attacked, would he intervene or attempt to get help or just walk away? Sounds to me that the word you want to use to describe Paul is cowardice or indifference.

As for me, right is right. True, we could get our noses out of the affairs of most countries and we should only send our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters to war when the fight is just. However, when I look around the world, I see a lot of just fights to be had.

I'm not a hawk...far from it. I'm also not some dreamer who thinks the world is all oysters and we can just sit back and not take an active role in defending liberty and the truth.

Here's my list of just wars or military actions from the turn of the century: WWII, Korea, Vietnam (with a caveat that we should have fought differently and actually achieved our goal), the first Iraq war, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Libya.

I might also add that Syria, Uganda, Liberia, and the tragedy in Dafur should have or does deserve our attention.

ZayZay

Geneva conventions forbade Hitler from cultivating a German army? Maybe if you actually knew some history I would be inclined to give you a fair shake, but you are just promoting American empire while being blissfully ignorant. Of tehe four geneva conventions bone fotbade a German army, that was the treaty of versailles which imposed a 100,000 man army limit on Germany and forced reperations that would havr been payed until 1984, the true cause of Hitler's rise to power. And for future reference, the visionary Winston Churchill equated Ghandi to Hitler and we all see where the british empire is now for policing the world; a broke welfare, police state.

Uncommon sense

Funny posts, Kate and whispering.

Come on Paul supprters, we can make it 100. Push yourselves. Now is not the time to quit. We are so close. Push it...push it. Suck it up. Give me 4 more.

BTW, last week's Romney thread got 150...nanna nanna booboo...stick your head in...

Seth

All you need to do is amend the Constitution (using Article V) to give the Federal government International policing powers and Ron Paul will do his job.

Paul's key point is that international policing powers is not currently a power of the Federal government and that conservatives, in this respect, are just as guilty as giving the Federal gov't license to overstep its boundaries w/o amendment as liberals are on domestic issues.

Michael P

FDR was a warmonger and wanted to enter WWII to draw attention away from his part in the failing American economy and to save his buddy "Uncle Joe" Stalin. the American people wisely ignored his ramblings. FDR only got his way because of Pearl Harbor, not because of the invasion of Poland. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union should have went to war and destroyed each other. whoever manages to come out of that war would be so broken that they would then be picked apart by the British empire, which is what Neville Chamberlain was planning. instead, Churchill screwed it up and the UK intervened on behalf of the Soviet Union and lost their empire. and the Soviet Union grew into a superpower from all the American aid it was given under the FDR administration before it inevitably imploded because of the ludicrous economic policies that is socialism.

the American tradition is to despise war with every fiber of our being, but to never run from it when it comes knocking at our doorstep. today, the US has devolved into bombing and invading any country that decides to sell their oil in a currency other than the US dollar (Iraq, Libya, and now Iran).

this blatant history revision is pointless in the age of the Internet. when will these people realize that everything they say is forever there on the Internet? just look at how foolish all the people who mocked Ron Paul and Peter Schiff about the housing bubble. they now try to pretend they never spoke to the men. all it serves to do is to cement the media talking heads in history as the presstitutes of their era. in this particular case, its Paul Warner.

arthur s

Since when is Diplomacy over Force considered isolationist?

Ron Paul has said on several occasions: NO WAR WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR.

Unless the US is attacked by a country or group it is illegal for a President to invade that country. UNLESS YOU HAVE A DECLARATION OF WAR.

I feel like I'm going insane. I am a teacher and even my children understand the rules and when they are breaking them. They don't argue that what they are doing is right...they may break rules, but they know when they did.

In the new US there are no rules. God help us all.

Tony

Every war since WWII were undeclared wars, therefore unconstitutional. Vietnam dragged out, cost lives, money and didn't accomplish anything. Iraq & Afghanistan are exactly the same. If it is declared, it has a mission and purpose; we go in, achieve the purpose and get out. Non-intervention is non-force. Using diplomacy, trading and setting an example is the best way to achieving your goals. Bombing/assassinations/military coups (force/interventionism) causes unintended consequences and makes people hate us. Isolationism is what is going on now: sanctions are isolationist, not talking to people is isolationist, and preemptive war is isolationist. Our founders wrote the constitution from experience and from 100s of years of humanity being ruled by tyranny. They knew how to keep liberty alive and tyranny in check. Right now the king (the President) has the authority to go to war at will and jail and kill American citizens without due process. Only Ron Paul and his movement can reverse this dark trend into tyranny. Only Paul.

Neo-Con-Artists Suck

I never finish reading articles by empty-headed blood-lusting neo-con a-holes. But my God, I stopped reading this garbage after the very first word!

Joe Smith

The writer seems to have confused the treaty of versailles with the geneva convention. I would take their analysis with a grain of salt.

Last Bastion

Paul does not advocate isolationism, he suggests non-interventionism as a preferable means to peace and prosperity. If I thought that the writer of this article was ignorant of the fact, I'd email him to educate him of Ron Paul's actual ideological position on foreign policy. Tally your support for the Doctor at ronpaulitic.com - the only worldwide geo-tag Ron Paul map on the internet.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright