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."
And ron paul isn't a politician?
ROFL!
Let me translate. John Toland, because he refused to kowtow to the Neocon line of historical explanation, was not a serious historian. Is that pretty much your position?
In other words, Japan had no choice in the matter. They could not pursue conference or compromise.
No compromise was being offered other than "my way or the highway" by the western powers.
The Japanese position in China was based on mass slaughter, atrocities against Chinese civilians and the use of concentration camps.
You mean like the American position in the Philipines?
The Japanese position in China was based on defeating China in 1895 and Russia in 1905 and taking over her privileges in China. The new war from 1937 was based upon attempting to install a government friendly to Japan.
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.
Rather, the Western position was based upon forcible trade centered on the distribution of narcotics backed by military power with a country which was not interested in commercial intercourse. For an American perspective, they would be equivalent to Columbia and Mexico warring against the US to allow free distirbution of Cocaine and Marijauna and taking Miami and Long Beach as entrepots to enable the distirbution of illicit drugs in the continental US.
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.
I'm sure third worlders everywhere would beg to differ with this assessment of the impact of western Colonial warfare.
"The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipino soldiers. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much more than the guerrillas." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War)
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.
You mean like the Japanese putting Emperor Puyi on the throne of Manchukuo, or cultivating relations with leading native families in the Philippines, Indonesia, and India?
And how could you fail to remember the English cause and response to the potato famine in Ireland, or the campaign of enclosure in Scotland to rout the Highlanders, or the origins of "kidnapping" on the streets of Glasgow? When you ignore all that, sinister and treacherous dealings with disgruntled nobles to betray their own people all sounds so benign and peaceful.
They had a thousand options: in their arrogance they chose the one that would put their Empire to an end.
Yes, because an even greater empire was in the making, one that would direct the actions of not some mere corner of the world, such as the Japanese desired in East Asia and Oceania, but of the entire globe and all peoples within it, and still does so to this day. That would be our country, lead by our erstwhile East-Coast WASP Internationalist elite and their feal servants who they admitted to the halls of power. How do you, a Catholic, come to the aid of this gang of bloody-handed criminals who have done nothing but subvert our constitution and our standing in the eyes of the world?
No, I wouldn't be offended.
I am Creek Indian. :)
I can see why you see things differently.
Hmmm...I'm not really sure. I have read that Abraham's father was a high priest in Ur. I don't know where that is.
Some scholars believe the American Indians are the Lost Tribes the Bible mentions.
So I guess the Jews could stay here.
What has that to do with whether we invaded and conqured the Indian's country and put them in Reservations by force?
Thank you for defining what a troll is.
All this time I thought a troll was someone that attacked the opinion of other Freepers.
Boy, is my face red!
I read.
FYI; I had not seen that internet posting before.
Actually, RedRover first implied that we Paulnuts would start wearing t-shirts thus:
"Oh, my gosh. What’s next for Paulnuts? “Pearl Harbor was an inside job” t-shirts?"(RedRover, post #515)
And is RedRover dismayed that you don't read his posts?
And just to clear up one point; IMO, one should not call that conspiracy a "government" conspiracy simply because the POTUS (FDR) was part of it.
In post #560, I asked you: ‘why did you allege a government conspiracy at Pearl Harbor’?
You responded in #568: “Actually, RedRover first implied that we Paulnuts would start wearing t-shirts thus:””Oh, my gosh. What’s next for Paulnuts? “Pearl Harbor was an inside job” t-shirts?”(RedRover, post #515)”
You need to go back and read the thread starting in #487 where you said: “...FDR had foreknowledge of the Japanese attack, but chose to allow the fleet to take the hit.”
Since your post #487 preceeded RedRover’s post #515, you can’t blame him.
Now, would you care to answer the question I asked in # post #560: ‘why did you allege a government conspiracy at Pearl Harbor’?
Or, perhaps, you can find an earlier reference to a government conspiracy at Pearl Harbor?
Also,
I asked you in #472: “BTW, if Afghanistan was Constitutional, why wasn’t Iraq?”
You responded in #490: “Our action was not against the government of Afghanistan, but rather against the Taliban, and we went in with the help and cooperation of the afghan government.”
I asked in response in #517: “Can you provide one credible source that supports your allegation that we had ‘help and cooperation of the afghan government’ or that the Taliban was not in control of Afghanistan?”
I still haven’t seen an answer.
After his implosion on Russert, smacking Ron Paul around in this forum is very close to clubbing baby’s seals.
Without the financial incentive to do so....
Problem is, this thread was posted on Friday—BEFORE his appearance on MTP.
“After his implosion on Russert...”
You guys need to check with the Branch Paulividian. Ron Paul didn’t ‘implode’ on Russert. He was ‘magnificient’. He ‘blew Russert away’. He was ‘fantastic’. RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, etc., etc.
Doesn’t pose a problem for me.
(chuckle)
We need a shorthand way to say “RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, etc., etc.” Kind of like ‘dittos’ for Limbaugh.
I agree. The Party distanced itself from David Duke. Why does the GOP have a different standard for this hate sympathizing charlatan?
Take it to DU.
Hmmmm.
How bout Konstitutional Kook?
I have another question for you.
Do you agree with Ron Paul that Abe Lincoln started the civil war in order to “get rid of the original intent of the republic...”
Here’s the quote from the transcript.
Ron Paul said: “Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the—that iron, iron fist..”
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.