As a historical matter, the US didn't risk troops to end the Holocaust; FDR rejected Morgenthau's entreaties that he bomb the train lines to Auschwitz or take similar actions, on the theory that the US wouldn't support the war if it became perceived as a War for Jews.
After the war, Operation Keelhaul forcibly repatriated Soviet-bloc displaced persons into Stalin’s hands, a move in many cases morally tantamount to sending Jewish refugees back to Hitler. I bet you that Ron Paul would not have done that!
You might correctly say that Ron Paul is consistently non-interventionist to a fault, but at least he is consistent, which can hardly be said about the lying, flip-flopping candidates of the global elite that we will likely have to chose between.
Ron Paul's statement was simply in keeping with his belief that our founders intended that we have no military intervention unless our country were directly threatened. If you want to go on moral imperatives, then one could argue that there are places all over the world where intervention should take place - and the globalists would dearly love to see just such a policy.
Who appointed us as the policeman of the world or the moral enforcer of the world? God? I hardly think so.
As for that link to the anti-Ron Paul site, good grief, Karlin. Dredging up garbage like the thoroughly-discredited items in the old newsletters. The racism card yet again? Look at the negative quote there about Martin Luther King. How does that, or any other racist item, jive with anything Ron Paul has ever done before or after the newsletters whose articles he did not write? How does it jive with the fact that he SUPPORTED a national holiday for Martin Luther King or that he has consistently said that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes?