Posted on 12/27/2011 9:32:29 AM PST by Nachum
On the evening of Sept. 16, 2009, I was invited to a function for Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform.
I had been invited by a friend of mine via Facebook who was a passionate supporter of Ron Paul. Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students.
I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening.
And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?”
And the Congressman answered:
“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
England controlled Israel during those times. Hitler offered the Jews to England to deport to Israel and England turned him down. The blame goes everywhere.
No one asked the American people about it. I don't believe the whole story behind our intervention has been written. What was going on was certainly nasty but I don't think it deserves to be called genocide.
If the American government cared so much about genocide why didn't we intervene in Rwanda? That was an indisputable genocide.
There will never be a candidate that I agree with 100%. But IMO Ron Paul is the only candidate who comes close to actually turning this country around as opposed to simply "slowing down" it's current demise. And judging by the way the "machine" has it's pantiy's all in a bunch over Paul's current surge, he must be doing something right....
Hitler offered the Jews to England to deport to Israel
Having to choose between Paul and Romney is a lousy scenario.
I would have to really meditate and pray on the matter and I’m not blowing smoke at you.
Guys like Mitt drive us off the same cliff at a slow rate of speed, but guys like Paul actually want to do a 180 on the government’s power and size.
But the catch is that Paul is soft on national security and the security of America’s allies like Israel.
I’m thinking out loud about the options.
Clinton said it was genocide, that was the justification. Whether it was really or not is immaterial in the context of the question of whether America would stand for such a war. The fact is we were told we were going to war to prevent genocide and collectively America yawned. Certainly there was no general uprising about it at the time.
If the American government cared so much about genocide why didn't we intervene in Rwanda? That was an indisputable genocide.
As I stated, it appears we draw the line at "genocide" in Europe.
No the question to Paul should have been ... do you believe God's children should start praying in true repentance for forgiveness by casting off their reliance on man to protect them and turning to the truth faith and reliance of their rag tag army of fore fathers who crossed the Jordan and defeated the adversary? That same rag tag army that defeated the adversary in 1967?
Paul has no problem going against an army to protect those he took an oath to protect. AND. He is only speaking the works of God when he refuses to enter or start a war in the name of a religious people in a land he is not taken an oath to or set over to protect. There will come a day when God, at the 2nd coming of Messiah, will call His children to stand with Him as He leads us to once again destroy the adversary and his followers. Think about it ... did the apostles go to war when one of them was persecuted? God forbid! They knew full well it was not their place to free that which God called for another purpose. And as the children of Israel have repeatedly relied on man when times got tough, it was ONLY during the times that they put their total trust and faith in YHVH that they gained freedom. It is the story of the crossing of the Jordan, it is the story of Hanakkah.
1Ma 2:21 God forbid that we should forsake the Law, and the ordinances: 22 We will not hearken to the kings words, to go from our religion, either on the right hand, or the left. 48 So they recovered the Law out of the hand of the Gentiles, and out of the hande of Kings, neither suffered they the sinner to triumph. 49 Now when the time drew neere, that Mattathias should die, he said unto his sonnes, Now hath pride & rebuke gotten strength, and the time of destruction, and the wrath of indignation: 50 Now therefore, my sonnes, be ye zealous for the Law, & give your lives for the covenant of your fathers. 51 Call to remembrance what acts our fathers did in their time, so shall ye receive great honour, & an everlasting name. 52 Was not Abraham found faithfull in tentation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse? 53 Joseph in the time of his distresse kept the commandement, and was made Lord of Egypt. 54 Phineas our father in being zealous and feruent, obtained the couenant of an euerlasting priesthood. 55 Yeshua for fulfilling the word, was made a judge in Israel. 56 Caleb for bearing witnesse, before the congregation, receiued the heritage of the land. 57 David for being mercifull, possessed the throne of an euerlasting kingdome. 58 Elias for being zealous and fervent for the law, was taken up into heaven. 59 Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, by believing were saved out of the flame 60 Daniel for his innocense was delivered from the mouth of Lyons. 61 And thus consider ye throughout all ages, that none that put their trust in him shall be overcome. 62 Feare not then the words of a sinfull man: for his glory shall bee dung and wormes. 63 To day he shall be lifted up, and to morrow hee shall not be found, because he is returned into his dust, and his thought is come to nothing. 64 Wherefore you my sonnes be valiant, and shew your selves men in the behalfe of the law, for by it shall you obtaine glory.
Happy Hanakkah! May YHVH bless all those who place their trust in Him just as all those before them.
SOS around here?
What is that supposed to mean? A shortage of Ron Paul supporters?
BTW, no comparison to George Washington, when it took how many months to cross the Atlantic by ship?
Ron Paul is a foreign policy disaster and completely deranged.
Exactly.
The problem is that IN THEORY Paul is correct- but in REALITY what do you do?
Paul just is blinded by theory. The constitution does not SPECIFIALLY give us the right to do that, but the framers could not possibly imagine every infinite problems that could happen so the language ALLOWS us to think it through.
It may have not been an immediate attack on the USA but our interests were certainly affected.
You could easily say that after they finished with the Jews they Germans were coming for us, and that their attacks on the world made the US economy worse and so it was in our interest to stop him. But Paul does not think it through that far.
“In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they’re not”
zot
There was little the United States could have done to stop the Holocaust prior to 1944, mainly because most of the death camps and concentration camps were in Eastern Europe. The United States didn't have a lot of spare manpower and equipment to try to liberate the people in what would be in essence "suicide missions." The United States did little to stop the Holocaust until the camps were liberated.
Hitler was believed to have first used the term "final solution" about August 1941. He used it again in December 1941. The United States had barely declared war on Japan and Germany, so there wasn't much this country could do even if it had been a priority. In January 1942 the Wannsee conference was held, presided over by Reinhard Heydrich, and it was at this conference that it could be said that the Holocaust actually began in earnest, IMO. (To be sure, a lot of atrocities had already taken place before this conference.) As posters have already noted, the killings of Jews took place at death camps, concentration camps, and mass killings in Eastern Europe. The Nazis also murdered millions of "undesirables," and add to that, the deliberate starvation deaths of millions of Soviet POWs.
I identify with my own Irish Catholic ancestry (although I am also partially English, German and Scots-Irish). I am not fond of the Brits because of their centuries long oppression of the Irish and since Henry VIII of Irish Catholics. That does not mean that I would have "loved seeing the swastika flying over Buckingham Palace."
George VI's wife was a particularly cherished heroine of freedom during the war. Churchill was an inspiration to the entire West. Chamberlain was a bum and rightly relegated to the ash heap of history. It is not as simple as you suggest.
People in Britain knew as well, but the only person who spoke out against Hitler in those early days was Winston Churchill, and he quickly became a pariah in his own party for it.
But there our involvement was relatively minor. There would have been more opposition if there had been more US casualties.
Basically Hitler wanted Palestine to be the 'concentration camp' for Jews, knowing his Arab pals would help him with his Final Solution.
God bless Mr. Churchill. He hated Hitler and Stalin equally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.