“Hmmm, yes I see your point now. Indeed since Ron Paul thinks World Wars 1 and 2 and the Civil War were also foreign policy “blunders”, then maybe losing a war is just no big deal huh?
In Paul’s bizaare view of the world:
1. The COnfederate bombardment of Fort Sumter;
2. The German sinking of allied shipping in 1916-17;
3. The japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbor;
Should have just gone unanswered.”
Actually, I think numbers 1 and 2 should have gone unanswered for the following reasons.:
1. Union troops should’ve gotten out of Ft. Sumter once South Carolina seceded. They didn’t, and wouldn’t leave, so what was the Confederacy supposed to do? There’s no doubt in my mind that the South was in the right in that war. So, I would say that the War Between the States was unnecessary and had both positive (a stronger America) and negative (a reduction in freedoms) results.
2. I also think the Germans had every right to attack Allied shipping in WWI. After all, we went after Japanese shipping pretty vigorously during WWII. Also, the Germans went out of their way to try avoid tragedies like the Lusitania (i.e. openly warning Americans that they considered all Allied ships legitimate targets). To expect a country fighting a two front war against strong enemies to pull punches is unrealistic.
I honestly think the world may have been better off had the Central Powers won WWI (course, we’ll never know)—which I feel they likely would have had we not gotten involved in a war which really didn’t concern us.
As for WWII, I don’t think that would’ve happened were it not for WWI and the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
I see nothing bizarre about views numbers 1 and 2; nothing at all.
I don’t want to get off topic though. I’m surprised that McClintock is (somewhat) supporting Paul, but I think all it really shows is how crummy our remaining options are. I’d probably vote third party before Paul, but I’m pretty bummed about Thompson’s dropping out.
Ron Paul does not think Pearl Harbor should have gone unanswered. He has been asked that exact question many, many times and his answer has always been, 'hell, no'.
I have not him heard say anything about WWI that I recall--where do you get your information?
The civil war was not foreign policy and was a heck of a long time ago now although the debate never seems to end.
The FedGov has learned a nifty trick, it can now spend more and tax less at the same time! It is called deficit spending, aka, borrowing massive amounts of money on the open market. This heavy borrowing distorts the credit market and pushed up interest rates.
This 'decoupling' of spending and taxation is addicting for government but quite obviously can't go on forever.