Replies

Course poor Max doesn't bother with the facts that Wilson's interventionist policies in the 1910's laid the groundwork for WWII.

How can that be if Ron Paul would embrace the policies of Wilson over those of Ronald Reagan

HE: And under President Reagan we built up our defenses., we built up all these anti-communist insurgencies in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, we putting the Pershings into Western Europe, etc., etc. The point is: Would you have supported any of those of measures, on the grounds that you are… we shouldn’t have done any of this because it would be provoking, somehow, that which would come back and haunt us?
RP: I don’t think that policy has served us well. I think that…
HE: The Reagan Doctrine hasn’t served us well?
RP: Well, I would go back to the Wilson Doctrine. [Indiscernible talking in background]You can’t isolate WWII and post-WWII without looking at the overall change of policy after WWI.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21840

HE: And under President Reagan we built up our defenses., we built up all these anti-communist insurgencies in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, we putting the Pershings into Western Europe, etc., etc. The point is: Would you have supported any of those of measures, on the grounds that you are… we shouldn’t have done any of this because it would be provoking, somehow, that which would come back and haunt us?

RP: I don’t think that policy has served us well. I think that…

HE: The Reagan Doctrine hasn’t served us well?

------------------------------------------------------------

If in fact we trained
the damn radical Muslims
who then bombed New York

and the Pentagon,
then no the Reagan Doctrine
hasn't served us well.

He's talking about the problems have been here since the Wilson doctrine. Wilson's needless intervention in WWI is what laid the groundwork for WWII. If you bothered listening to his speeches you'd understand what he was saying. But please, feel free to cherry pick out whatever you believe supports your position...