Ron Paul Negatives

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are all wrong. Here's the proper analogy.

I'm walking the the street and pass an elderly lady. I steal her walker. After running 20 feet I throw it into a Victoria's Secret display window and punch myself in the crotch, then spit on a wandering kitten. Then I spot a beehive, which I promptly wipe my ass with. So, the bees are pretty pissed. Maybe 'crapped' is a more proper adjective. Anyway, I get like 178 stings on my ass but since I'm a masochist I get an erection. I'm so happy that I sprint, but I accidentally run into a parked car, erection first. That hurt like hell.

Will this happen to me again? Probably.

qed

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but that is NOT the correct history. The United States, specifically Wilson, was against the harsh reperations of the Treaty of Versailles. It was the Europeans (British and French) that favored them. These aspects of the treaty are what allowed Hitler to garner support from the German people. Read his 25 point plan - http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/ASL...pprogramme.htm - The main issues were regarding the Treaty of Versailles, again, not a result of US intervention, but of British and French.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I understand your argument, the problem was not that the U.S. intervened in WWI, but rather that we failed to ensure that we would have total authority over the way in which the war was fought and resolved. In other words, the problem was that we ceded authority to our allies. I find this position very difficult to reconcile with your previous endorsement of both the UN and the League of Nations (which you specifically said could have prevented WWII).

[Taso]

In relation to the WWI/WWII discussion that has developed, I had no argument, I was simply stating historical fact - the British and (mainly) French desire to punish the Germans is what eventually led to WWII.

If you'd like my posistion regarding the UN and the League of Nations, I already gave it, in a rather detailed exchange between me and TheTruth. My overall ending conclusion was that I think the UN is neccesary, but if the United States is going to contribute the severe majority of troops that it does to the UN force when it's been in real conflicts like Korea, the US should have more say in how these troops are used.

In regards to WWI/WWII again - The problem was not with the US at all. You stated, "...but rather that we failed to ensure...total authority over the way in which the war was fought and resolved." It sounds like you think I was somehow blaming the United States, I wasn't - we failed at nothing here, the French failed to see ahead into the future and know that because of the reperations, Hitler would invade and occupy their country in a mere 6 weeks. Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

And yes, had the United States participated in Wilson's League of Nations, I do not think WWII would have escalated the way it did. Unfortunately, politics got in the way of that.

I don't see how the two are related issues.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
In regards to WWI/WWII again - The problem was not with the US at all. You stated, "...but rather that we failed to ensure...total authority over the way in which the war was fought and resolved." It sounds like you think I was somehow blaming the United States, I wasn't - we failed at nothing here, the French failed to see ahead into the future and know that because of the reperations, Hitler would invade and occupy their country in a mere 6 weeks. Hindsight is indeed 20/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can say that "the problem was not with the U.S. at all", considering that the U.S. signed off on the Treaty of Versailles. Regardless of whose idea it was, Wilson signed off on it, and therefore, the U.S. must bear at least some of the responsibility.

Notice that in my original post, I didn't say that U.S. policy was entirely to blame, but rather that it was "one of the primary factors". I agree that the French certainly did their part as well, but to argue that the U.S. had no role is silly, when Wilson was one of 3 men who was responsible for negotiating the Treaty.

Ironically, probably the main reason that Wilson was so eager to compromise on the Treaty was his desire to consolidate international support for the League of Nations.

[pvn]

I would love to see some odds from WSEX et al regarding who will be the first to ask Ron Paul in a nationally televised debate "BUT WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADSSSS????!"

[Taso]

Fair enough, but that is not what you said in your original post. You said "the US decision to get involved in the war is a primary factor in Hitler's uprising" - almost word for word. Which is not entirely true. Maybe the signing off on the treaty of Versailles - not that it mattered, the French would not have settled for anything less than the treaty, Wilson and the David Lloyd George did try to lessen the harshness- but not just getting involved in the war. The problem wasn't the involvment, it was the crazy Versailles treaty that imposed those reperations.

And now that I think about it, the United States was lending money to Germany to enable them to pay the reperations - one less reason for Germany to feel anger towards the United States.

[Chimera]

I don't really see how that's different from what I said in my initial post. Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. My whole argument was that often we jump into wars without considering exactly how we're going to "clean things up" in the aftermath. I think that's exactly what we're seeing right now in Iraq. Actually defeating the enemy is the easy part. It's putting Humpty Dumpty back together again that's really tough. My point (and Ron Paul's point) is that interventionists need to consider these long-term consequences of war before they advocate rushing into war every time there's a problem somewhere in the world. If they don't, they may end up leaving regions less stable than they found them.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His "non-interventionist" foreign policy is simplistic, naive, and was proven wrong about 1939.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with intervention is that it creates a never-ending cycle. Interventionists like to point to WWII as an example of a war that was made worse because we failed to intervene. What they fail to mention is that previous U.S. intervention was one of the primary causes of WWII.

The U.S. decision to get involved in WWI (the "war to end all wars" lol) was one of the main factors that contributed to the rise of Hitler, just like the current decision to invade Iraq is contributing to the growth of terrorism in the Middle East.

[Insert quote about those who don't learn from history]

[/ QUOTE ]
+1

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this--the main reason that Hitler rose to power is that there was no end to WWI but Germany was made responsible by the world and forced to pay for it. Even though Germany still had its territory intact, the French wanted to really punish Germany and economically, this was the catalyst which led to the rise of Hitler. Us entering the war had very little with the rise of Hitler.

If the Treaty of Versailles would have a little more even handed, this may have prevented WW II--so I blame the French. The French used German funds to pay for the Maginot Line (which worked really well, I might add [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]) and other reparations. This led to hyperinflation in Germany, growing dissatisfaction and eventually to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. This can be paralleled to Afghanistan is some respects--I can expound on that if someone wants it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

When he said US interventionalism I kind of just took that as interventionalism, as in the whole ToV and the economic consequences on Germany it had.
[ QUOTE ]
As for the Middle East, I think you have to go to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and go from there. In many people's minds over there, they equate us with Israel and the killing that goes on. When the administration decided to take out Saddam, it strengthen the perception the US was anti-Arab and fueled the fires that were already there. It is really too complex to explain fully here, but the roots can be traced to 2 things: oil and Israel--and we are heavily involved in both.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to see some odds from WSEX et al regarding who will be the first to ask Ron Paul in a nationally televised debate "BUT WHAT IF BILL GATES BUYS ALL THE ROADS???

[/ QUOTE ]
fyp

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree Truth, although again, a few problems with it.

For starters, Ron Paul doesn't approve of our involvment in the UN, that's the most important part here. He is very in-line with Washington's non intervention, as well as no entangling alliances. (Another establishment that would have helped to prevent the major escalations in WWII - had the US been in Wilson's League of Nations, WWII may not have escalated the way it did)

Also, when the U.N. sends troops in (ie Korea, something Ron Paul is apparently disaproving of) the extreme majority of troops are United States soldiers. Why should we subject our soldiers to the command of a non-american General, when they are the primary fighting force.

And again, the U.N. is not a body of action, but of talk. How many resolutions did they pass on Iraq and not enforce? It was the United States that had to finally apply the law. (Whether or not this was neccesary, legal, or resulted in blowback is not my point, it's that the UN is not a big fan of taking action.) I'm not saying the UN doesn't work, I'm sure the world would have had a lot more wars than it did if not for the U.N.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, I def think we should be in the UN (if RP is for pulling out of the UN i disagree with him on that issues; unless somebody can give compelling reasons why we should pull out).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not particularly excited about the UN, but I don't really have a problem staying in... so long as we stop paying for anything related to it and don't treat anything it does as having any power over us... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]