But, promoting a non-interventionist doctrine doesn't equal isolationism and pacifism. Paul was in the military. The author wonders what would have happened during WWII if Paul had been President and claims that Germany would have controlled much of the world. If we go back to WWI, and if we had not interfered, especially in the post-war arrangements which, in concert with interference from Britain and France, pressured Germany for years into an impossible situation, there might not have been a WWII. The central banks manipulated so much that's it's hard to untangle, but without the interventions, things could have been a lot different (read Lords of Finance). Beyond guessing about things we'll never know, let's look at what non-interventionism means. It means we defend our country from attack, but we don't intervene in the affairs of other countries. If a President Paul found himself with a dilemma regarding a country which was committing mass murder, and no other country would help, I'm sure Paul would make the right decision, since he promotes life with a passion, but the key is that Paul will not easily committ American troops. Our Founders wanted us to be careful with war, and we should be careful with war.
America should committ her troops only after exhausting every other means of resolution and then only if our national security is at stake. Regarding help for a nation in which mass murder is taking place, even then we could recommend innovative NGO military solutions where defense units not tied to a government are available for these rare castrastrophes. The point is to think of ways to avoid war, not to invent excuses to go to war.