[Lt_Apple]

Very out of step with most Republicans.
I hope they take notice.


Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's past statements are coming back to haunt him – and this time it's about the US' role in ending World War 2 and the Holocaust.

Following a controversial revelation by a former aide to the congressman, saying that Paul "wishes Israel didn't exist," another blogger said Tuesday that in 2009 Paul went on the record as saying that if he were the president of the United States during WWII he "wouldn't have risked American lives to end the Holocaust."

Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GPO's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative."

"I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't." read more at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...167841,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...167257,00.html

[Peptobismol]

As the far left and the far right begin to merge in America you'll start to see on college campuses the assertion that the wrong side lost WW2.

[MannoFr]

In all fairness, Ron Paul is an all around isolationist and he is in favor of ending ALL foreign aid (not just to Israel). Let us remember, our Arab neighbors (together) receive seven times more aid than Israel and Fatah is American trained. Also, at least we won't be heartbroken by Ron Paul. He has already put out everything on the plate for us to see. I have been saying forever that it is up to us in Israel to fend for ourselves and that one cannot expect the American president to be more Zionist than the Israeli leaders.

Does this mean I hope Ron Paul becomes the next president? I can't say. Whoever is best for America should be. Whether or not that is Ron Paul, I don't know.

[Big A]

Much more important than foreign aid is the American veto in the Security Council. Obama blocked votes that would have declared all Israeli towns in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem as illegal and would have recognized of "Palestine" as a member state of the UN. I have no doubt how a Ron Paul administration would have voted on these vital issues.

[Beerinkol]

Much more important than foreign aid is the American veto in the Security Council. Obama blocked votes that would have declared all Israeli towns in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem as illegal and would have recognized of "Palestine" as a member state of the UN. I have no doubt how a Ron Paul administration would have voted on these vital issues.

My guess is a Ron Paul administration wouldn't have been at the UN in the first place. I "Palestinian" state was already declared at the UN in 1988 and the sky hasn't fallen. Most of the world has been saying the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are "illegal" for who knows how long.

The UN is becoming more and more irrelevant each day.

[HedgeYourBets]

My guess is a Ron Paul administration wouldn't have been at the UN in the first place. I "Palestinian" state was already declared at the UN in 1988 and the sky hasn't fallen. Most of the world has been saying the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are "illegal" for who knows how long.

The UN is becoming more and more irrelevant each day.

Whether the Ron Paul administration voted in favor of the measures or merely declined to veto, the result is the same, possibly legally binding decisions of the Security Council. If passed under Chapter VII by the Security Council, Israel would be bound by treaty to obey. You can call them irrelevant, but I think this would have devastating diplomatic consequences under international law for Israel.