Skip to comments.Rand Paul: America Partly To Blame For Pearl Harbor, World War II
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 Pauls 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 Senators comments about Germany, Adesnik declared them so eccentric that its hard to be sure what hes 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 ones 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 Pauls 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 fathers 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.
Meh...much ado about nothing.
The more Paul talks, the less I like him.
You have to remember who his Dad is.
You KNOW how much influence your parents have on you. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.. depending on the issue in the Paul family.
I guess the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree. Not in the least surprised.
Sanctions are for fooling morons at home into believing our government is acting on something.
We impose sanctions so cronies can soak up waivers.
No, I'm sure cutting off Japan's oil made them very happy.
He didn’t say what the Headline says he said.
He said >”we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily”<
I’m not a Paulbot by any stretch of the imagination, but this is nothing but a ginned up Tempest in a Tea Pot.
If we hadn’t intervened in WWI, there very likely would not have been a WWII. But I’m not sure that’s what Paul is saying.
This author, Caleb Howe, is taking delight in exaggerating Rand Paul’s words and I am not a Rand Paul supporter.
I’ve talked with a couple of Paulbots who voice this opinion. You see, the Japanese had a right to invade SE Asia to get their resources. Because FDR cut off the sale of American oil and and the Japanese needed that oil to continue their rape of China, or something.
You are reaalllly stretching. Try again.
I’ve about had it with this nutbag.
You know, like the ones Saint Obama wants to impose on Sinner Putin...
No I understand what he is saying. FDR was dying for a war with Japan for many reasons, many economic. FDR refused to negotiate with the Japanese, and forced their hand. He took a situation and made it worse.
Americans should understand that Asians were humiliated in the early 20th century by European dominance of their political and economic lives. The French in Indochina, The British in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and India, the Dutch in Indonesia and the Americans in the Philippines. The Japanese who had defeated the Russians and took over Germany’s Pacific interests, saw themselves as special and charged themselves with the liberation of Asia.Of course they were imperialistic and cruel, but the anti European sentiment and resentment was real. That sentiment is manifested today by China as it bitterly resents American political and military involvement in Asian affairs.
Kicking Germany while she was down after WW I was a good thing? I guess the same people who thought so are the same ones who thought invading Iraq was a good thing.
Paulite views on 911 were similarly skewed along the lines of the leftists that we caused it by mistreating the Arab world.
Why the Pauls fall for these old Moscow-derived lies is a question that can’t be ignored.
Yes...he clearly implies that...
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.