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

One good thing about Ron Paul. He represents the people.

The other Idiot candidates don't represent the people. They don't care about the people. They are all Zionists. They represent the money and their masters the Rothschilds.

A perfect example is that Asshole Rick Perry. He's a definate Zionist and supporter of Big Pharma poisons. He's also a regular at the Bilderberg meetings.

I'm from the UK but if I was to offer support it would be for Ron Paul. At least he cares about the people!!!

So is the conclusion of the OP:

1) Ron Paul would have chosen a different policy that would have been Non-Interventionist in nature, therefor he "hates the Jews"?

or

2) Paul "hates da jooz" because he would have thought about American lives first?

He's a Non-Interventionist. The keyword being WAR, not "JEWS".

reply to post by RARARAsputin


That sir is a false statement. Without the US, the UK would have capitulated and France would never been freed, let alone the African front and the invasion of Italy.

You could state that the US intervened on their own interests and at their chosen time. They could have avoided WW2 completely had they participated, even if not directly, in the Spanish Revolution, even in a coalition with France that at first made efforts to help.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


LOL

He would not fight Hitler...

That's the next best thing to saying he's racist? Why did they not lead the smear campaign with this one? Oh wait, that's right...it's complete bull and they are running out of cards to play.

“The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it’s difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine”
- Abraham Lincoln

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.

This is that same doctor that was met with "YES" from the audience when met with confusion at the proposal that part of what makes America great is that poor people are free to die in the streets.
That doctor? That life preserving doctor? How much of of my life would he preserve without pay?

Originally posted by stevcolx
One good thing about Ron Paul. He represents the people.

The other Idiot candidates don't represent the people. They don't care about the people. They are all Zionists. They represent the money and their masters the Rothschilds.

A perfect example is that Asshole Rick Perry. He's a definate Zionist and supporter of Big Pharma poisons. He's also a regular at the Bilderberg meetings.

I'm from the UK but if I was to offer support it would be for Ron Paul. At least he cares about the people!!!

Not sure where you get your info from but it is all wrong.
No, he does not represent THE people.
NO POLITICIAN DOES.
Just like the rest, he represents the people that he specifically speaks to and for. Unfortunately, each time Paul speaks, that guest list gets a little smaller each time.
This is a man that wants doctors to have the "right" to dump the poor in the streets and so called job creators to have the right to say "no blacks allowed."
He does not represent THE people.

I'm British, and whilst I never think the soldiers were anything other than brave, I don't feel our leaders should have declared war on Germany over Poland, which had precious little to do with us- even moreso given the carve up with the more murderous Soviet Union.


Prior to war, the plan from the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS had been to expel Jews from their territory, mass killings of Jews along with the deaths of tens of millions of others, only occurred AFTER war had broken out- arguably declaring war helped to seal the fate of many (we can only guess either way admittedly)

Mind you, always keep in mind

QUI BONO

Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist,,, so RP saying he wouldn't send troops to Europe to save Jews is inline with what the US Constitution says.

Further, it was only after Hitler blundered and declared war on the USA that we went to actual war with troops against Germany. Otherwise, history leans toward the US supporting England in Europe, but not actually fighting the Germans in battle. This is a basic argument made time and again by most historians. Our war effort would have only been in the Pacific.

Lastly, this illustrates how the office of the President has been stretched and it's powers expanded to the point of being normal for presidents to send troops off without Congressional vote and approval...

So, Ron Paul is correct in saying he wouldn't send troops. He should have said he couldn't have sent troops.

reply to post by Algernonsmouse


Ok. Then what do the idiot Zionist candidates represent?

Think about that. They represent the Genocidal, Paedophile Maniacs!!

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by timi0000
I'm for Ron Paul, and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But he does say some crazy things. He should just keep them to himself.
He's said he wouldn't have fought the Civil War. He clarified that he would have bought the slaves to free them. Sometimes Ron needs to be a politician and use a little more discretion.

So it's ok for a racist to run for president as-long as no-one knows that he's racist?

Do you have any proof of him being a racist? Also it wouldn't hurt for you to study some history and really learn what WW2 was really about. Here's a clue it had nothing to do with the Jews.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
So Jeffrey Shapiro contacted Eric Dondero to look for more dirt to write about Paul? That doesn't make sense at all. First off they talk about something that happened during WW2, then it says Jeffrey later contacted Dondero? Another attempt to discredit Paul since we already busted Frum and Cohen from making such absurd allegations. Now we got Shapiro folks!

There's nothing to dis-credit to begin with, Paul is a joke.

Why is he joke? Because he doesn't think America shouldn't support an apartheid state like Israel?

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by Sek82

 

So you would send your son to die in a strange land fighting an alleged enemy who is no threat to the US?
You know nothing about the problems the Germans were having with the Jews and yet you think that they should be rescued.
And yet you would send your son to die meddling in the internal affairs of a country which is no threat to the US.

Germany were having no issues with jews, Hitler used them as a scapegoat.Don't tell me you think that jews caused the holocaust...

The Jews did have a hand in it. Just look up the Zionist that helped Hitler they had no problem sending them to the ovens.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
www.ynetnews.com...

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.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.

Ron Paul,folks.The man is clearly not right in the head.

American soldiers were never sent to Europe to "save the Jews". Which is beside the point. Conscripting citizens to a fight and die in a war from which hey have nothing to gain for some moralistic reasons is what is insane.

We ask: would you go and risk life and limb in the Second World War to help save six million Jews? If you wouldn't have, then you have no business, no business whatsoever, lauding a government for forcing young men to do just that. I sure as hell wouldn't do it. Since you appear to care so much, would you have risked your life to save a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians slaughtered by US nuclear weapons? Or where those "the bad guys", eh? Not "innocent" enough for you, what? One life worth more than another now, is it? The life of a "Jap" and a Jew not equal, huh? Never mind all the tens of millions of Russian and German soldiers and civilians who died because of the belligerence of all bloody politicians involved, including your beloved president.

reply to post by PoeteMaudit


superb post, all these "heroes" sitting at their computers, would they walk away from their jobs and family to die somewhere in the world to save someone? If so, there are various conflicts occurring right now, why don't they travel to Sudan and save the black villagers from Arab militia?

reply to post by Cynicaleye


And please keep in mind that the media now has to resort to these "way-from-left-field" sort of questions to slip up Dr. Paul. He answers all the normal questions that the other candidates can also answer -- eg. "What's your name?" and "who is the President we want to un-elect?" -- that sort of thing; he can answer tough questions that the other candidates cannot answer: "What are the five executive agencies you want to disband?" His answers to really tough questions are filled with words that most people cannot even define (myself included).

So now, Ron Paul is being asked questions that: deal with murky and convoluted views of history, no other candidates are being asked, our current President doesn't know the answer to without a teleprompter, and fundamentally have no right answer.

Sometimes we have to ask ourselves, "do I really care about his opinion on everything?" and "can I recognize biased journalism?"

I could go on...

Yeah, wow. Just checked the source too.

Well ... if the US Government had stopped the Kennedys and Rockefellers from getting oil to the Nazis during the war then there probably wouldn't have been a need for US troops to go over there at all. Wasn't there something about them getting Standard Oil to the Nazis via a third entity and making a bunch of $$$ ?? Think so ...

There are great humanitain injustices going on all around the world all day every day. Dr.Paul is for the DEFENCE of the U.S. If it doesnt have to do with the defence of the U.S. then are military shouldnt be involved. And I really like that idea.

So should we send our troops to the Philipines to stop the human trafficing and child prostitution rings?

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.

I'm in the UK and I have never, ever heard anyone say this.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


Definately trying to rubbish Ron Paul; who he himself is supportive of Israel

If the American Jews want a foe in a Presidential candidate.....look no further than Obama!