Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by 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."
Take it back in. Willey’s pathetic attempt at rewriting history has been debunked several times. Of course Lewrockwell doesn’t cover that, so the Paulistas wouldn’t be aware of it:
“”Recent attempts to resuscitate well-worn conspiracy theories concerning the Pearl Harbor attack are based on selective reading of documentary evidence and ignore conclusive, recently declassified materials which show that JN-25 and other Japanese naval codes were not being read by U. S. Navy codebreakers prior to the Japanese attack.””
http://www.dean.usma.edu/math/pubs/cryptologia/ClassicArticleReprints/V24N2PP119-130Budiansky.PDF
Ya know, I am only one district over from Ron Paul’s district and I cannot imagine the good folks of Texas in that area electing him back.
Yeah, like I said we don’t buy crazy here so keep your silly site.
Do yourself a favor though and buy a history book and read it — with an “open mind” of course.
What is it that you need to know about history. Perhaps we can help.
Only ideologically, not genetically.
Rockwell and Black are their current retailers, helping to keep this anti-American myth alive. Please do not misunderstand me: I did not mean to suggest that Rockwell or Black have ever had an original thought in their heads.
As to the paranoia of it, mainstream historians such as John Toland are hardly paranoid or deceptive.
John Toland was not a serious historian, but a jumped-up novelist dabbling in history. His famous Imperial Japan-fellating work The Rising Sun - which won numerous leftist accolades including the Pulitzer Prize - was a work of semi-fictional speculation written from the viewpoint of Japanese commanders in the Pacific. It was published in 1971 at the height of anti-Vietnam War hysteria - the Pulitzer Committee was delighted to read a nasty, anti-American work from the viewpoint of a put-upon Asian totalitarian state. Very topical and PC at the time.
His book is less than worthless.
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.
In other words, Japan had no choice in the matter. They could not pursue conference or compromise. They were an inscrutable, mysterious other bereft of the human ability to negotiate with other powers.
Sorry, no sale.
The foolish decision to attack the US was one result.
One result of the hubris of Japan's policy. Certainly not the result of anything America did.
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.
The Japanese position in China was based on mass slaughter, atrocities against Chinese civilians and the use of concentration camps.
The US and European colonial presence in China was based on negotiations from a position of military strength against a Chinese government that wanted trade to be purely one-way.
The US did not act like an angel in China: it used threats of blockade to obtain favorable trade agreements. The Japanese did not threaten blockades - they just murdered more than a million Chinese civilians wholesale.
Two different kinds of approach - hardly a double standard.
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.?i>
A straw man. The West's preferred method was not mass slaughter of civilians. Imperial Japan's was. Your moral equivalence game will not wash.
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.
The British method of subjugating Ireland and Scotland was to forge alliances with Irish and Scottish families that wanted change of government in Ireland and Scotland, and of using these families as proxies to gain political control over those territories.
More Poles were slaughtered by Nazis in the first month of World War II than Irish or Scots died in warfare with the English between 1066 and 2007.
Even the one actual widescale atrocity committed by England - Cromwell's invasion - pales in comparison. And the English had such horror of Cromwell's government and regime that they scrapped it entirely without any external compulsion.
So again you compare apples with whole roast boars and try to force a moral equivalence.
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.
Yet that is what Japan did. Japan was frustrated with our trade policy. Did they blockade our trading vessels using their navy as retaliation? No. Did they go to other powers to negotiate incentives to get around US policy? No. Did they consider making significant policy concessions to the US in order to get what they wanted? No.
They attacked us literally out of the clear blue sky because their leadership believed that Americans were inferior beings who should kowtow to their divine emperor, rather than allowing their emperor to sully himself by altering Imperial policy.
They had a thousand options: in their arrogance they chose the one that would put their Empire to an end.
I have heard of those folks.
They are mistaken, I believe, about any complilcit foreknowledge, but the government has used the attacks of 9/11 to expand the scope of government.
So why did you bring it up?
yep i think ole ron would be assigned the job of stable boy in the alamo defence plan.
Care to cite your sources?
Any reputable history of World War II and Pearl Harbor.
The idea that FDR was complicit in the attack on Pearl Harbor is from the fringes, mostly from Leftists like Gore Vidal and Bruce Cockburn.
And try to read a book sometime. The Internet is full of unvetted nonsense.
I’d like to believe bad things about FDR, too, but you’re making it hard. Now, there used to be a fellow named Michael Rivero around here....
I don’t think you can defend the Constitution against liberals but liberals are no longer the only threat. Self-imagined conservatives have given themselves over to the idea that we are so far down the road of extra-Constitutional government as to have not merely surrendered, but they themselves have taken to thinking of this evil development as something akin to virtue.
These people favor the idea of Constitution-as-living-document as being ok so long as it is shredded by the GOP instead of the Democrats.
They—RINO’s and neocons—bandy about the inane idea of a Constitution that must be adapted for a technological era when in fact, the Constitution is timeless because it binds down human craving for power, and tyranny knows no technological god or era. And even when change is necessary, the Founding Fathers provided even for that.
But for my money, Hunter, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson need not apply for anything so lofty. They seek an office that should inspire humility and fear and even apprehension to even consider. But they are the opposite of humility. They are politicians, and the gap is as wide as the distance across the Grand Canyon.
This is what political parties attract nowadays, from the presidency down to the local school board, now that democracy-sans-the-national-interest has drained the country of the advantages of republican forms. I wouldn’t hire them to run my company, or even wax my dog.
Thanks for the kind comments and merry Christmas!
Just because Bill Clinton is a scumbag doesn't mean America deserved the first WTC bombing either.
In other words you have nothing to back up your claim?
Ron Paul has to be a joke. His whole candidacy is a gag like colbert. It has to be...People really believe in this guy which is frightening.
First of all, the site claims that the NSA released documents having to do with pre-WW2 intercepts. Just one problem with that claim.....The NSA didn’t come about for another 11 years after these intercepts were made.
Highly improbable that the NSA would have had any “leftover” documents from BEFORE it was created.
Second, that list of “spared ships” is a joke because they’re listing ships performing everyday missions, or routine patrols as “spared”.
They also list ships that were home ported in places like San Diego.
But OMG it’s a conspiracy because every U.S. Navy ship all the way down to the smallest rubber dinghy wasn’t parked in nice neat rows with big ol’ bulls eyes on them as they should have been.
“yep i think ole ron would be assigned the job of stable boy in the alamo defence plan.”
A stable boy is more of a man than run paul will ever be.
I appreciated very much your knowledgeable refutation of PH conspiracies. Although I had never “signed on” to them, I thought there maybe was still a viable figment of credibility to them ( unlike the obvious calumny of 9/11.) It’s like the Reichstag fire, you’re never sure whether the case is closed or whether people are recycling old or new “evidence” and theories.
Why did you bring up Peal Harbor?
I need to correct my last post to you. Upon further relection, I brought up Pearl Harbor. So let me rephrase my last question to you. It should have read, ‘why did you allege a government conspiracy at Pearl Harbor’?
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.