Geesh, what tripe.... --- yeah, neocons are tripe in it's truest form On Dec 28, 1:10 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Geesh, what tripe....What revisionist history. The antics of the Crazy > Uncle Ron cult never cease to amaze me. > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Congressman Paul’s critics are now claiming he is a Neville > > Chamberlain, who would have, were he president at the outset of World > > War II, have given Adolph Hitler a free ride (see here). With Dr. Paul > > at the helm, the last century would have been the beginning of a Nazi > > Reich. > > --- > > neocons always resort to the jewish habit of calling people anti- > > semitc, racists, and nazis > > > ignore them as they really are stooges > > > On Dec 28, 12:19 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ron Paul as a Stooge for Adolph Hitlerby Walter Block > > > Believe it or not, Congressman Paul’s critics are now claiming he is a > > Neville Chamberlain, who would have, were he president at the outset of > > World War II, have given Adolph Hitler a free ride (seehere). With Dr. Paul > > at the helm, the last century would have been the beginning of a Nazi Reich. > > > Nonsense. > > > First of all, a President Paul would never have foisted an oil embargo > > on Japan. So, there would have been no attack on Pearl Harbor, and no > > fighting with the Japanese military would have been necessary. This > > consideration alone means that hundreds of thousands of innocent people > > would not have perished. And, also, it would not have been the case that > > the U.S. would have been the only country in history to have actually used > > atomic weapons. (Is it not a bit hypocritical for the U.S. to object to > > Iran having a nuclear weapon on this ground alone?) > > > Second, Congress did indeed declare war on Germany; this is compatible > > with the U.S. Constitution, which Ron Paul, if no other candidate for > > President in 2012, fervently supports. > > > Third, and most important, it is unlikely that Hitler would have ever > > arisen to power in Germany without U.S. entry into World War I, in 1919. > > Although contrary to fact history can only be speculative, consider the > > following points. > > > Before the U.S. poked its nose into a war that was none of its business > > (neither side threatened us), the war was fought on a roughly equal basis. > > Thousands of soldiers, on both sides, perished in fighting over a few acres > > of trenches. Likely, this war would have petered out before too long, if > > only due to the fact that both sides were running out of material, human > > and otherwise, necessary to carry on. But, our ruling class had more bonds > > with the British than with the Germans, so our way ahead was clear, with no > > President Paul to save us from our folly. > > > As a result, the Allies beat the Axis powers. Following up on this, the > > punitive Treaty of Versailles was imposed upon the losers, who were > > declared solely responsible for the hostilities. This lead to the German > > hyper-inflation of 1923, which, along with the aforementioned Treaty of > > Versailles, reduced the German society and economy to a rubble. It was only > > in the aftermath of these body blows to the German people that a scoundrel > > such as Hitler could have arisen. > > > A Paul presidency in 1940 would have meant a war with Germany, but not > > Japan. However, a President Paul in 1919 would not have encouraged U.S. > > entry into that conflagration. If he was successful, there would have been > > no need for any declaration of war against Germany, as there would have > > been no Adolph Hitler and his Nazis in charge. He would have been, instead, > > an unknown house painter. With a President Paul at the helm, there would > > have been no holocaust; no 50 million people perishing during this war; no > > dropping of atomic bombs on innocent civilians, women and children, to our > > eternal shame. > > > Speaking of this "war" nomenclature, the historians have got it all > > wrong. There were not two separate wars, so-called World War I, and then > > so-called World War II. There was onlyoneWorld War. It started in 1914 and > > ended in 1946; yes, yes, there was a slight cessation of hostilities > > between 1919 and 1939, but the so-called "interwar period" consisted of the > > Allies taking steps that brought Hitler front and center, in > > effectcreatedhim, and thus assured the continuation of thisoneWorld War. > > (In like manner, the historians who claim there was a "Civil War" in the > > U.S. between 1861 and 1865 are similarly mistaken. A civil war takes place > > between two parties each of which desires to rule the territory occupied by > > the both of them. The Spanish Civil War qualifies in this regard, because > > the Communists and the Fascists both wanted to rule over that entire > > country. But in 1861, while the North wanted control over the entire U.S. > > both North and South, the South only desired tosecede. So, a more proper > > name for this conflagration would be, The War to Prevent Southern > > Secession, or the U.S. War of Secession.) > > > Can we be sure of any such alternative history of the sort I am assuming > > with Ron Paul as President during these earlier epochs? Of course not. But, > > it is more likely, far more likely, than the scenarios painted by the > > enemies of Ron Paul in their feverish attempt to deny him the presidency, > > and to deny the rest of us the peace and prosperity we all want. Contrary > > to fact history can only be a guess-timate. The critics of Congressman Paul > > maintain he would have been a pushover for Hitler. I maintain, to the > > contrary, that he would not havecreateda Hitler as did actually occur, and, > > had he taken office only in 1940, he would have presided as commander in > > chief over a war declared by congress. He would have won it more quickly, > > since he would have only had to fight Germany and Italy, not Japan too. > > Yes, Germany only declared war against America because of the U.S. > > declaration of war against Japan. But, as long as Congress declared war on > > Germany, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces Paul would have acted > > in a Constitutional manner in pursuing this war. Dr. Paul does not oppose > > war per se, only offensive wars not declared by Congress, as he has stated > > over and over again. Ron Paul is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force; he has > > served his country in a military capacity, unlike the hordes of chicken > > hawks now calling for unconstitutional imperialist wars but who sought > > deferments when they were young men. > > > The racism and anti-Semitism charges have failed. This Hitler criticism > > is just plain silly. They can’t call him a flip-flopper. They have already > > attacked his suits and his eye-brows. Yes, his eye-brows. I guess they are > > not sufficiently presidential. What smears are next for Dr. Paul, as he > > sweeps his way into the White House? We can only speculate. How about, > > Ron’s love child? Children? Or, his 15 mistresses? No, wait; here is a > > better one: Ron as child abuser. Remember those 4,000 babies he delivered? > > Well, he molested them all. This just in: they are now criticizing his > > investmentportfolio. More fast breaking news: Ron is "indifferentto > > throwing people out of work." Will wonders never cease? It’s really hard to > > keep up with all the attacks. I mean, the man is a real ogre. Maybe we > > Paulians shouldn’t support him? Nah. He’s the best man to clean out the > > Augean stables. Congressman Paul might have some difficulty winning the > > Republican nomination, but when it comes to his face off with President > > Obama next year, he’s going to kick butt. Obomba’s supporters will desert > > him for his imperialist militarism, for his bailouts, for his opposition to > > drug legalization. Independents, and even Democrats, will prove Dr. Paul’s > > margin of victory.http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block190.html > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
