Would you LOVE it if America just stood by and did nothing while Iran endangered the world's stability with nukes and 11,000 missiles aimed at Israel and Southern Europe from their vantage point at the center of the Jihadist world and at the center of the worlds' major oil producing states?
Dont try to compare German military might to that of global terrorists... You sound sill in doing so.
Ron Paul's non-interventionist policy suggests this result.
No, it suggests building friendship with nations and trading freely.
And we act as if global aggression and the response to it were a newly crafted wrinkle in the affairs of man. Well, it is only a novel concept if you are unaware of history or if you choose to ignore history.
What are the actual causes of this fanatical movement???
In the years before 1940 there were no signs that Germany could mount an invasion of America. And so, because they were ONLY threatening their neighbor states in Europe we stood by and did nothing. In time we came to learn that not only were we wrong about the Nazis' intentions but we were also wrong about their capabilities. And because we (and the rest of the free world) stood by, waiting around, doing nothing, hoping that we could remain non-interventionist, we allowed Germany to grow bigger, stronger, more dangerous, occupying more territory, defeating more countries, burning and destroying more cities, killing, raping and wounding more innocents. And ultimately, plumbing the depths, even further, of human depravity.
Neville Chamberlain, who was right there in Europe made that mistake, the US had nothing to do with it...
We stood by and did nothing and to what end?
Wrong, Chamberlain did nothing to enforce the restrictions implemented by the treaty of Versailles. We are and were on a separate continent...
That, due to the best of intentions we effectively guaranteed that we would one day HAVE to mount a world wide effort to stop the Nazis and save the world for liberty. That world wide effort resulted in the deaths of more than 72,000,000 people.
The US was known for giving aid to allied forces even before Pearl Harbor.
Because the USA and the free world waited. Appeased. Hoped. Because we ignorantly stood by and did nothing in the face of aggression.
That was Europe's war. Chamberlain screwed up by not having the balls nor intelligence to enforce treaties that would have prevented this. Only when we were directly attacked by allies of Axis forces were we to intervene. Who's fault was it not to know of and protect from Japanese military expansion??? That would be our own... Would Japan have been able to attack with such accuracy if we were more alert and in acknowledgment of their capabilities???
Some people saw the signs and spoke out early against the short sighted U.S. policy of non-interventionism. They knew that doing nothing in the face of aggression does not defuse a war it merely postpones it. And it virtually guaranteed that the global war that followed our standing by and doing nothing in the face of Nazi aggression would be much worse than if we had taken the necessary steps to eliminate Hitler, early on.
Those were the British. Germany started to break pact as early as 1919, and most serious violations in 1922. It was the nations who were actually bound to Versailles (US was never a LON member nor did we ratify the TOV).
However, those people who saw and correctly interpreted Hitler's manipulations were shouted down by the non-interventionists of that day.
Again, blame Chamberlain, or any other European nation that decided not to uphold their own treaty...
And now the non-interventionists of today seek to repeat those exact same errors in judgment.
What are you fvcking stupid??? Nazi Germany was allowed to militarize (TOV violation) not because on a non interventionist foreign policy of the Europeans, but because of fear to hold Germany to a contract because of potential war.
Your argument is not only out of context, but quite feeble in respects to the military power of global terror.
To say that ALL of Ron Paul's supporters knowingly want us to wait until it's too late and allow Jihad to grow more virulent until the day when we are forced to fight a global war, would be wrong. Even though some who hide in their throng certainly DO feel that way. But whether those who detest our trying to prevent global war are spies and provocateurs or just innocents who fail to take seriously the lessons of 70 years ago, doesn't matter. What matters is that back then, as now, a misunderstood and underestimated force for evil took advantage of good people's desire for peace and mounted a campaign of global aggression, starting with one nation at a time, to enslave the entire world.
What did the no.1 target in the war on terror specifically state as to why he endorses global terror against the US????
I hate to have to post this again, but maybe this time you will read or at least respond to this:
What is the meaning of your call for Muslims to take arms against America in particular, and what is the message that you wish to send to the West in general?
The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target. And not exempt of responsibility are those Western regimes whose presence in the region offers support to the American troops there. We know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel. Surely, their presence is not out of concern over their interests in the region. ... Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel. ...
And non-interventionists thought the best course of action was to stand by and not meddle in other country's affairs.
Then. Now.
Totally different times, threats, and mindset. First off, Germany already desired and attempted the domination of Europe. Second, it is intervention of sovereign nations that causes blowback, and in turn causes religious fanatics to be able to recruit so effectively geared towards a radicalized endeavor. Third, China is building currently the largest navy in the history of the world right now as we speak. Very similar to that military expansion of Germany, as China has more than enough man power, and natural resources to wage a war on scale of that of WWI & II
World Tribune — Analyst: China building world’s largest navy as U.S. sea power is in 'absolute decline' . Do you believe we should attack them right now while they are still relatively weak??? Cause i'll tell ya what, they will not be as vulnerable as they are now.
Your so completely full of $hit that it is nearly impossible to take anything you say seriously. You draw false conclusions on a constant basis in the name of fear based war mongering. If you were truly afraid of another catastrophic event on scale with WWII, than you would be looking to Pakistan and China. Both are expanding militarily, both have nuclear weapons, and both are ambitious.
Next time you wish to turn a thread about voting into a Jihad threat campaign, try not and use such propaganda that is both contradictory and contextually irrelevant...
