I stumbled on this interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnR0P9BsN-I
It seems that Mr. Paul says:
Now, I heard that people praise the Ron Paul campaing as useful for educating people in the field of libertarian philosophy. Was the American intervention in WWII an act consistent with libertarian principles and philosophy ?
Probably, given that Germany declared war on the U.S. not the other way around.
What Paul says is “We were justified - because of Pearl Harbour”.
Anyway, are you saying that what the American military did in Europe, fire-bombing civilians for instance, is consistent with libertarian principles ?
Juan, I do not know the right answer for that question, but read this by Anthony Gregory:
"Myth: The United States entered World War II when it was attacked at Pearl Harbor, without warning, and the Allies saved the world from fascism.
Reality: FDR almost certainly knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened, and did everything he could to lure Japan into attacking the United States. See Robert Stinnett’s Day of Deceit and Alexander Cockburn’s historiographical essay on Pearl Harbor.
Without US involvement in the war, Russia and Britain would have most likely defeated Hitler, who after losing the Battle of Britain mistakenly invaded Russia and became doomed by the winter of 1941.
The war was not a simple matter of Good vs. Evil: the Axis Powers had Hitler and Imperial Japan; the Allies had Joseph Stalin, perhaps the worst mass-murdering tyrant in history. The United Stated helped Stalin take over much of Eastern Europe and emerge as the true victor of World War II. One of the ugliest events in all this was Operation Keelhaul, in which the United States helped round up two million refugees who had escaped the Soviet Union, and loaded them onto boxcars to send them back to Stalin who shot and worked the coercively repatriated victims to death. The targeting of civilians in Germany and Japan in Allied bombing campaigns was no more necessary or moral than the terrorist attacks we see today. Some good, accessible books include Richard Maybury’s World War II: The Rest of the Story and The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars, edited by Richard Ebeling and Jacob Hornberger and published by the Future of Freedom Foundation" http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory21.html
It seems that, on historical grounds, it is not clear that the US entered in World War Two BECAUSE OF Pearl Harbour.
I don’t think that bombing civilians is consistent with libertarian principles. Leaving aside the arguably role of the US in the War, it seems to be clear that Great Britain was indeed threatened and attacked by Nazis. So, what could they do to defend themselves? They had to do something. What are the alternatives? Bombing cities, invading the country with infantry,… and what else?
I am not justifying bombing cities and killing civilians. I would just like to see what the alternatives were for countries like Great Britain
Oh, Nazis = Nationalsocialists (N a z i s)
There are differring opinions but generally speaking if in the last couple hundred years the army was used to actual defense, WWII is the most plausible. Of course, without WWI, which wasn’t a war of defense, WWII may never have happened. His position follows two tracks on this: One, WWII is a plausible use of the army for defense against a hostile nation, seeing as we were attacked and before that it’s more than arguable the threat was clear and present; Two, if you say you are against our involvment in WWII you get painted as pro Nazi, an anti-semite, and have to go argue a position in soundbites that needs detailed discussion of history of which most people are ignorant. In other words you look like an idiot and you give your opponents a bazooka aimed straight up your own ass. So, based on those two reasons, WWII was justifiable from a Libertarian, and more specifically from a libertarian leaning politician’s point of view.
Are you saying that actions like the bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc, and hundred of German cities are actions consistent with libertarian principles ?
Paul is presented as a teacher of libertarian principles, on one hand. On the other hand he is openly saying that the American involvement in Europe/Asia was justified. Can I draw the logical conclusion that firebombing civilians is part of the libertarian doctrine ?
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0295a.asp.
But what about the Poles and the Eastern Europeans? After all, they were the specific reason that Great Britain and France had declared war on Germany. Surely, they were free at the end of the war.
Not exactly. And this is what makes American public officials — as well as the American people — so uncomfortable. Yes, it is true that the German invaders were ousted and defeated by the Allied forces. Yes, it is true that the Poles, the Czechs, and the Eastern Europeans were saved from the clutches of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. .
But they were delivered into the hands of Joseph Stalin and the communists .
You changed your original post. You asked if RP thought the U.S. was justified entering the war. I said the entired the war because
Germany declared war on the United States, not the other way around. Now to your new question, firebombing civilians is not consistent with libertarian principles. Paul isn’t justifying how the war was conducted, he’s justifiying their entry into the war. You know, of course, that he thinks the U.S. should never have gotten involved in WWI, which he believes directly lead to WWII.
That was such a sneaky little justification by Chairman Roosevelt.
As if the Americans hadn’t virtually declared war against the Japanese and Germs.
Kent,
Mr. Paul, in the video I linked, says that American intervention in WWII was justified because of Pearl Harbour. He doesn’t mention Germany’s declaration of war.
I imagine he’s well aware that WWII was a total war and is well aware of the actions carried by his government. And still he says that this war was justified. So I ask …Are there any libertarian features about WWII am I missing ? It seems to me that a seizable amount of libertarian scholars consider the American involvement in the war an unmitigated disaster. Somehow Mr. Paul doesn’t think that was the case ?
It would help if you’d quit changing your post! You didn’t have a link before. Anyway, i don’t have time to view another video, he has said in interviews many times in the past that the U.S. declared war because Pearl Harbour was attacked by the Japanese, the Germans where Japanese allies so they do declared war on the U.S. If some country declare’s war on you, you’re pretty much stuck.
Do you have trouble understanding? He says the declaration of war was justified. I’ve never heard him say anything further than that. But he has said if you’re in a war, you should go in with a declaration of war and be prepared to win it.
Really ? In case you didn’t notice, Users can only edit their last post. So how did I change my post, please ?
Odd. That’s exacly the same question I’d pose to you.
Interviewer : “Is war ever justifiable”
Paul : “Sure. If you’re attacked you have a right and an obligation* to defend our country”, etc.
I : “So WW2, we were justified”
P ; “Sure”
I : “Because of Pearl Harbour”
P : “Right”
(*Besides, you can’t have a right and an obligation - that’s a contradiction…)
Ron Paul is a politician. Next?
The Ancient Greeks had a very nice expression to define useless squabbles like these: “we are waging war for a donkey’s shadow”.
Do you really care what is Dr Paul’s stance on something that happened 66 years ago (and counting)? Don’t you think it’s much more important what he wants to do right now? Why not ask him what he thinks of the Crusades and judge him accordingly?
The Ron Paul movement was the only decent thing left in US politics but it is already showing deep cracks, ironically when every supporter’s help is needed the most. He’s giving people a once-in-a-lifetime chance to have President to be proud of instead of a warmongering maniac or a nanny-state socialist: don’t blame him if then you are stuck with four more years of McCain, Romney or (most likely) Clinton 2 or if US troops will be dispatched to Darfur or taxes hiked. But maybe many of so-called libertarians prefer to whine endlessly than taking action into hand or are just unable to realize that the real world needs a few compromises (sadly) and we can’t live in an absolutely perfect Kingdom of God on Earth.
Paul may not be the “perfect libertarian” but compare him to Clinton, Gore, McCain or, God forbid, Giuliani.There’s enought ot rush and register yourself just to give him a fair chance.
"The Ancient Greeks had a very nice expression to define useless squabbles like these: “we are waging war for a donkey’s shadow”.
My Midwestern friends call it, “tripping over mouse poop.”
I : “So WW2, we were justified”
P ; “Sure” I :
“Because of Pearl Harbour”
P : “Right”
Borrowed pun: This looks like a case of Analysis Paralysis…
gets out crayola crayons
The questioning was in regard to when is war justified and the response was in defense of a nation based on being attacked. There was no questioning on what is the proper level of response. There was no indepth discussion about what decisions were or were not ethical militarily. Because the discussion had to do with the Constitutional Basis for war. Hence the questioning moved on to further wars…
puts away crayola crayons
Militarily- for those who may not understand the context(hence the existance for the thread) would be referring to tactical decisions used by the Military.
If you’re referring to me, and once more people the ‘quote’ function really helps in determining this, then reread the post, concentrating on the point of soundbites vs detailed argument.
People forget how FDR blatantly ignored the neutrality acts passed by
congress and was aiding China by giving them weapons to fight the
soviets. This eventually led to cash and carry and the lend least act.
A lot of people also forget that we embargoed Japan before Pearl Harbor
when they were getting 80% of their oil from us.