Ron Loses It Again (Supermegabarfhurl Alert)

Politics and Eggs Breakfast, Bedford, NH | 19 December 2007 | C-Span

[OCCASparky]

A quote from Ron Paul's speech at Politics and Eggs breakfast airing on C-Span now (actual comments aired appx 9:25 pm EST):

"A president has a responsibility to, uh, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that throughout our whole history."

[Andrew Byler]

for who can say on these principles that the first European had any right or cause to set foot on Indian soil? Or to drive them from every square inch to gain sovereignty over the extent?

At the time of settlement in the early 1600's, the east coast had been decimated by the plague and was an unihabited waste. That is how the Pilgrims were able to settle into a ready made village devoid of inhabitants.

For the most part in the rest of the country, the transfer of sovereignty was done by treaty and purchase, and not war. That's why there are all these Indian Casinos and Indian hunting privileges.

[jrooney]

You are very welcome. I too take 9/11 very personally. I did not lose any friends or family, yet was watching it live right after the first plane hit and I saw the second plane hit and those poor souls jump to their deaths, rather than burn alive. I will never forget that. It changed me forever.

[SaxxonWoods]

Wow. I’m speechless on that one (for the moment).

[johnthebaptistmoore]

Ron Paul should be fun to see and listen to for an hour on “Meet the Press” this Sunday. Get the popcorn for that. I will be at church, just like many to most other Freepers, so I will miss it live. Good luck, Fred Thompson! Good luck, Duncan Hunter!

[jrooney]

On another thread earlier today, some Paulnuts were praising the interview and thought Paul outwitted Cavuto.

[Stultis]

A paulestinian actually posted that video on another thread expressing pride in how well Ron explained the neo-nazi donation!

[Mr. Mojo]

I suspect RP can pull out more than a few historical conspiracy theories in an attempt to justify his more than a bit psychotic viewpoint.

[SaxxonWoods]

I asked one of the Ronulans (perhaps on that thread) what neo-nazis expected to gain by supporting Paul. I was told that the neo-nazis were freedom loving, just like all of us.

It boggles the mind...

[Andrew Byler]

Not surprising, since he is chums with Lew Rockwell and Don Black, both of whom believe that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked by the US and part of a larger plot by President Roosevelt to deceive America into war. There are even some craven FReepers who like to retail that particular bit of paranoia.

These assertions about Pearl Harbor have been around since the 1940's and have nothing to do with Rockwell or Black.

As to the paranoia of it, mainstream historians such as John Toland are hardly paranoid or deceptive.

The embargo of Japan in 1941 was clearly a provocation and cause of the war, as Japan being bereft of most natural resources relied upon trade to supply critical items such as oil, coal, iron, and rubber. Under such an embargo, it was only a matter of time before something had to give to allow Japan to secure these resources. The foolish decision to attack the US was one result.

One might also note the double standard whereby Japanese attempts to establish a colonial empire in China and SE Asia were branded evil and subjected Japan to international opprobrium, while existing European and American colonial adventures in China and SE Asia were perfectly acceptable and legitimate. Thus, Japanese attacks on Indo-China and the Indonesian archipeligo are "agression" while existing western colonial subjugation of the same is evidence of western munificence. This is similar to the double standard whereby England subjugating and colonizing Ireland and Scotland is perfectly acceptable, while Germany subjugating Poland and Bohemia or Italy subjugating Greece and Albania is not.

Your silly comments make it sound as though Japan just came up out of the blue and without provocation attacked an unsuspecting US. Nothing could be further from reality.

[Uriah_lost]

Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!?!?!?

[Proud2BeRight]

“Bluto” Blutarsky where you been?

[2CAVTrooper]

http://undergraduatestudies.syr.edu/Remembrance/LEVEL%203/Julianne%20F%20Kelly%20.html

They found her in a field, her friend was sitting next to her and they were holding hands.

[Dumb_Ox]

Hearsay without a link/transcript, doesn't belong in breaking news, and it contradicts Paul's approval of Afghan operations. Can I put anything in breaking news, so long as it's anti-Paul?

[jrooney]

Beautiful woman with much to offer the world, taken too soon.

[Andrew Byler]

Not even the War of 1812?

While there were certainly any number of American greivances against Britain leading up to this war, the simple and plain truth is that the US declared war upon Britain with the idea of not only resolving these greivances by means of force but also of seizing Canada. The declaration of war had the effect of allying us with Napoleonic France, with whom we had similar grievances which were lessened only because we had purchased Louisana from France 9 years earlier and France did not have as strong a Navy to harrass the free movement US shipping as did Britain.

Britain certainly did not attack us in 1812 to start the war.

The US has been attacked by another sovereign nation a grand total of 1 time to force the commencement of open hostilities - Pearl Harbor. Every other war the US has involved itself in has relied on the US commencing armed hostilities.

[Wallace T.]

Whether or not FDR and his advisers wanted the Japanese to start a war to get America involved in World War II, the fact is that the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor. As for the United States, while our record in the Pacific was less than perfect, the Philippines, our primary colony, was on its way to independence at the time of the Japanese attack. As to Roosevelt’s judgment in favoring American involvement, consider the fact that had Japan conquered East Asia and Indonesia/Malaysia and Hitler created a German dominated Europe, these superpowers would have been a proximate threat to this hemisphere. Because Germany and Japan retained elements of capitalism, their economies would have been far stronger than those of the USSR and its satellites. As a result, they would have been more formidable enemies than the Communist bloc was.

[Uriah_lost]

I was worried nobody would get that....whew!

[Stultis]

One might also note the double standard whereby Japanese attempts to establish a colonial empire in China and SE Asia were branded evil and subjected Japan to international opprobrium, while existing European and American colonial adventures in China and SE Asia were perfectly acceptable and legitimate. Thus, Japanese attacks on Indo-China and the Indonesian archipeligo are "agression" while existing western colonial subjugation of the same is evidence of western munificence.

Sorry. Not buying the equivalence here. The Western powers established these colonies against weak, pre-modern states that mostly refused to trade with us. Granted it wasn't pretty. The Western nations forced trade under, at least initially, an unfair mechantilist system. But still they were basically economic colonies.

By the time Japan attacked it's neighbors they were far closer to modern states and would in most cases have been willing to trade with Japan. Japan simply wanted to TAKE their resources, without even the unbalanced merchantilist trade system. Furthermore the Japanese were not merely establishing economic colonies but were also consciously and systematically carrying out genocidal campaigns. Incidents like the Rape of Nanking (never mind the systematic use of germ warfare against civilian populations) bore little similarity to occasional bloodlettings in European colonies, which were almost always related to putting down revolts.

You make it sound like the embargo of Japan was economic aggression by America. This wasn't something that America wanted to do. It wasn't something that was for America's economic benefit. It was a sanction for Japan's aggression against China. It was a measure that had overwhelming popular support in America and indeed was demanded by the American public. The Japanese could have ended the embargo by withdrawing from China.

[Andrew Byler]

Yes, exactly, and a firm "non-interventionist" point of view leads ineluctably to the conclusion that we had no business attempting to stop Japan from her aggression in those countries.

You two are hilarious. WHAT COUNTRIES?

Vietnam? That was a French COLONY.

Korea? That was a Japanese PROTECTORATE since 1895, which she annexed in 1910, right around the same time as the US was annexing the Phillipines.

Indonesis? That was a Dutch COLONY.

Maylasia, Burma? They were a British COLONIES.

Manchuria? That was a Japanese SPHERE OF INFLUENCE since 1905, just like the British dominated the hinterland of Hong Kong, modern Guangzhong.

Much of WWII was Japan fighting various European powers and America over who would control the colonies of Asia, not Japan invading sovereign Asian countries. In fact, the only sovereign country in Asia with any internal consistency - Thailand - was a Japanese ally in the war, not a target of Japanese invasions.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

That’s not the video

I’d like to see a full or in context transcript, and/or the original audio.

I can’t believe that no one is asking for it? You’re kind of flying off the handle.