Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by OCCASparky
this shows that he believes the United States of America is illegitimate, for who can say on these principles that the first European had any right or cause to set foot on Indian soil? Or to drive them from every square inch to gain sovereignty over the extent?
I guess his father slept through WWII.
I don’t know if it’s the entire video, though.
Unfortunately, that only covers the first five minutes of his speech. His comments are about 23-25 minutes in.
Freepers who support Ron Paul aren't bad people - they're just not as familiar about their candidate than they will soon be in the coming months.
love to see that video link....
Not surprising, since he is chums with Lew Rockwell and Don Black, both of whom believe that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked by the US and part of a larger plot by President Roosevelt to deceive America into war.
There are even some craven FReepers who like to retail that particular bit of paranoia.
If this is true and Ron Paul actually said this, wow, just wow. Ron Paul does not think the deadliest attack on America soil where 3000 innocent lives were slaughtered on 9/11/2001 justifies a retalitory response? What is the body count we need to reach before we can retaliate, 100,000? Ron Paul is a disgrace.
Ron Paul = Surrender monkey!
I don’t know if this can be done or not, but is there a way to kick Ron Paul out of the Republican party?
The guy is NUTS!
What would he have done after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? What about if NYC gets nuked?
Allow me:
Out of context.
Guilt by association.
It’s okay to keep money donated by a nazi so the nazi can’t have it.
Ron Paul clarified his comment on Glen Beck and Glen Beck was absolutely speechless.
Did I get all the talking points?
Hard to imagine he said this, or that he honestly believes it.
The idea is Acheson maneuvered FDR into placing sanctions on Japanese procurement of oil (in retaliation for Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Vietnam, and Korea). That constituted unconstitutional policy, and the theory goes that it is what "forced" Japan into attacking. Unfortunately for that argument it is also one of those economic steps inherent in international collective security that is intended to force changes in policy short of warfare. Discarding that form of collective security takes "non-interventionism" immediately into the arena of isolationism despite the earnest objections of its adherents to the contrary.
You can see where this is going. Everything that runs contrary to the idea that a naked act of violent aggression can impel us to action is immediately claimed to be the result of our own lack of adherence to some constantly-shifting standard. 9/11, for example - we "would" - that word again - never have been attacked, that argument runs, if we hadn't troops in Saudi Arabia. Which we wouldn't have had if only we had acceded to Saddam's naked aggression in Kuwait. Which he wouldn't have done had we not supported him against Iran, which we wouldn't have done had we not been caught meddling there in the person of the Shah, etc, etc...it's a constant litany of blame that infallibly finds a way to deflect the blame away from those committing the violence and onto its ultimate victim.
The real problem is that nobody short of God can say how anything "would" have turned out in circumstances other than the ones that actually happened. That is the arena of academics and fools - amusing, entertaining, but ultimately futile. It is no basis on which to build a foreign (or any other) policy. IMHO, of course.
Waste of bandwidth.
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.
