Posted on 03/31/2014 8:24:21 AM PDT by thetallguy24
At the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin this weekend highlighted a video of Rand Paul speaking in 2012 about sanctions on Iran. In it, Paul disparages the notion of use of force, and for some reason claims the United States was partly to blame for World War II!
“There are times when sanctions have made it worse. I mean, there are times .. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily. We also had a blockade on Germany after World War I, which may have encouraged them … some of their anger.”
Rubin spoke with David David Adesnik of the American Enterprise Institute about Paul’s remarks:
After viewing the video, he tells Right Turn, “Blaming the U.S. for Pearl Harbor is a long-standing isolationist habit that reflects tremendous historical illiteracy. Sen. Paul is very poorly informed if he thinks U.S. sanctions ‘probably caused Japan to react angrily.’” He explains, “The U.S. cut off oil supplies to Japan in August 1941, long after Japan had launched its atrocity-laden war against China in 1937. The evidence is conclusive that Japan was determined to dominate all of East Asia. Believing that the U.S. would not stand by passively if it overran Thailand, Singapore, Malaya and the East Indies, Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.”
With regard to the Senator’s comments about Germany, Adesnik declared them “so eccentric that it’s hard to be sure what he’s even talking about.” He goes on to point out the obvious, which is that we should be proud of our actions in Europe before and during the war, regardless of whether or not they antagonized the Nazis.
Senator Paul at the time of the video and in remarks since, referred to a nuclear Iran as “not a good idea”, which is true, in much the same way that sticking one’s hand in a wood chipper is a “not a good idea”.
Equally as troubling is his explanation of the rationale for sanctions being “doing something is better than doing nothing.” A colleague objects to Paul’s “straw man” and remarks “is this how we think about national security now?” Good question. Another good question is whether or not the first consideration in pursuing American interests and security is whether or not an enemy or “rogue” nation may become annoyed with us.
Rubin says that “these comments, his bizarre take on historical events and his current opposition to sanctions (in accord with President Obama) raise troubling issues regarding his true beliefs and the degree to which his father’s radical libertarian ideas have rubbed off on him.”
Indeed the issues are raised. And going into 2016, Obamaesque waffling on treading lightly or Ron Paul-like isolationism are not attributes anyone in this party should be looking for in a candidate. Answers to those issues, therefore, should be top priority for Senator Paul.
*Updated with partial transcription of relevant portion for those without audio. 10:43 AM.
Exactly right.
I won’t tolerate this type of crappy smear.
Japan and the United States was on sooner or later. It’s interesting that FDR was in bed with the Communists and the embargo was a ploy to prevent the Japanese from possibly attacking Russia and presenting Stalin with a two front war. FDR was probably not aware of the ulterior motives of his close advisers.
FDR still had a thing for Uncle Joe after Churchill started preparing for the war to come after WW II.
I go into that here: #31
This thread reminds me of another thread posted here whose title claimed that a McDonalds closed because of striking workers, the suckers here took the bait sure that they all lost their jobs, I called the McDonalds and they were open and said they never closed.
Diplomacy starts with understanding your opposition & understanding the possible consequences of any course of action. I’m not well-versed in what led up to WWII. Could FDR have taken a different set of actions? Would it have mattered? We certainly know the results of what WAS done.
We’ve watched Obama address his opposition over the course of his tenure with contempt - first the Republicans & now Putin. He is ill-equipped to carry out diplomacy on any level. Maybe a more sensitive understanding of the possible consequences of any action are what we need.
I’m not sure I want Rand to run for President in 2016, but nothing in this article causes me any concern.
Slightly different. If the Japanese didn’t strike out to secure other sources of oil and trade their industrial economy would collapse and people would starve. Compare that with the way the FDR and his Communist coterie treated the Soviets.
“There are times when sanctions have made it worse. I mean, there are times .. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily. We also had a blockade on Germany after World War I, which may have encouraged them … some of their anger.”
Can your really argue with the above statement? But of course there are no win situations where no matter what you do, the inevitable is going to happen.
Rand Paul has to be destroyed, he is a major threat to the neocons in general and Jeb Bush in particular.
With over 7,000 civilian casualties so far, 2013 has already become the deadliest year in Iraq since 2008. In its new project, a timeline of the violence, RT brings the sad record into the spotlight.
Go to ‘Iraq 2013: A year of carnage’ for the full timeline.
Following the withdrawal of US troops in December 2011, instead of engaging in post-war and occupation recovery, Iraq has been with each day plunging deeper into inter-ethnic violence, prompted by ever-growing tensions mostly between the country’s majority Shiite community and the Sunni minority.
The more he talks the more he sounds like his crazy father.
What Rand Paul said isn’t really so much of a stretch. I would recommend you read the Just read MODERN TIMES: THE WORLD FROM THE TWENTIES TO THE EIGHTIES by Paul Johnson, a highly respected conservative Catholic historian.
So they got angry....Doesn’t mean it was wrong to do. I mean who cares if we got Hitler angry, the guy wanted a war, and he got it. Same with the Japs.
I don’t think that the embargo was aimed at preventing a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union. The Japanese had already invaded Siberia in 1939 and were soundly beaten, so there was no appetite in Japan for a repeat. Much easier to get resources in SE Asia.
Quit paying attention to what RINO lovers say. They are trying to make Jeb your candidate so they will try to make more of something someone else says to get a negative reaction and start wars between conservatives.
Russia Today - a real reliable source you’ve cited there.
“.. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily”
We reserve the right to cut off trade with whomever we choose. People shouldn’t have to fear getting attacked because someone becomes “angry”. That’s not a rational response.
Iron ore, steel, and oil were the key embargoed items, and oil was the real big one. The embargo left Japan with two choices; i.e. take the oil or submit. Japan chose the former.The lesson being that the enemy always has a choice when you present them with an ultimatum, and any effective embargo is an ultimatum.
FDR was quite foolish to present such an ultimatum to the Japanese and then not be ready for them to fight. What did the Japanese absolutely need, if they weren't to submit? Oil, which could only be gotten in Indonesia.
Either FDR had an agenda, or he was a fool, or he was playing for time. Sort of like the Obamanation. Heheh. This brings to mind an interesting artifact of management by people who are not strategic thinkers and have only unexamined ideology to guide them - they lurch from crisis to crisis because their emphasis is management of the now, vs preparation. As soon as any particular crisis is averted they go back to whatever their ideology informs. They appear to be fools with an agenda playing for time, but they don't think of themselves that way.
Since when is The Right Scoop a RINO lover?
What did business with Japan even look like in that day?
Oriental art objects... just about all?
About as reliable as CNN or MSNBC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.