The declaration of war was not unanimous.
Germany declared war on us
The acknowledgment (declaration) of war with Germany was not the next day
Belgium did not surrender in a day.
The Germans did not bomb Brussels the next day.
The Russia did not lose 24,000,000 dead in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow.
Two million Iranians did not die in the Iran – Iraq War.
The Japanese did not invade China in 1928.
The inflation adjusted cost of WWII is not $12 trillion.
9/11 did not cost New York $160,000,000,000.
Waterloo was 1815, not 1850.
The United States did not have more than 4,000 KIA on D-Day.
This is a skimming of the historical “facts” that this guy wants taught in our schools. He is further off in his perspective and analysis.
Other than that he is a pretty fart smeller. Repost
First of all, the context was the discussion of nuclear first strike. (I noticed the OP failed to mention that bit of info, and what led up to the snippet of the quote he posted) Paul doesn't make it super clear, but he's talking about the option of the president (alone, without congress declaring war) retaliating if we're threatened.
Here's the fuller quote:
"I did make the statement that we should have no first strike, as a matter of fact no first strike, nuclear or conventional weapons, because it doesn't make any sense. A president has the responsibility to retaliate against an attack.* the president retaliating without congress declaring war.I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that* throughout our whole history. But it's especially true in the early years that if Congress was way off and they had to come by horse and buggy that they had the responsibility, the moral and the legal responsibility, to thwart an attack on the United States. That's the position I would hold. But that's quite different from starting a war.
So I would say no nuclear-first strikes. It should be done with a declaration of war and not with the Congress reneging on their responsibility by transfering this power to the president, which Congress did..."
At least that's what I think he meant. I'm sure if he was asked to clarify, he wouldn't say that there has never been a need to go to war. Because he has already stated in other interviews that WW2 was justified and necessary.