I'm no WWI historian, but from my understanding the Treaty of Versailles was very harsh on Germany, assigning them full responsibility and reparation that would have taken them until ~1988 to repay. Germany was a broke country that turned to a socialist wacko.
Yeah, but the harshness came from the French. Wilson wanted a fair agreement, and his fourteen points proposal had a lot to do with the German surrender. But the French wanted German ass.
If the US had not been involved, the war may have lasted longer, done more damage, and the treaty may have been even harsher on Germany without Wilson's moderating influence.
But this was my point with RP having a conclusion and then looking for ways to reach that conclusion.
Here's the path I take for finding the cause of WWII.
Hitler invades Poland. There. That's it. Sure there's a lot that led to it, but the blame must lie with Hitler and this action is what caused the war to break out.
Of course if Britain and France hadn't kept their pledge to declare war or never had an alliance with Poland, Hitler probably would have ended up invading Russia anyway.
He pretty much laid out his plans to invade slavic peoples to the east in Mein Kampf.
Here is, I believe, RP's more convoluted path to cause:
alliance which got us involved in war -> treaty -> economic depression which treaty contributed to -> hitler election -> hitler aggression
Even if this weren't considered to be far reaching, it's still invalid, since US involvment in the treaty was probably helpful for the Germans.
Bottom line, Ron Paul is a Hitler apologist. (I also think he's a terrorist apologist)
Also, blaming this treaty on WWII isn't exclusively a Paul thing as many Historians agree on that. But hey, my opinion is you fight in a war and you have to deal with the consequences of losing ... which is why I'm for making damn sure a war is worth fighting for.
This is sort of why I keep making the point that the world fought with us in 1990. The world saw the danger of Saddam's conquest, but after all the immediate danger subsided, they left the US and Britain holding the bag.
Then they get pissed off when we finally want to put an end to Saddam's non-compliance.Saddam started the war, was defeated and was obliged to submit to inspections. If you're not willing to follow through and make the aggressor live up to their obligations in order to help ensure stability and lessen the risk of future aggression, then you really shouldn't get involved in the first place.
And you certainly shouldn't get involved, wash your hands of the situation and then chastise other countries for following through on what was started.
But that doesn't give us a right to take other countries property like Obama takes tax dollars. Besides, we have plenty of oil in Alaska ... hell, that's the whole reason we brought them in as a state.
I understand the argument you're making but I think it's a shitty reason to take lives and has nothing to do with our country's sovereignty. It's just oil and we'd be fine without theirs. In fact, if "cheap oil" was the reason ... it was a bad battleplan. Even considering inflation oil is much more expensive now.
We didn't invade Iraq to steal its oil. If that was the case we probably would have invaded Canada by now.
We invaded it because they started a war that involved like 40 countries, then after surrendering, failed to do what they needed to do to ensure the rest of the world that they were no longer a threat.
But the reason anyone gave a shit in the first place is because they are in a part of the world that possesses about two thirds of the world's oil reserves and produces near half of the world's oil. The course that that region of the world takes can effect the entire course of human civilization in a substantial way.
Is this an argument for dishonesty when waging war?
I'm not justifying it. Just pointing out that there's no way they could have gotten their message out in an honest, clear way. Not in this country, at least. We seem to lack the ability to have an intelligent dialogue. That's why Bush boiled the shit down to mind numbing phrases like "they hate us for our freedom".
Lets look at the 5 wars that were declared by congress
War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II ... we kicked ass in all of them. If we had a congress at the time, they would have been behind the Revolutionary War too.
Now lets look at some of the wars that congress pussed out on and dodged their responsibility
Vietnam - withdrew
Afghanistan - ongoing
Iraq II - ongoing, looking ugly
None of these can be considered a true win like the 1st set and most were eventually opposed by the public. When we are unified, our heart is in it and we win. When we're 1/2 assing it, well it shows.
We would have never "won" in Vietnam. Just like we would have never "won" in Korea after China got involved. Communists never minded just throwing more bodies at the opposing army. The same "overwhelming numbers" strategies were employed in Russia against the Germans and against the US and Britain by the Chinese in Korea.
We will never "win" in Afghanistan if we look for a conventional sort of victory, but I think the current administration and his generals(the last as well) are not dumb enough to fall into that trap.
I think we have won Iraq. It's mostly up to Iraqis now.
My point, Congress holds the power to go to war. The bottom 3 were not wars worthy of defending our national security.
I disagree. I think fighting the spread of communism in asia was a noble cause. Ultimately we failed in Vietnam, but at least we may have slowed the spread.
So ... non-interventionalism when it's done by someone other than Paul is good? Remember, those speaches were great but the point got across without gunfire. RP's not an isolationist or for considering ourselves a "proverbial island". I could not have found 2 better videos myself, thanks.
Kennedy's commitment to supporting the west and western ideals and likewise Reagan's could both be considered part of an "alliance" or a "foreign entaglement". And I'm not even getting into the actual military interventions that they both were involved with.
I just posted those vids as a contrast to RP's ideology. The difference is striking. I cannot understand how someone could be a fan of Reagan and RP simultaneously. It's like liking disco
and the sex pistols.
And by the way, I guarandamntee you that if he had the balls to stand up and say what he did to the American public knowing it would be unpopular to most he's have no problem giving ultimatums for other countries. It would probably make the old man erect to do so.
Dennis Kucinich is just as crazily "honest", but crazy nonetheless.
That's probably enough out of me on this debate, unless something new pops up. I've probably pissed enough people off today with my anti-RP posts.
Appreciate the civil debate, erect. It proves people can disagree without being dickheads.
