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.
The smearing has to stop.
In York County, Pennsylvania where I live we just elected a more conservative write-in candidate over the GOPe and Democrat candidate in a Special Election created by the political machine to keep the conservative candidate out.
The GOPe machine spent something like half a million bucks to attack the conservative candidate as a “millionaire” and a “bully” but the folks here rejected that and gave the write-in 48 percent of the vote to 26 percent for the GOPe and 26 percent for the Dem.
I like your viewpoint.. sadly most will not understand.. I was deep in the cold war having served as pilot in strategic air command. We do not learn from history. It likely will be repeated.... sadly..
I'd bet the FSB has a very interesting file on The One...
It used to be better, but now an obvious fly in the ointment is the Crimea affair. Russia isn’t going to be looked at in the same way for a long time if ever.
Part of history is the gullibility of people and who wants to confess gullibility?
So as they threaten Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, and Russia, South Korea, etc and are working in Africa, it is because they don't like American?
Your description sounds strange, is China the boss of of all peoples and nations of the Asian race?
The Japane vision for their hegemony over a “co-prosperity sphere” in Eastern Asia did not involve the colonial powers. They were eventually going to try to evict the US, Brits, Dutch and French. It was all just a matter of timing.
Sure, FDR wanted to get the US into the war, and was taking whatever shots he could at both Japan and Germany. In retrospect, the timing of US entry worked out pretty well ... Our industries were on the upswing while theirs were near or at their peak. War earlier and later would have been tougher to wage with a longer road to victory.
It isn’t that weird; China really does have an egocentric worldview. It thinks it deserves to be boss of the world, not just boss of Asia. Its means have been semi pacifistic in recent decades. But the underlying sentiment is the same.
But ...
People also don't understand the degree to which Soviet Master Spy Richard Sorge and his network were working to get Japan into a war with the US, just as Soviet agents of influence, moles, and fellow travelers in Washington maneuvered the feeble-minded and easily manipulated Roosevelt onto a path of war with Japan.
After June 22, 1941, getting the US into the War became an urgent priority for the Soviet Union; a priority which the double-dealing Japanese government fell for, hook, line and sinker.
I challenge you to go unarmed to a biker bar and shout deprecating remarks about bikers.
It's irrational not to consider the consequences when it comes to dealing with mobs and uncivilized despots. What is irrational is to forget your own concerns and your situation. Maybe there was no clear path for FDR, but in hindsight the Communists, Socialists, and Accommodationists turned out to be unconcerned with the consequences WRT the national interests of the United States.
Some history the Obama administration and GOP-E seem to be glossing over...
It sounds like David Adesnik from the American Enterprise Institute is the one that needs the history refresher. FDR’s embargoes were indeed the trigger for Japan’s attack on the United States. Moreover, this has been generally accepted among most WW2 historians. This is not controversial.
Japan was waging a brutal war in China that made many China loving Americans angry and FDR decided to impose an embargo on Japan in conjunction with Britain and the Dutch East Indies.
Japan needed vital war making materials from the US and the colonial territories of the the British and Dutch.
Japan’s options, give up the war in China or seize the colonial territories to continue to fight the war in China.
They chose the latter which meant going to war with the United States and they chose to attack Pearl Harbor to destroy our fleet and allow them free reign in the Far East.
Japan’s decision led to the United States getting into the war with Germany because of Japan’s alliance with the Nazis.
FDR wanted war with Germany and he got it through the backdoor. WWII happened and all the consequences that followed.
Sanctions pressurize nations they are imposed on to make concessions or make war.
Israel and its supporters like Senators Schumer, Menendez, McCain, Graham etc. are pushing tougher sanctions on Iran right now over Obama’s objections.
Just like FDR had his wishes, Israel would like to see the Iranian nuclear program stopped, so the call for sanctions.
He is quoting Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. That is why. She dug it out to reword it.
Any tripe in the WAPO makes me ill. I know who they want as our candidates.
“I don’t think America should be trading with nations like pre-WWII Japan.”
You do know that the United States sent an armed emissary (Commodore Perry) to open trade with Japan in the 1850’s? Other western countries followed suit. Prior to that Japan was pretty much a per-industrial feudal society that was closed to outsiders.
You don’t have to go too far back and you can find all kinds of trading relationships that would be distasteful by modern standards. (And I’m not necessarily referring to the slave-trade here.)
Rand Paul is, unfortunately, bereft of an understanding of history. And we know what happens when we don’t learn our history, don’t we?
NO MORE RINOS!!!!!
That doesn’t mean I’m going to go for someone who cant even understand the history of WW2.
“we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily”
1931 - Japan invades Manchuria
1934 - Japan withdraws from the Washington Naval treaty
1936 - Japan signs a treaty with Nazi Germany
1937 - Japan invades deeper into China
1937 - Battle of Shanghai
1937 - The Rape of Nanking by Japan results in the death of 300,000 Chinese
1938 - Japan attacks the Mongolia and Soviet Union borders
1939 - Japan captures Nanning in southern China
Prior to 1939, the United States supplied Japan with >80% of its materials. Is Rand Paul suggesting that the United States should have continued to support Japan’s aggression against East Asian countries? Japan was already acting angerly. It would have been irresponsible AND decidedly anti-libertarian to continue supplying the Japanese aggression.
Here is how Japanese agression continued:
1940 - Japan increases all military spending, such that the military is more than half the Japanese budget.
1940 - Japan invades Indochina
1941 - Japan sends spies to Hawaii
1941 - Japan signs a neutrality pact with the Soviets
By early 1941, the United States embargos all oil to Japan. Japan responds with warfare. Hardly a measured response, and any suggestion otherwise is looney.
Rand Paul is off his rocker. His statement isn’t even compatable with libertarian principles.
“You don’t have to go too far back and you can find all kinds of trading relationships that would be distasteful by modern standards.”
Not far at all, like yesterday.
“Rand Paul: America Partly To Blame For Pearl Harbor, World War II”
For the Japanese the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the greatest of all military blunders in the history of warfare. If Roosevelt was really trying to encourage them to start a war they then unfortunately took the bait.
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.