Posted on 03/31/2014 11:04:32 AM PDT by gwgn02
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
Some say FDRs ultimatum was analogous to the Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia: to stay a sovereign nation the only response was war.
Some say, but some are idiots.
Our only demand was that they remove their troops from Indochina.
Imperial Japan probably beats Nazi Germany by a long shot on the brutality scale.
Well, if FDR had listened to the winds of war, perhaps we would not have been so vulnerable....
I wish we all were more careful to do that.
How were the Nazis more humane, exactly?
Was it better to be gassed than bayonetted?
To be death-marched across tundra than across jungle?
You know who this helps? Ted Cruz, that’s who. For those of us still a bit shaky about considering a Libertarian vote, this helps to clarify exactly who and what we are dealing with. At least Rand is being honest about it.
The attack on Hawaii was a truly bold, innovative stroke by the Japanese and not an obvious move.
There wouldn’t have been a WWII if we hadn’t jumped in and prolonged WWI.
It is controversial, inasmuch as it is a lie.
How do you prolong a stalemate?
Is this the best Libertarians can do to explain or defend against a gangster US government?
This is completely ridiculous.
What a kook! I think we have run out of leaders irrespective of political party, left right etc.
Quote: “Yeah, ‘cause all of Ron Paul’s supporters went home the day he retired and NOT ONE of them attached themselves to his son. And if Michelle Obama runs, she’ll have to find her own followers, same as Hillary Clinton, Dubya and Jeb.”
Yeah, because Barak Obama’s supporters are pure as the wind driven snow and will never follow Hillary. She will have to work hard to convince them to vote for her. And we know how much they just love the Jews. Israel has never had a closer friend than those Obama followers.
There wouldn’t have been one except for our interference.
Were we talking about Hillary and the Jews? Nice straw man you’ve got there.
I have to hand it to them for playing on and feeding negative preconceived perceptions to take out their Republican competition.
It's too bad the GOPe is a lesser form of the standard full strength progressives, otherwise I could respect their tricks, but it is what it is.
And as it is, we're being treated to the same stuff they did in 2010 to give us Romney, who campaigned hard against Republicans and not at all against obama.
In other words, here we go again: same tactics, same responses, same result. Rove strikes again.
74 posts later and we are still running with the original narrative, namely, the Paul blamed the US for WWII. I have listened to the comments and, while not in agreement with them, I do not see them as blaming American for WWII.
What if the headline had read: “Paul cautions against treating sanctions as a meaningless example, uses pre-WWII sanctions on Japan as example.” Not saying that is 100% accurate but am pointing out that headlines sure do frame a ton of discussions here on FR, perhaps to serve someone else’s purpose.
So where in that post did I say that the Nazis were more humane than the Bushido?
Quote: “Were we talking about Hillary and the Jews? Nice straw man you’ve got there.”
Just so I know where we are: I noted that equating Rand with Ron Paul was not necessarily fair.
It seems to me that you said the equation of the two is valid based on the fact that Rand would be picking up Ron’s supporters. In other words, I took this to mean that you felt Ron’s supporters views were imputable to Rand.
You then noted that Jeb, Hillary or whoever would have to build their own base and would not be able to rely on an established base.
My retort was that I seriously doubted Hillary would not have Obama’s base. Doesn’t that mean then, by your logic, that the views of Obama’s base could be imputed to Hillary if she was picking up their support. I noted that some of Obama’s base is anti-semetic, to say the least.
Perhaps I mistook your argument but if not, where is the straw man?
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.