Frank Lautenberg has died.

[RobertNashville]

I'm all for not interfering when it's appropriate but if you think our enemies are suddenly not going to be enemies any more because we stay home you are extremely short-sighted.

 

This non-participation in WW2 and the insinuation that the U.S. would somehow be better off and receive fewer attacks, etc. if we just mind our own business sounds like the kind of swill that Ron Paul has been trying to sell for years - such a foreign policy was crazy and dangerous then and it still is.

Edited June 4, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm all for non-intervention. International relations are kinda like getting along in the starwars bar (or any local redneck biker bar). You tend to stay healthier if you keep your eyes open but mind yer own biz. To paraphrase Teddy, speak softly but carry a few thousand nukes in your back pocket just in case. That is basically Ron Paul's idea.

 

The USA and many other nations had their own troubles in the 1930's. Slacking on the military and crossing their fingers. Hitler could have mopped up if he'd had enough sense to wait for a few more years. Luckily he turned out not the sharpest tool in the shed. Luckily he showed his hand in time for us to wake up and tool up in time. If Hitler had bided his time then Roosevelt's crowd would have had to be smart enough to develop bombers, jets, missiles and nukes BEFORE a shooting war broke out. I doubt if Roosevelt was smart enough to have responded thataway if Hitler had just continued to quietly militarize.

 

Stay friendly to everybody is a good foreign policy. In case of WWI and WWII, we didn't stay neutral enough. I don't recall that we were equally commercially friendly to both sides. Selling war material hand over fist to only one side of conflicts that don't involve us. But then when one side starts sinking yer commercial shipping something has to be done. Even old Ron Paul wouldn't put up with that.

 

But there are lots of brushfire wars and international "taking sides" we get into, that doesn't do us any good and INVITES bigger conflicts. You show extreme favoritism to one side in a conflict thats none of yer biz, then when the non-favored side gets mad and smacks your assets, then you have to wade into the mess because there isn't much other choice. Just bomb em into the stone age and come home. Fooie to nation-building.

 

But the thread has drifted way too much. First we should settle the primary question-- Was Lautenberg more evil than Hitler, less evil than Hitler, or about the same? :)

Edited June 4, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[RobertNashville]

...Stay friendly to everybody is a good foreign policy. In case of WWI and WWII, we didn't stay neutral enough. I don't recall that we were equally commercially friendly to both sides. Selling war material hand over fist to only one side of conflicts that don't involve us. But then when one side starts sinking yer commercial shipping something has to be done. Even old Ron Paul wouldn't put up with that.

I'm not so sure...he did say on the record, I believe that he would not have sent troops to fight the Nazis. Now whether he ultimately would or would not have had he been President at the time we can only conjecture but that's what he said.

[mav]

I'm not so sure...he did say on the record, I believe that he would not have sent troops to fight the Nazis. Now whether he ultimately would or would not have had he been President at the time we can only conjecture but that's what he said.

 

That is only partially correct.  Paul was talking about his non-interventionist stance when confronted with the question as to whether he would have committed us to war to save the Jews.  His answer was that he would not.  Your statement is misleading.

[RobertNashville]

That is only partially correct. Paul was talking about his non-interventionist stance when confronted with the question as to whether he would have committed us to war to save the Jews. His answer was that he would not. Your statement is misleading.

I see, so what you are saying is that not acting to save 6 million people and the millions more who almost certaintly would have perished Is supposed to be a better position?

[mav]

I see, so what you are saying is that not acting to save 6 million people and the millions more who almost certaintly would have perished Is supposed to be a better position?

 

Sheesh, you certainly are the most argumentative person I have ran across.  I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with Paul's statement.  I was just pointing out that your statement about Paul was misleading.  It provided no context on Paul's statement.

 

If you would like to know my stance, I actually disagree with Paul on that specific issue. 

[JayC]

We sat back and did nothing while during the 20th Century governments killed well over 200 million of their own citizens...  Were we supposed to go to war over the mass killings in China and the Soviet Union?

 

Just curious what is the exact number of people a government is about to kill where we should jump in?

 

Should we declare war on Syria because they managed to kill nearly 100,000 of their citizens?  What about Sudan with 460,000?  What about Rwanda with over 1 million?  Or Cambodia where 2.5 million were killed in 4 years, more than 25% of the population?

 

When exactly did we sign up to be the policeman of the world?  

 

Or how about if you want to help people get their freedom from a ruthless dictator you organize a charity to buy them weapons, or raise a private company of men and go over and fight beside them?

 

I see, so what you are saying is that not acting to save 6 million people and the millions more who almost certaintly would have perished Is supposed to be a better position?

Edited June 5, 2013 by JayC

[Chucktshoes]

JayC is doing such a fine job explaining the reasons why non-interventionism is the better choice that I will add only this; an interventionist foreign policy is really only effective at two things. Those are spending the nation's treasure, and spilling the blood of our young. Neither one is a wise investment.

[RobertNashville]

Sheesh, you certainly are the most argumentative person I have ran across.  I didn't say that I agreed or disagreed with Paul's statement.  I was just pointing out that your statement about Paul was misleading.  It provided no context on Paul's statement.

 

If you would like to know my stance, I actually disagree with Paul on that specific issue. 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  :hat: 

 

I do think, however, that his isolationist view went beyond just not being willing to stop the genocide going on in Germany.  According to some who knew him best, Paul truly believes the United States didn't have any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. According to once source "he expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such".

 

Whether it was just the Jews he didn't care about or whether he really would have gladly let Hitler take Europe, this is one of those areas that I could and never will agree on with Paul...he was dead on when it came to fiscal policy but when it came to foreign policy I think he was a nutcase.

Edited June 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.  :hat:

 

And I thought we were gonna have another good fight :). I'm going over to ARFCOM  :slapfight:

[Chucktshoes]

The fiscal and foreign policies go hand in hand. How can you afford to be world's policeman without a confiscatory tax system and overly large, intrusive federal government with the power to enforce its will at home as well as abroad.

If it happens on someone else's shores, it is their business, and more importantly, their responsibility, not ours.

[RobertNashville]

And I thought we were gonna have another good fight :). I'm going over to ARFCOM  :slapfight:

Sorry to disappoint you Mike...I suppose we could start a "concealed vs open carry" thread if you want. :) ROTFLMAO

[Guest 6.8 AR]

First we should settle the primary question-- Was Lautenberg more evil than Hitler, less evil than Hitler, or about the same? :)

 

Among his contemporaries, Lester, I would say an equal, with what his contribution of citizen disarmament does. Also,

his liberal voting record in all other areas is probably so far left, I didn't bother to look it up. Contemporaries would

include Shumer, Gillibrand, Reid and a few others. All of them would fit. They just didn't have those facial expressions

down like Hitler did during his speeches.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, if would have been a pretty tough sell to have remained neutral after a third or whatever of our navy was destroyed in one fell swoop.

 

Unless BHO had been prez.

 

- OS

Well, that was an act of aggression by Japan, not Germany. And depending on reports of what FDR knew or not,

that could have made a difference, that attack could possibly been avoided. Anyway, we were forced into that one,

not Germany.

 

When did we really learn of the Holocaust, final solution? Wasn't that toward the end of the war in Europe? That's why

I didn't really care about the comment, not by you, Mac, about the 6 million Jews. Did we make a leap and assume

Krystalnacht(sp?) was a precursor to the Holocaust? Maybe I would know if I had left my folding knife in the motel

room when I was in DC. They wouldn't let me in the Holocaust Museum. I really missed that one.

 

Now, if BHO were prez, we would have surrendered to the Muslim Brotherhood whose origins rout back to Hitler.

Fascinating what if's!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I can't prove a negative, you make the claim that Germany was a serious threat to the existence of this country...  That they could have invaded and conquered this country in the 1940's and had some plan to do so...  

 

I've never seen anything to back up any of those claims...  so enlighten me, where is your proof, what historical document are you basing your feeling that Germany was a threat to us here in the US in the 1940's.

 

I've read my fair share of history, and there just isn't proof that we had to enter WWII.

The only thing I remember about Germany being a direct threat to us was the proposal of the ME 264, four engine

bomber, designed supposedly to bomb New York and DC. Nothing else comes to mind. Hitler was too busy in Europe

and when he invaded Russia, he bit off too much. He was running out of resources at that point, and Stalin wasn't going

to let him get their fuel, much less real estate.

 

We were eventually going to enter the European war, but I'd say more because of Churchill. FDR was the wrong man

for the job, over here. He's just lucky to have had a world war bail out his extension of the Great Depression. It sure

wasn't his economic policies.

[leroy]

The fiscal and foreign policies go hand in hand. How can you afford to be world's policeman without a confiscatory tax system and overly large, intrusive federal government with the power to enforce its will at home as well as abroad.

If it happens on someone else's shores, it is their business, and more importantly, their responsibility, not ours.

 

I've tried to stay out of this turn in the thread; but i cant help myself.  Chuck is exactly right here.  With regard to our "intervention" in wars.  We can do as much "armchair quarterbacking" as we want; but there are some things to consider here:

 

Number One:  Mindin your own business aint a bad idea and it was the original constitutional doctrine of the original Founding Fathers.

 

Number Two:  We pretty well minded our business except for the barbary pirates until the Mexican war.  That seemed to work pretty good.

 

Number Three:  The two most unpopular wars we fought were the Mexican and Spanish-American wars.  We can quibble about what started the Mexican war as a "just war"; but the Spanish-American war wuz an imperialistic, aggressive war pure and simple.

 

Number Four:  The First World war should not have been paid for in american blood (...i think...).   We had no strategic interest in WW1.  There was a pretty powerful isolationist sentiment which should have stopped our entrance into the war for a long time.   The zimmerman telegram and the sinking of the Lusitania by German U-Boats stirred up public sentiment that Wilson (...a liberal or "progressive"...) needed to persuade congress to declare war on the axis.   There are those who believe that the germans warned the USA not to provide arms to the Allies and posted news articles saying to stay off of ships bound for the allied powers' shores.

 

Number Five:  Bananna wars in central america.  Pure american imperialism.  See Smedley Butler's book: "War is a Racket"..

 

Number Six:  WW2.  It can be argued that onerous WW1 reparations placed on Germany paved the way for WW2 in europe; and i think that there is great merit to that arguement.  The Japan thing has been discussed fully, but it would have dragged us into war anyway.  WW2 was pretty much avoidable; but look at the causes in europe especially.

 

Number Seven:  Modern "police actions".  Korea, Vietnam....  We can sure quibble about them.  Aint gonna go there.

 

Number Nine:  The "middle east".  I want to say this as kindly as possible; but exactly what "strategic interest" does a rich, mostly energy self sufficient nation like ours have in the "middle east"?  Set the old notions of patriotic pride aside for a few minutes; along with the notion of the "worlds policeman" thing and think about that one a bit.  That's what i had to do.  Once i did that (...at the behest of my 23 year old who is a history student himself...); i came to some sobering conclusions. 

 

Could it be that we are not "protecting freedom" (...which i contend, like Chuck, that we shouldn't be doin anywhere except on our shores...); or are we, as Smedley Butler opined, being guards for the military-industrial complex, and the bankers using american treasure and blood to do so?.  It is, indeed, a sobering thought.  That is why i have become a militant isolationist in my old age.  It took me over 60 years to get there, but ive finally arrived.  Minding your business is the best option if you are not seriously threatened.

 

leroy

[RobertNashville]

The only thing I remember about Germany being a direct threat to us was the proposal of the ME 264, four engine

bomber, designed supposedly to bomb New York and DC. Nothing else comes to mind. Hitler was too busy in Europe

and when he invaded Russia, he bit off too much. He was running out of resources at that point, and Stalin wasn't going

to let him get their fuel, much less real estate.

 

We were eventually going to enter the European war, but I'd say more because of Churchill. FDR was the wrong man

for the job, over here. He's just lucky to have had a world war bail out his extension of the Great Depression. It sure

wasn't his economic policies.

He would have had all the resources he needed without our intervention not to mention time to develop weapons that would have obliterated our military capability. Hitler was not just going to stop and be a good little dictator after taking Europe and the only reason we aren't speaking German today as our primary language is because we got involved as early as we did.

[RobertNashville]

The fiscal and foreign policies go hand in hand. How can you afford to be world's policeman without a confiscatory tax system and overly large, intrusive federal government with the power to enforce its will at home as well as abroad.

If it happens on someone else's shores, it is their business, and more importantly, their responsibility, not ours.

Sorry...I didn't buy that stuff when RP was selling it and I don't buy it now. Hand in hand?  I'm not sure what that really means in this context but what I am sure of is that our fiscal problems, which are massive, and our tax system which is intrusive and confiscatory would not be impacted in any significant amount even if we closed all our overseas bases, stopped all foreign aid and never involved ourselves in anything outside of our own shores.

 

What happens to my next door neighbor does impact me whether I like it or not; what happens to/in other countries, especially those who are our allies, impacts the U.S....we cannot ignore that and if we do we don't deserve any of God's blessings.

Edited June 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

Decades later maybe...  Germany had most likely lost the war before we even entered into it.  The Soviet Union had completely stopped the German advance by Dec 5th, 1941 before we entered the war.  The Soviets would have beaten Germany back on their own without any of our help, all we did was make it less painful...

 

We can't say with any certainty that our entering the war changed the final outcome of Germany being defeated, all we can say is we certainly shortened the war.

 

And again, why would Hitler have attacked us?  He wasn't know for attacking strong neutral states...  Why didn't he attack Switzerland for example?  Or Sweden?

 

Our history books try to paint Hitler as some mad man out to rule the entire world, but that just isn't consistent with what happened.  He likely was a mad man but it doesn't seem as if complete world domination was his goal.

 

He would have had all the resources he needed without our intervention not to mention time to develop weapons that would have obliterated our military capability. Hitler was not just going to stop and be a good little dictator after taking Europe and the only reason we aren't speaking German today as our primary language is because we got involved as early as we did.

 

[RobertNashville]

Decades later maybe...  Germany had most likely lost the war before we even entered into it.  The Soviet Union had completely stopped the German advance by Dec 5th, 1941 before we entered the war.  The Soviets would have beaten Germany back on their own without any of our help, all we did was make it less painful...

 

We can't say with any certainty that our entering the war changed the final outcome of Germany being defeated, all we can say is we certainly shortened the war.

 

And again, why would Hitler have attacked us?  He wasn't know for attacking strong neutral states...  Why didn't he attack Switzerland for example?  Or Sweden?

 

Our history books try to paint Hitler as some mad man out to rule the entire world, but that just isn't consistent with what happened.  He likely was a mad man but it doesn't seem as if complete world domination was his goal.

I'm not sure why you want to keep arguing this with me...In any case, unless you are hiding some credentials as a world-wide acknowledged and respected historical expert and scholar on  WW2 and Hitler I'll stick to what I've spent a few decades learning about WW2.    :hat:  

Edited June 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

You know why Hitler didn't drink whiskey? Because it made him mean.

[Chucktshoes]

The fiscal and foreign policies go hand in hand. How can you afford to be world's policeman without a confiscatory tax system and overly large, intrusive federal government with the power to enforce its will at home as well as abroad.


If it happens on someone else's shores, it is their business, and more importantly, their responsibility, not ours.

Sorry...I didn't buy that stuff when RP was selling it and I don't buy it now. Hand in hand? I'm not sure what that really means in this context but what I am sure of is that our fiscal problems, which are massive, and our tax system which is intrusive and confiscatory would not be impacted in any significant amount even if we closed all our overseas bases, stopped all foreign aid and never involved ourselves in anything outside of our own shores.

What happens to my next door neighbor does impact me whether I like it or not; what happens to/in other countries, especially those who are our allies, impacts the U.S....we cannot ignore that and if we do we don't deserve any of God's blessings.

"Allies" are the entangling alliances our founders warned us against. If one does not form alliances of a political/military nature, then one is not beholden to spend blood and treasure on foreign shores. Maintaining neutrality in deed as well as word is the key.

You are correct that we could close all bases and end all foreign aid and it wouldn't solve our fiscal problems. What you are failing to see is that on the flip-side, if we fix our fiscal problems, reduce government to an appropriate size and stop it from stealing from the citizens then the fed.gov wouldn't have the hundreds of billions of dollars it takes to do all of those things.

On the subject of the US's action/inaction deserving or not deserving God's blessing, I don't remember seeing "The United States of America" in any of my bibles, to include the non-canonical materials. Attempting to claim the mantle of God's stamp of approval for the political actions of a government of man is, in my eyes, claiming what is God's for Caesar. I believe that when you muddy the waters of religion with the state, religion is loser. The worst crimes committed in the name of God were almost always committed by a government perverting the Word for its own ends. As far as being "deserving" of God's blessings, I've never met a single person who actually "deserved" God's blessing, myself chief among the undeserving. That's the nature of His Grace, NONE of us deserve it but he gives it to us anyways. So if no individual is deserving, how can an entire nation be?

[Mike.357]

why do we needs a Gods blessing?  Which God?  Whose God?

[RobertNashville]

"Allies" are the entangling alliances our founders warned us against. If one does not form alliances of a political/military nature, then one is not beholden to spend blood and treasure on foreign shores. Maintaining neutrality in deed as well as word is the key.

You are correct that we could close all bases and end all foreign aid and it wouldn't solve our fiscal problems. What you are failing to see is that on the flip-side, if we fix our fiscal problems, reduce government to an appropriate size and stop it from stealing from the citizens then the fed.gov wouldn't have the hundreds of billions of dollars it takes to do all of those things.

On the subject of the US's action/inaction deserving or not deserving God's blessing, I don't remember seeing "The United States of America" in any of my bibles, to include the non-canonical materials. Attempting to claim the mantle of God's stamp of approval for the political actions of a government of man is, in my eyes, claiming what is God's for Caesar. I believe that when you muddy the waters of religion with the state, religion is loser. The worst crimes committed in the name of God were almost always committed by a government perverting the Word for its own ends. As far as being "deserving" of God's blessings, I've never met a single person who actually "deserved" God's blessing, myself chief among the undeserving. That's the nature of His Grace, NONE of us deserve it but he gives it to us anyways. So if no individual is deserving, how can an entire nation be?

It's not a matter of being beholden to anyone; it's a matter of doing what is right simply because it is right....it's true whether you are talking about a country on the world statge or your next-door neighbor.

 

I'm sure the founders you mentioned were happy to have the help of the allies we had in our first civil war (usually called the Revolutionary War).

[Chucktshoes]

I'm sure the founders were very grateful for the assistance, but don't get the motives twisted. France didn't help us because it was "the right thing to do". France helped us as a way of fighting a proxy war with England. You know, just like the proxy wars fought with the USSR in Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan and a multitude of countries around the world in the second half of the 20th century. Best I can tell, we made more enemies in those endeavors than actual friends as the only friends we have in the world with the lone possible exception of Great Britain, are the ones we pay for.