Replies

Not holding on to Afghanistan prevented the Soviet Union from collapsing?

Maybe FDR's constituency realized that you had to have a Congressional declaration to go to war and that it's generally best not to get involved in foreign entanglements. In fact, it was our entanglement in WWI under Wilson that helped set the stage for the rise of Hitler and WWII. In any case, when it became clear that Japan and Germany were a threat and declared enemy we declared war against them and went to war the constitutional way.

I did NOT prefer our entrance in to Iraq....Doesn’t mean I don’t support it now, though.

Then I assume you support it because you fear the consequences of leaving. I think that our continued presence there actually destabilizes the region more than our leaving would in the end. For one thing, the resentment it causes helps make regimes like Iran's more popular and, thus, actually buttresses them. Unlike you, I actually supported the war early on, and only came around to my opinion after the years of hearing how the mission was over or nearly over, and now even Shrillary hints she to keep us their longer. Furthermore, its simply not a tenable foreign policy in general. The longer we stay there (and other places around the world) the weaker we grow in defense, in our economy, and in our international standing (and international standing is actually important in terms of our best interests). Meanwhile, we still haven't captured Bin Laden! Why?

“Maybe FDR’s constituency realized that you had to have a Congressional declaration to go to war and that it’s generally best not to get involved in foreign entanglements.”

No, FDR’s constituency was full of ignorant ‘isolationists’. And I know Ron Paul isn’t one (ie isolationist), he’s a non-interventionist...which is just barely different. The constitution wasn’t the reason why.

Read into the history and get back to me on that.

“In fact, it was our entanglement in WWI under Wilson that helped set the stage for the rise of Hitler and WWII.”

I’ll agree with you on that. I didn’t favor an entrance in that war [the first one], because it could have played itself out. Our entrance over did the victory and played into Hitler’s rise via the Versaille Treaty.

But the second entrance was absolutely necessary, once we realized our allies were facing definitive loses without us, and our security was at risk. FDR was never neutral durning that era [FYI], and he knew that Hitler wouldn’t just leave America alone.

If it weren’t for FDR’s active role in baiting in the Japanese, we’d have an incredible disadvantage in fighting Germany and Japan. I don’t believe Ron Paul would do what FDR did (ie actively seek war). He would just let the whole cookie crumble.

A pragmatic mind is necessary in a conflicting world.

“I think that our continued presence there actually destabilizes the region more than our leaving would in the end.”

There are many opinions on that,...I’m willing to see it through.