Bad leader starts killing his people. What Ron Paul do?

[kusok]

I have watched lots of clips and googled everything I can imagine, but I'm still unclear about this.

let's say a guy (like say Hitler) starts killing some people (like Jews) in his country. Should no other country do anything about it? After all the country where the genocide is taking place is not a threat to us... And of course I understand that Hitler would not even come to power if people did things Ron Paul's way, and I understand that we're often lied to about some leader killing his people, as an excuse for us to invade etc, and i understand that we often stir the hornet's nest and don't solve anything. BUT in simple terms, what do we do in such a scenario?


Thank you for any and all thoughts,

[Badger Paul]

Simple, stay out of World War I and there's no Hitler. How 'bout that?

[MikeM39]

Simple, stay out of World War I and there's no Hitler. How 'bout that?

His question is about a future "Hitler"

[kusok]

Simple, stay out of World War I and there's no Hitler. How 'bout that?

I know this, and understand it. BUT let's say it happened. can't turn back the clock. What do? And I'm not even talking about hitler in particular, let's say it's some leader in a smaller country today in Africa or Middle East. Let's say Ron paul becomes president, the genocide is happening, what do?

[bluesc]

I know this, and understand it. BUT let's say it happened. can't turn back the clock. What do? And I'm not even talking about hitler in particular, let's say it's some leader in a smaller country today in Africa or Middle East. Let's say Ron paul becomes president, the genocide is happening, what do?

Note: I am not speaking for Ron Paul

What did past leaders do about past genocides in Africa? What are they doing now?

"Humanitarian" wars are backwards, because you go in guns blazing and kill thousands of civilians anyway. American lives come first.

[KCIndy]

let's say it's some leader in a smaller country today in Africa or Middle East. Let's say Ron paul becomes president, the genocide is happening, what do?

Frankly...... nothing.

I imagine you won't like that answer, kusok, but the sad fact is that an awful lot of the world is a nasty place, run by nasty people. As you're reading this, there are a dozen different countries I could name off the top of my head where despotic rulers are torturing and terrorizing their own people. North Korea. Sudan. Syria. The list just keeps going on.

It's sad, it's tragic, and it is heartbreaking to hear the stories of human suffering.

But the one thing I can guarantee you is that in almost every case, having the U.S. come in and take sides is going to begin a disaster for our own country and continue the disaster for the country we occupy. This is the truth. Ron Paul understands this. I imagine most of the other candidates understand it as well, but those cretins are willing to throw American lives and taxpayer wealth onto the useless bonfire of war if it raises their poll numbers a half dozen points.

Ron Paul won't do this. He will stick with the truth, and what is best for both the U.S. and the world, even when it costs him votes, political standing, and scathing criticism from those who really ought to know better.

Ron Paul is a doctor, remember. Sometimes the medicine is bitter, but he knows it needs to be taken.

[mmadness]

Simple, simple, simple.

Just listen to what Ron says - declare war or get involved if/when congress wants to. It should not be up to the President to decide if/when we go to war or intervene, but congress.

[rp08orbust]

Nothing in the Constitution or in the non-aggression principle stops those concerned about the genocide from bringing the tyrant to justice on their own.

The Christian theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer nearly succeeded at assassinating Hitler. Perhaps there would have been more assassination attempts (one of them even successful) had the US not intervened.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Simple, simple, simple.

Just listen to what Ron says - declare war or get involved if/when congress wants to. It should not be up to the President to decide if/when we go to war or intervene, but congress.

No, that's only the legal answer to the question. The moral question is unanswered in this scenario.

The answer: do not drop bombs on the country, destroying self-determination and killing innocent civilians in the process. Allow those who wish to join the resistance to do so.

[IDefendThePlatform]

I agree with the all the answers so far and would just like to add that as long as we don't build some huge, nazi-style border fence then the foreigners who are being attacked will have the opportunity to emmigrate to America.
Yes, there may be some who are already trapped by their own government but otherwise anyone who can make it to a boat, plane or train could come here, get asylum and be safe from the maniacs.

[Charlie Harris]

We should just listen to the constitution. We cannot police the world. It would be up to the people under tyranny to have a revolution or escape that country, not up to the U.S.

[mmadness]

No, that's only the legal answer to the question. The moral question is unanswered in this scenario.

The answer: do not drop bombs on the country, destroying self-determination and killing innocent civilians in the process. Allow those who wish to join the resistance to do so.

Yes, that's a given for general non-interventionism. We shouldn't drop bombs on other countries unless congress authorizes it (vs. the President, CIA or UN).

The OP talked about a Hitler scenario. In this age, with human progress and the power and speed of modern media and the internet, and what humankind has collectively learned in the past, Hitler scenarios are becoming more rare - or preventable. And if it's that egregious/serious where it affects *American* security or people care, then people *will* get involved and contact congress to make it happen. So there is a moral answer. Also, getting involved with other countries' own "growing-up" process ends up hurting more than helping them. The analogy I use is parents trying to mess around with their kids' lives - leads to spoiled kids or kids who don't know how to take care of themselves and leads to resentment of their parents.

Bottom line, another one liner: The country is broke - we couldn't afford to get involved in all these wars, even if we wanted to!

[Krugerrand]

What did the US do when the British were committing atrocities against the Irish? Those who felt a moral responsibility to help sent money and ammunitions - and in some cases themselves - to aid in the resistance effort.

[LibertyEagle]

Nothing in the Constitution or in the non-aggression principle stops those concerned about the genocide from bringing the tyrant to justice on their own.

The Christian theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer nearly succeeded at assassinating Hitler. Perhaps there would have been more assassination attempts (one of them even successful) had the US not intervened.

Only libertarians care about the "non-aggression principle". I don't think anyone else in the country pays homage to it.

[Krugerrand]

Only libertarians care about the "non-aggression principle". I don't think anyone else in the country pays homage to it.

That's true, but most respond to: "should the government send people with guns after you if you don't send in money to pay for ____________."

[Demigod]

Why should the USA do anything.If you want take a rifle and go help them, as many did in the Spanish Civil War.
But don`t use a country`s government so you can sleep easier at night thinking that you are a good human being cause you care,although some young kid while have to to do the fighting and dying.

What if the USA had a civil war or some state wanted to secede,would you like some foreign governments to come and "help" either of the sides?

[erowe1]

Ron Paul would cut taxes. That way, if you want more of your money to get spent on fighting that bad leader, you would have more in your pocket that you can donate it to someone who's fighting him.

[The Goat]

Getting pretty close to the U.S. going after all the Muslims. what do we do if we're the Hitler? shooting people into mass graves is about equal to bombing masses of people and leaving them for the survivors to deal with IMO.

[kusok]

Good responses. Thanks to all for such food for thought.

[specsaregood]

Simple, simple, simple.

Just listen to what Ron says - declare war or get involved if/when congress wants to. It should not be up to the President to decide if/when we go to war or intervene, but congress.
Winner!


No, that's only the legal answer to the question. The moral question is unanswered in this scenario.
The moral question is less important in this respect. It is not the presidents job to decide that when it comes to war; it is congress's job. It is the presidents job to follow through on their decision in the best way possible.

[amy31416]

No, that's only the legal answer to the question. The moral question is unanswered in this scenario.

The answer: do not drop bombs on the country, destroying self-determination and killing innocent civilians in the process. Allow those who wish to join the resistance to do so.

Exactly. So if Americans wanted to, they could have spent their own money and hopped on a plane to go fight in Somalia, Israel, Palestine, Greece--whatever. However, I think it'd be important for those Americans to know that they would no longer have the protections of US law while in a foreign country and that they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Sounds like it could be a pretty messy situation.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Winner!


The moral question is less important in this respect. It is not the presidents job to decide that when it comes to war; it is congress's job. It is the presidents job to follow through on their decision in the best way possible.

OP was asking what Ron Paul would do in a certain situation. Giving him the legal rationale doesn't really inform him as to why Ron would take a specific course of action; it's giving him the position without the reasoning for arriving at that position.


Exactly. So if Americans wanted to, they could have spent their own money and hopped on a plane to go fight in Somalia, Israel, Palestine, Greece--whatever. However, I think it'd be important for those Americans to know that they would no longer have the protections of US law while in a foreign country and that they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Sounds like it could be a pretty messy situation.

Indeed. Ron touched upon not having the protections of US law and being responsible for the consequences of one's actions abroad while discussing Letters of Marque and Reprisal recently, which I thought was pretty neat.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Are we forgetting that Congress legally declared war on Germany and Japan?

Ron Paul has stated that if there is a threat, and Congress legally declares war, he will devote every effort to winning it quickly and then coming back home. Because so many people died in that war, we seem to think that it was this massive war that lasted forever. America's open military operations only last 3 years. As opposed to Afghanistan's 10 years.

If there is a threat, have Congress declare war, go there, win it overwhelmingly, come home.

War is not a time to dick around.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Are we forgetting that Congress legally declared war on Germany and Japan?

Ron Paul has stated that if there is a threat, and Congress legally declares war, he will devote every effort to winning it quickly and then coming back home. Because so many people died in that war, we seem to think that it was this massive war that lasted forever. America's open military operations only last 3 years. As opposed to Afghanistan's 10 years.

If there is a threat, have Congress declare war, go there, win it overwhelmingly, come home.

War is not a time to dick around.

I don't entirely disagree, but if there is no threat, and Congress declares war anyway, I'm betting that Ron would refuse to accept the notion that we should bomb and make war with a country that isn't threatening our national security. At all costs, war and any buildup of aggression should be rebuked.

[amy31416]

Are we forgetting that Congress legally declared war on Germany and Japan?

Ron Paul has stated that if there is a threat, and Congress legally declares war, he will devote every effort to winning it quickly and then coming back home. Because so many people died in that war, we seem to think that it was this massive war that lasted forever. America's open military operations only last 3 years. As opposed to Afghanistan's 10 years.

If there is a threat, have Congress declare war, go there, win it overwhelmingly, come home.

War is not a time to dick around.

I understand his sentiment, but I'd also be for a law that mandated that the government publishes the costs in lives and dollars. As much transparency as possible. Everything's so murky with these "non-war" wars. We don't know the real number of casualties, whether they were soldiers or mercenaries--and we have absolutely no idea how many foreigners we've killed and how many of them were civilians.

[specsaregood]

OP was asking what Ron Paul would do in a certain situation. Giving him the legal rationale doesn't really inform him as to why Ron would take a specific course of action; it's giving him the position without the reasoning for arriving at that position.

Well much of what Dr. Paul states is based on legal reasoning first and foremost. eg: he would love to ban abortion with an executive order; but recognizes that legally it would require an amendment or legally it should be left up to the states.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I don't entirely disagree, but if there is no threat, and Congress declares war anyway, I'm betting that Ron would refuse to accept the notion that we should bomb and make war with a country that isn't threatening our national security. At all costs, war and any buildup of aggression should be rebuked.

There is a reason why Congress has not declared war since WW2. It is difficult to get them all to do it. The idea that all of Congress would support a war (and the people of the United States were behind them) and Ron Paul would disagree is way too far fetched and ridiculous. Think about it. Think about all the propaganda needed in order to get people behind a war effort. Think about the "attacks" needed in order to goad the American people into war. There is no need to say that Ron wouldn't do anything. If Ron Paul is president and the Congress declares war (that Ron Paul would disagree with) and the people of the nation are behind the congress, then he has already lost and he should resign.



I understand his sentiment, but I'd also be for a law that mandated that the government publishes the costs in lives and dollars. As much transparency as possible. Everything's so murky with these "non-war" wars. We don't know the real number of casualties, whether they were soldiers or mercenaries--and we have absolutely no idea how many foreigners we've killed and how many of them were civilians.

We don't trust GDP numbers, unemployment numbers, etc. Why would we trust causality and cost numbers?

[amy31416]

We don't trust GDP numbers, unemployment numbers, etc. Why would we trust causality and cost numbers?

I know, but at least it could be audited. It's better than the virtual blackout we have on those figures.

[tfurrh]

let's say a guy (like say Hitler) starts killing some people (like Jews) in his country.

Lets say a guy (like say Andrew Jackson) starts killing some people (like American Indians) in his country.

It always surprises me how easily our government can point out the mote in someone else's eye.

[specsaregood]

Lets say a guy (like say Andrew Jackson) starts killing some people (like American Indians) in his country.
It always surprises me how easily our government can point out the mote in someone else's eye.

Which is of course why you shouldn't rely on the president to judge morality of actions; but rather abide by the rule of law.

[tfurrh]

Which is of course why you shouldn't rely on the president to judge morality of actions; but rather abide by the rule of law.

Indian Removal Act passed through the congress.

[Revolution9]

He should send diplomats to discuss this with the regime in question, get together with other countries diplomats and devise a method of pressuring them to reform their actions. After all, isn't this what they are there for?

Rev9

[specsaregood]

Indian Removal Act passed through the congress.

Nobody said it was a perfect process.

[vechorik]

I heard in a YouTube clip from Dr. Paul's mouth that for instance -- he would help Israel "if they asked"

[Krugerrand]

I heard in a YouTube clip from Dr. Paul's mouth that for instance -- he would help Israel "if they asked"
I wonder if that means he'd write a personal check.

[roho76]

Most ruthless dictators are either directly or indirectly funded by the US. Stop the funding and let the people revolt against their oppressors. Only the people of a nation can stop the tyranny because if liberation comes from an outside force than it won't be appreciated and will soon be replaced by another dictator.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I heard in a YouTube clip from Dr. Paul's mouth that for instance -- he would help Israel "if they asked"

Tube or it didn't happen.

[GuerrillaXXI]

People have a duty to resist tyranny themselves if they can possibly do so. I also certainly wouldn't be opposed to a large number of private individuals banding together and traveling overseas to help foreigners resist their oppressors.

One thing seems clear enough: The US government does NOT send military forces overseas because it cares about freeing the oppressed or stopping the slaughter of innocent people. Plenty of mass killings have been carried out by foreign dictators without the US lifting a finger to help. When the US sends its military into foreign combat, there is always some ulterior motive.