PDA

View Full Version : Paul vs. McCain -- The unspoken debate?




solrac
11-30-2007, 02:06 AM
At the CNN / YouTube debates, during the mini battle between McCain and Paul --- The part where John McCain said (not verbatim):

"It was America's fault for not going to war sooner during WWII [America not being pre-emptive] that allowed Hitler to rise to power in the first place"

Ron Paul never got to respond to that point. But he did raise his head up, smile, and shake his head no as if to say "You are totally wrong on that".

What do you think Ron Paul would have said to REFUTE McCain's Hitler statement?

TheIndependent
11-30-2007, 02:08 AM
See the article from The Atlantic (Andrew Sullivan) I put in the Campaign News forum. McCain isn't winning many friends, despite what the news tells us.

TheNewYorker
11-30-2007, 02:09 AM
Tell McCain to go back in time and run that preemptive idea past Eisenhower and let us know what happens.

Mark
11-30-2007, 02:14 AM
At the CNN / YouTube debates, during the mini battle between McCain and Paul --- The part where John McCain said (not verbatim):

"It was America's fault for not going to war sooner during WWII [America not being pre-emptive] that allowed Hitler to rise to power in the first place"

Ron Paul never got to respond to that point. But he did raise his head up, smile, and shake his head no as if to say "You are totally wrong on that".

What do you think Ron Paul would have said to REFUTE McCain's Hitler statement?

He didn't have to say anything, he just shook his head.

How Hitler got to where he did is a LONG story. Bankers, weapons manufacturers, same as today.

Same as it ever was.

Vonhayek7
11-30-2007, 02:14 AM
It's interesting that McCain has suddenly developed an interest in America being blamed for WWII. Assuming he is on the same line as the other war mongerers, didn't they just blame Ron Paul for pointing out how our foreign policy has caused 9/11? Obviously this isn't a good argument to be used in a public debate, but it's interesting to see the contradictions.

There were aggressions prior to Pearl Harbor and also a declaration of war by Germany on America. These alone would be enough for congressional approval for war. Everyone helped for the war effort because it was very clear, Germany was a threat to us directly-- and not just an economic interest like in Iraq. Honestly, I don't see how an argument could be made against someone like McCain who will never see the light of peace.

Also something funny, notice how Ron Paul treats his debates like his foreign policy? He never attacks an opponent, only defends himself and sweeps em in doing so. :)

solrac
11-30-2007, 02:16 AM
Tell McCain to go back in time and run that preemptive idea past Eisenhower and let us know what happens.

What would Eisenhower say?

Also here's another question. What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler never attacked America? And say America in the 1940's was just as against pre-emptive strike as Ron Paul is?

Then, wouldn't Hitler have possibly been able to take over all of Europe without America intervening? Then say by 1950 Hitler was the ruler overlord dictator of all of Europe and amassed a super army.

At some point could it not be said that a pre-emptive action against someone like HITLER becoming a super overlord supreme dicator of the largest land mass on earth with the biggest brainwashed nightmare nazi army of pure evil ever conceived of would be a good idea? A reasonable exception to the rule to never pre-emptively attack anyone?

Could that not be said? Or what is the fundamental ground breaking refutation of that idea?

TheNewYorker
11-30-2007, 02:26 AM
What would Eisenhower say?



He would have McCain executed for Treason.

Eisenhower himself said, "[...] Preemptive war is a strategy of Nazi Germany."

leonster
11-30-2007, 02:37 AM
Eisenhower said, approximately.... "Preemptive war is an invention of Hitler. I would not seriously listen to anyone who considered it."

TheNewYorker
11-30-2007, 02:42 AM
Eisenhower said, approximately.... "Preemptive war is an invention of Hitler. I would not seriously listen to anyone who considered it."

Thank you for the correction. Point still remains though.

AMack
11-30-2007, 02:43 AM
What would Eisenhower say?

Also here's another question. What if Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler never attacked America? And say America in the 1940's was just as against pre-emptive strike as Ron Paul is?

Then, wouldn't Hitler have possibly been able to take over all of Europe without America intervening? Then say by 1950 Hitler was the ruler overlord dictator of all of Europe and amassed a super army.

At some point could it not be said that a pre-emptive action against someone like HITLER becoming a super overlord supreme dicator of the largest land mass on earth with the biggest brainwashed nightmare nazi army of pure evil ever conceived of would be a good idea? A reasonable exception to the rule to never pre-emptively attack anyone?

Could that not be said? Or what is the fundamental ground breaking refutation of that idea?

Hitler wouldn't have had a super army. The only country he could draw troops from was Germany. Its not like the French were rising up to fill the Axis ranks after they got invaded. The Axis powers would have failed eventually anyway, but we certainly accelerated the end of the war.

I suppose I can't really say if we should go in unless I was actually experiencing it. At least if we had entered the war earlier, we would have been defending allies from invasion rather than being the invader, as we are today in Iraq.

The_Ruffneck
11-30-2007, 03:23 AM
Hitler wouldn't have had a super army. The only country he could draw troops from was Germany. Its not like the French were rising up to fill the Axis ranks after they got invaded.
Slavs wanted to fight against Stalin but Hitler treated them worse than even he did , just another in the long list of mistakes he made.
Axis peak war production was in the year 1944 which was the main reason they lost the war along with Japan bringing the USA into the war in 1941.

As for pre-emptive strike , the outcome of the cold war was a victory for the US and no strike was ever launched.If a pre-emptive strike was ever launched against the USSR i believe the world would be in far worse shape than it is today.

PredatorOC
11-30-2007, 03:43 AM
I posted a brief rebuttal to McCain's argument on mises.com:

I guess this is common knowledge, but hearing the way Senator McCain used the worn-out Hitler analogy against Dr. Paul ("we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement"), I felt I should repeat basic history.

I am assuming that McCain was referring to inaction when Hitler became evidently belligerent around 1938 (Hitler came to power in 1933, but McCain probably wasn't referring to this date). In a limited sense, McCain is actually correct. If France and England had acted decisively anywhere between 1935 and 1939, Hitler and his National Socialism would have been a footnote in history.

But this is an extremely superficial look at history and any deeper investigation will debunk McCain's position. Hitler's golden ticket to power was the Versailles Treaty, which was essentially economic and political interventionism perpetrated by France and England. The war reparations bankrupted the Weimar Republic and the political limitations (limiting the size of the army, imposing a de-militarized zone in the Rhineland, etc) created plenty of hatred against the treaty. Had the Allies chosen to leave Germany in peace after WWI, German democracy likely would have survived and Hitler would have been the sad, failed artist that he was always meant to be.

Basically McCain is saying that interventionism is needed to clean up the mess created by interventionism. In other words, McCain is arguing for a vicious circle. The US bailed out France and England when their interventionist policies on Germany caused blowback. Who is going to bail out the US?

http://mises.com/blogs/libertas/

PredatorOC
11-30-2007, 04:02 AM
At some point could it not be said that a pre-emptive action against someone like HITLER becoming a super overlord supreme dicator of the largest land mass on earth with the biggest brainwashed nightmare nazi army of pure evil ever conceived of would be a good idea? A reasonable exception to the rule to never pre-emptively attack anyone?

Hitler actually proves the folly of interventionism. He kept making enemies and opening new fronts. Eventually, German forces were simply too thinly spread out and defeat was certain. Even if Hitler would have won against the USSR, he wouldn't have been able to control it all. The Wehrmacht was basically over-extended by 1941.

CelestialRender
11-30-2007, 04:07 AM
The answer's so simple it's ridiculous: Cavalier military actions in other people's nations (WWI) caused WWII. Not isolationism at all.

Literally, all of my respect for John McCain was completely removed watching that debate.

grfgerger
11-30-2007, 04:48 AM
The answer's so simple it's ridiculous: Cavalier military actions in other people's nations (WWI) caused WWII. Not isolationism at all.

Literally, all of my respect for John McCain was completely removed watching that debate.

I feel the same way. I used to regard him very highly. He is an absolute disappointment and has sold himself and his country out.

Lexx78
11-30-2007, 05:33 AM
I am surprised when I found out that the Bush family could take so much power (CIA and 2 presidents) after financing the Germans in WW2, and that granddad wasn't convicted for treason.

and that still almost no one mentions or mentioned it.

It shows again what media is capable/not capable of.

And McCain scared the hell out of me cause he reminds me of Cheney and his remark made me feel sick, I loved RP's comeback but the whole debate was a perfect directed show of media control.

So I am sure he convinced a lot of people because RP didn't had a script like the rest, he just spoke the truth like he always does and has done. :)

1town
11-30-2007, 05:56 AM
We don't get to choose our Hitlers.

If that's the policy, I suggest we assassinate Bush. Who knows, he could be the next hitler...

Geronimo
11-30-2007, 05:57 AM
Ron has/had a chance to debate McCain (and Huck) on January 5th.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=44438

Why he chose not to take part in this two man debate is beyond me.

awigo50
11-30-2007, 06:31 AM
I am surprised when I found out that the Bush family could take so much power (CIA and 2 presidents) after financing the Germans in WW2, and that granddad wasn't convicted for treason.

and that still almost no one mentions or mentioned it.

It shows again what media is capable/not capable of.

And McCain scared the hell out of me cause he reminds me of Cheney and his remark made me feel sick, I loved RP's comeback but the whole debate was a perfect directed show of media control.

So I am sure he convinced a lot of people because RP didn't had a script like the rest, he just spoke the truth like he always does and has done. :)

People are responsible for their own crimes, not other peoples. sheesh.:(

deedles
11-30-2007, 06:47 AM
He didn't have to say anything, he just shook his head.

How Hitler got to where he did is a LONG story. Bankers, weapons manufacturers, same as today.

Same as it ever was.

I think he got a little help from American companies and 'citizens' like Prescott Bush, too, didn't he?

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/291107wolf.mp3

Pharoah
11-30-2007, 08:23 AM
Is it possible that McCain knows he hasn't a chance, so he decided to try and take down RP with a "suicide attack"? I've heard it said that if you drag your opponent into a dirty fight, it damages both of you and leaves room for the others to make a play. I also wonder if the Israel lobby are big contributors to McCain... since the "Hitler" smear is their favorite weapon.

solrac
11-30-2007, 01:29 PM
What if some evil super power like nazi germany was killing millions of people in a genocide. Say not just 6 million jews.... say they hit like 20 million? Or more? And no other country in Europe was powerful enough to stop them?

Would this justify pre-emptive war, just based on the moral necessity, the public outcry?

Or would we just sit here and watch, if no one attacked us?

malibu
11-30-2007, 01:35 PM
http://la.gg/upl/PaulOwnsMcCain.gif

RevolutionSD
11-30-2007, 01:38 PM
Can anyone else see what a desperate man McCain is? He has to attack Paul and play the Hitler card. He also seemed unusually angry the other night.

Syren123
11-30-2007, 02:02 PM
Can anyone else see what a desperate man McCain is? He has to attack Paul and play the Hitler card. He also seemed unusually angry the other night.

Oh I agree. McCain looks like he'll blow a gasket any minute.

Apart from RP's great head shake, I think the biggest smack-down was the remark about Vietnam....how McCain said we never lost a battle in Vietnam, and Ron responded that when a Vietnamese general was told the same thing by an American, the VN general's reply was "That's irrelevant."

WOOOOOOOO! Consider yourself pwned, John.

MGreen
11-30-2007, 02:15 PM
At some point could it not be said that a pre-emptive action against someone like HITLER becoming a super overlord supreme dicator of the largest land mass on earth with the biggest brainwashed nightmare nazi army of pure evil ever conceived of would be a good idea? A reasonable exception to the rule to never pre-emptively attack anyone?
Replace Hitler with Stalin. Then you have the reality of the situation back then. Do you think we weren't aggressive enough against the USSR?


The answer's so simple it's ridiculous: Cavalier military actions in other people's nations (WWI) caused WWII. Not isolationism at all.
One could also argue that the results of WWI has led to the troubles we face today, no? There would have been no shah to replace in Iran, or an Iraq to overthrow, or an Israel to draw attacks and hatred, if it weren't for the English and French dismantling and remaking the Ottoman Empire.