Why Rand Paul is Wrong to Blame the US for Pearl Harbor

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


pearlharbor_paper1

The views in the video aren’t surprising. They’re the views of Ron and Rand Paul and their intellectual milieu which believes that most wars are set up by banks. According to them, the US need not have gotten involved in WW2.

“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.” Paul says.

Paleocon revisionist historians go on to claim even that Japan exhausted every diplomatic outlet and that it had no choice left but to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Sanctions were never really the issue though. Japan wanted European powers out of Asia. And it considered America a European power.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a flanking raid in support of the Japanese seizure of the Dutch East Indies. A major reason for Japan’s attack on the US was its assumption that FDR would not have let Japan attack the UK without a response. We no doubt could have abandoned the UK and the Dutch, watched the atrocities from a distance, the torture, mass murder and rape, and gone on selling Japan anything it wanted.

Would that have worked? Doubtfully.

The Japanese army and navy were poorly controlled and its officers were drunk with power and victory. Their understanding of their own limitations was often non-existent. Plans for war with the US had been in place for a while and there were historical grudges there long predating FDR.

A victorious Japan would have been even more difficult to co-exist with than an overcommitted one. Furthermore Hawaii had enough Japanese that the whole Volksdeutsche scenario would have reared its ugly head.

The US could no doubt have ceded Hawaii, but where exactly does all that end?

Japan, like Nazi Germany, was trying to compensate for a bad economic policy with war and conquest. Every victory fed military egos while piling up more problems that could only be dealt with through more war and conquest.

The idea that the US could have just stayed out of Japan’s way is like thinking that you can stay out of a mugger’s way. You can, a few times, but if you intend on being in the neighborhood, he will come for you.

  • Habbgun

    The Pauls are the worst and Libertarians continue to amaze. They seem to be conservative at first but the more you see the more you realize they are disaffected Leftists. Does Rand really believe this kind of crap will get him elected? Pearl Harbor was an attack not performance art meant to show dissatisfaction with American policies.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      What unites the Left and the Extremist Right?

      SOCIALISM.

      National SOCIALISM (hitler) and Soviet SOCIALISM – allied in 1939 – until the national SOCIALISTS reneged on the pact and invaded the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Regimes.

      • Seek

        Absurd lowbrow gibberish. National Socialism is an entirely different political species from International, or Marxist-Leninist, Socialism. The two always have hated each other. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 was an act of short-run strategic convenience, not ideological principle. The Nazis showed as much by invading the Soviet Union less than two years later.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          National Socialists and Soviet Socialists.

          United for a while – worked together to invade Poland and divide it up.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

          The Socialist alliance worked for two years.

          And today, Socialists, (red) have aligned themselves with Islamists (green) – hence the Red / Green alliance.

          Aren’t the Islamists already attacking Eurabia – like your national Socialists attacked your Soviet Socialists???

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Seek? Seeking half-truths and spins?

          We’ve heard of Socialist hitler sputter about Bolsheviks – but NEVER Socialists.

          Wonder why???

          • Igor

            See my replay above to Seek

          • Doobee

            Not really. Hitler didn’t know his buht from first base when it came to politics, economics, Soviet Marxism-Leninism, or anything else except of course, stirring up hate.

        • Habbgun

          Nah…..they are practically one and the same. Road to Serfdom brilliantly spelled it out. Both came out of the already Socialist German culture. Both Marx and Hitler are Germans…..and both are very much a product of Germany. Sorry but the very reason that the two are so closely linked is the reason you have to scream low brow gibberish. Either that or you are very, very ignorant about what socialism is and who it is meant to benefit.

          • Doobee

            Adolph Hitler was an Austrian, actually. Most higher class Germans despised him from the beginning because he was a low class, ill-bred, ill-educated, German language version of an Austrian hillbilly. German President Paul Hindenburg despised him so much, he initially refused to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Hindenburg finally relented only because other government officials convinced him that Hitler wouldn’t last a year as Chancellor.

          • Habbgun

            Hitler may have been a low Austrian but he was clearly of the Germanic culture and the National Socialists were an existing socialist party and had with the Communists, common roots. The National Socialists had different philosophers from which they got their politics. To say that Hitler represented something foreign to Germany is not so. That he represented something extreme and mad is true but not foreign. The tyrant is always with us. It is the general culture and political environment that gives him power or keeps him from doing harm.

          • Doobee

            I didn’t say or even remotely suggest that Hitler represented something “foreign” to Germany. I said that most of the German nobility (yes, there was such a thing) and/or the monied classes of Germany saw Hitler as a rube. He was born and raised in the equivalent of an Appalachian holler where everyone was related to everyone else; there was a great deal of rural poverty; and he spoke German like a hick. It didn’t help one bit that he was Austrian by birth–at least, not with the upper classes. Weimar President Hindenburg, as I said, regarded him as trailer trash because he was.

          • Habbgun

            You are right but you are ignoring the Socialistic nature of German society and Hayek speaks of that. In an economically free environment people are freer to pursue cultural differences and power stays decentralized. Hitler was able to exploit the highly centralized nature of German society and Germans themselves were proud of their socialism. Clausewitz even mentions that Germans should be socialist and not capitalist since they needed to insure that the German men stayed at a fit level and Capitalism would instead exploit Germans for the worse. I am not sure what you are saying. Germans gave themselves over to a totalitarian state and a culture that does that is guilty. A tyrant needs the active help of a strong percentage of the population and Russia under Stalin and Germany under Hitler complied. US culture is guilty of supporting and harboring the Moslem Brotherhood. The political culture and academic culture supports it even if Americans as a whole don’t support it. There is anevil aspect to America and time will tell if it becomes dominant.

          • Doobee

            All I am saying is that AH and the Nasties never imposed socialism in PRACTICE, notwithstanding the political party name: National Socialist German Workers’ Party (the German acronym was NSDAP) or any references to “socialism” by Clausewitz or any other German intellectuals. German industry was permitted to profit as always; it’s just that after 1933, the state (AH and the NSDAP) told all German industries what they would be manufacturing and how much, and what they began to manufacture was largely arms and munitions. If the German industrialists had not been permitted to earn profits, they never would have supported AH politically to the extent they did.

          • Habbgun

            Then I suggest you read Road to Serfdom and the Austrian school economists. The Nazis did practice socialism, promoted socialism and their ideas were geared to the success of socialism. It is a common mistake to see nationalism as the opposite of socialism but it is a variant. The national socialist believes that socialism is entirely possible within the nation state the international socialist only as a worldwide community. The Nazis were ardent nationalists but that is because they felt that they could achieve a socialist paradise in Germany if only the people believed enough in the greatness of Germany. If you read Road to Serfdom and other Austrian school economists you will find that free market proponents called Hitler the wonderful Mr. Hitler because he dropped the mask and said what socialists would have liked to have said but did not because when rawly expressed the ideas were ugly, just like Nazism was ugly..

        • Moa

          Sorry Seek, but SCREW SOCIALISM is correct.

          Here’s a bit of history to help you understand. The Nationalist Socialists (Nazis) were the darlings of the International Left, particularly of the Left in the US in the 1930s. This was heightened when the Nationalist Socialists and the Soviet Socialists worked together to carve up Poland.

          Once the Nazis and the Soviets fell out in 1941 the American Left sided with the Soviets and demonized the Nationalist Socialists as “right wing”. In fact, the Nazis were still Big-State socialists as they always were and still politically Left. National Socialism and Soviet Socialist are not opposites, they are *rivals* of the Far Left.

          So, the political Left that dominates the media, academia and education have been repeating the meme that the Nationalist Socialists were “far Right” for decades. But repeating a falsehood does not make it true, it just makes it very commonly believed.

          The Left has lied to you, Seek, and no one has ever bothered to tell you the truth. That means that you didn’t really understand what SCREW SOCIALISM was saying, or why he (she?) said it.

          I hope this post has helped correct your view. Please think about what I’ve said. Also note that the Left pumps out all sorts of false memes all the time, and they are very very commonly held, but still false.

          Here is a great diagram that shows the Liberty Dimension of politics. It shows that the political Left gives power to the State while the political Right has the individual retain power (not ceding it to the State). This is the diagram the Left do not want you to understand:

          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TI8bO8GurcI/TMGUCecRxYI/AAAAAAAACWw/i_E8qshErRA/s1600/Political+Spectrum+Diagram+-+Domestic+Relations.jpg

          from

          http://chowanriver.blogspot.com/2010/10/where-do-people-really-stand.html

          Note:
          * the Left is Big State, which means the individual has less power. Big State systems include National Socialism (“Nazi-ism”), Soviet Socialism (“Communism”) etc. The Democrats fall on this side of the spectrum, and Obama is moving things further Left.

          * the Right is Small State, which means the individual has more power and the State can’t take your stuff or tell you how to live your life. The Rupublican “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only) are actually Left of Center here. The Tea Party are Conservatives, as were the Founding Fathers of the US.

          The true “Far Right” are the Anarchists who believe in no Government. Of course, when you are as Far Left as Obama’s Democrats are, even the Center looks Right, and Conservatives seem Far Right to those neo-Communists of the Left.

          I hope that clears things up for you. SCREW SOCIALISM was right :)

          • NAHALKIDES

            Good diagram. I’ve been trying to make this point myself, that the Left-Right spectrum runs from maximal government power to maximal liberty (minimal government power). Of course the Left likes to pretend that Fascism is on the Right somewhere, so people won’t realize that it’s hand-in-hand with socialism.

          • Doobee

            In my view, the left likes to pretend and more often pretends that “capitalists” are fascists who just like to make money. That was the view of Stalin et al during WWII, and it’s actually pretty close to Marx’s original views of the bourgeoisie, though he was writing prior to the fascist era. Stalin pushed that proganda full time during the war.

          • Moa

            Thank you. Don’t forget to bookmark that page and spread the link around. It is amazing that such a simple diagram explains a lot – and it is the Tea Party view of the World (which is the same as how the US Founding Fathers saw things, a Big State inevitably leads to less Liberty for citizens).

            Don’t forget, that fascism’s best example is “National Socialism”, and it is the second word that makes all the difference, and what makes it similar to Communism (Soviet Socialism).

            Here’s a great (economics) definition of fascism from Thomas Sowell that you might enjoy:
            “Thomas Sowell – Obama’s Failed Economic Policies”
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi8eLSyb7RM [5 mins]

        • Igor

          They hated each other because they competed for the same audience – lumpen proletariat and no-nothing intekllectuals. And they helped each other to destroy non extreme left and right

          • Doobee

            Right, no question that the two were competing ideologies throughout the Weimar Republic period.

        • Doobee

          Both were totalitarian governments, were they not? They had that in common if nothing else. That’s enough to make me glad I never had to live under either government.

    • NAHALKIDES

      Actually, I believe there’s a more complicated reason Libertarians agree with the Left on foreign policy, where both see the U.S. as the problem. The Left hates the U.S. because it is a nation founded on the ideal of freedom, whereas the Libertarian attempts to negate all values and has an anarchistic hatred of all government, even a free one.

      • Doobee

        Excellent analysis.

        • NAHALKIDES

          Thank you. I didn’t want to “advertise” this before, but I expanded upon this point and Libertarianism’s other shortcomings in Libertarianism Minus Conservatism = Zero, if that might interest you.

          –N. A. Halkides, StubbornThings.org

          • Doobee

            Nice. Thanks, N.A H.

      • Anukem Jihadi

        They’re isolationists and there’s nothing new about that. I don’t think Rand sees America as the problem. He sees international entanglements as the problem and his solution is to simply mind the store and forget about the competition. Unfortunately that doesn’t always work out so great..

    • Marsha

      He is also for some form of illegal amnesty and believes 3rd worlders are the future of the US. Ron Paul spoke about how much he admired Ayn Rand. That’s who Rand was named after. They both are libertarian lefties.

      • Doobee

        I don’t think it’s useful to describe them as “libertarian lefties.” I think it’s more useful and accurate to describe them as self-described “libertarians” who view all government, including the U.S. government, as irredeemably malevolent. This is not only a twisted view; it’s frightening. I’d call them libertarian anarchists. The anarchist movement which existed at or around the turn of the 20th century, was every bit as violent as their leftist cousins.

        • No RNC

          The anarchist movement = murderous Fabian Socialist…nothing like the Anarchist of libertarian values as reflected in MOA’s chart.

          • Doobee

            Sorry, but I still see the Pauls as libertarian-anarchists. The videos here reflect a deep antipathy for ALL governments. I don’t think we need another president who regards the government prior to himself as evil.

    • WilliamRD

      How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

      http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

      • No RNC

        There’s a case I think could be made that an FDR who was completely handled by a Stalin controlled cabinet was convinced to deter a potential Japanese attack on their bitter enemy the USSR by provoking an attack on Pearl Harbor. This also had the added advantage of pushing the non-intervention US population into a fight against the yellow demons, da JAPS aka da Terrorist of WW2.

        • Doobee

          Evidence? Citations? Links, please? Your theory seems far-fetched at best, NoRNC.

          You been in the liquor cabinet again?

    • No RNC

      Please, U BigGov lovin’ NeoCons & their Bolshevik brethren are always blaming someone for their idiotic militaristic ideologies. How about this for not supporting war on all, War is the health of the State. The State is a Tyrant no matter what ideology = 200M 20th C. Democides!

      • Habbgun

        The state is a tyrant if white trash like you are in charge. Now go practice freedom by having yourself a big gay marriage.

  • cxt

    Honestly kind of sad…..I rather like Rand Paul and some of his positions, but this stuff is deeply troubling.
    He appears out of touch and poorly informed on history. While at the same time having really strong ideological views. In short very much like our current President.
    We have already seen where this leads.

    • Doobee

      What strikes me about both of them is how nonchalant they are when they say the goofiest crap.

  • Max

    If Rand Paul win the nomination I guess I will stay home. I am not voting for a moron with zero understanding of history.

    • DogmaelJones1

      “Zero understanding of history” and lessons not drawn from history? Too much a description of our current “leader.”

      • Max

        The difference between the Paul’s and Obama on foreign policy is Obama probably doesn’t have as much contempt for the US as the Paul’s. The three of them are pretty much the same page on foreign policy.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          They all accept the premise that American foreign policy is the root of all the world’s problems.

          • Max

            Yep

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Certainly the view of Socialist Eurabia.

        • Doobee

          The only difference I can see is that Obama sees America as a racist, neo-colonialist empire that needs to be punished severely if not destroyed for the sins of all the white men who preceeded him in office. In short, Obama’s racialist views are the big difference.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The lessor of two evils – is still evil.

      • Gee

        I know a family member that writes in Cthulhu – because he never votes for a lessor evil

        • NAHALKIDES

          H. P. Lovecraft! Here is his description of Nyarlathotep (remind you of anyone we know?):

          “Who he was, none could tell, but he was of the old native blood and looked like a Pharaoh. The fellahin knelt when they saw him, yet could not say why. He said he had risen up out of the blackness of twenty-seven centuries, and that he had heard messages from places not on this planet. Into the lands of civilisation came Nyarlathotep, swarthy, slender, and sinister, always buying strange instruments of glass and metal and combining them into instruments yet stranger. He spoke much of the sciences—of electricity and psychology—and gave exhibitions of power which sent his spectators away speechless, yet which swelled his fame to exceeding magnitude. Men advised one another to see Nyarlathotep, and shuddered. And where Nyarlathotep went, rest vanished; for the small hours were rent with the screams of nightmare.”

          He’s spoken of electricity, all right – mainly, how to shut it off! My favorite sentence is the last one: “And where Nyarlathotep went, rest vanished; for the small hours were rent with the screams of nightmare.”

          Best description of life under Obama, ever.

  • Mark

    He did not say or hint that the US caused Pearl Harbor to happen. He didn’t come close to saying anything of the sort. He was actually arguing FOR sanctions against Iran. Did anyone actually even watch the video?

  • Race_Dissident

    Many of these same sorts of nutbags also believe that FDR knew about the impending attack but let it happen because he wanted war with Japan, and that America need not have used the nukes on Japan. Such people not only dislike contemporary America–a position that is actually quite logical–but despise the America of the past as well.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Acc to a former aide, Ron Paul believed the FDR thing. N

      They’re like the Zinn-ites. They have an entire alternate version of history in which everything was a lie and a conspiracy going back to Washington.

      • Race_Dissident

        Yes, it’s amazing how alike the paleocon right and the pomo Left are on foreign policy and the United States. And I say that as a man who himself has a pronounced paleocon streak.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          I call ‘em the NEO-COMMIE Left.

        • Doobee

          I don’t think of the Pauls as paleocons, for what it’s worth. I see them as weird–in the sense of having a loose screw. There’s something odd about both of them.

      • No RNC

        I find it difficult to believe that the erudite Dan Greenfield actually believes the US Federal Gov about anything from Economics to Freedom to War starting False Flags. I imagine PaleoCons & Libertarians think the NeoCon/Big-gov Cons are a cult of global war failures & murderous destruction; see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia….& the list continues all the way back to the original NeoCon dishonest Abe Lincoln!

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    Actually, a case can be made for saying that Japan started to get out of control, by their victory in the Russo-Japanese war, 1904. They inflicted a terrible defeat on the Czar’s fleet at Tsushima Straits, and the myth of Japanese invincibility was given a big push forward. But the Japanese really tipped their hand in 1943, when they invaded the Aleutian Islands, to build a base from which to invade the Continental U.S. The U.S. was forced to send several thousand Army Rangers to push the Japanese off Attu, which took several weeks of hard fighting, in bitter cold(Springtime in Alaska), at high altitude. As Daniel says, if you want to stay in the neighborhood, the muggers will come for you. Are you listening, Sen. Paul?

    • Yasha7

      Yes, my dad was one of the Army Corps of Engineers sent to the Aleutians to build the runway at Dutch Harbor. They put those guys up in pup tents in the bitter cold. He didn’t talk about it much, but I know from him that it was just brutal.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Japan was spending money cultivating a domestic minority fifth column because they thought that they could use a ‘black army’ to invade America.

      • A Z

        What “black army”?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          African-Americans.

          • Doobee

            Really? Amazing.

  • Ambriorix_Le_Belge

    When you listen to Ron Paul’s views on 9/11 you could be listening to Michael Moore. He basically says we deserve it because of our foreign policy, an odious line of reasoning you’d expect from a leftist college ‘intellectual’, not a Republican. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      His wig wearing son Randy isn’t much better – probably hides his true beliefs better – for now.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s the common thread in father and son.

      “A perpetual drone war in Pakistan makes those people more angry and not less angry.”

      “It’s one thing to say yeah, these people are going to probably come and attack us, which to tell you the truth is probably not always true. There are people fighting a civil war in Yemen who probably have no conception of ever coming to America.”

      “Think about it. If it were your family member and they have been killed and they were innocent or you believe them to be innocent, it’s going to – is it going to make you more or less likely to become involved with attacking the United States?”

      …from Rand Paul’s drone filibuster

    • Doobee

      Absolutely. I was appalled when I saw this live. Ron Paul should have been drummed out of the Rep. Party that night.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Ever see the MORON Paulbots campaign for their furher?

    It’s like a cult. No. It IS a cult.

  • WillielomanIII

    Wow…anyone who still has illusions that Rand Paul is not a Pat Buchanan type isolationist is clearly either not listening or is of the same ilk as Paul.

    First, He states that it is not a good idea for Iran to get nukes…not that they should not have them and not that we must do what is necessary to stop them..not it is just not a good idea.

    Second, he completely misses the point that Iran getting nukes leads to a first strike by Iran and then, maybe, all out war, and he prefers that scenario vs. us taking out Irans nukes before they can be used. Mindbogglingly dumb and dangers to the US.

    Third, listen to who he quotes, Gen Zinni (Israel basher) and Meir Dagan who is partly responsible for Iran getting nukes through the failure of his agency.

    Rand Paul is the kind of isolationist that gives us World Wars. Basically he is Obama without the drone policy. No possible way could any American that wants to not get the US into a World War support Rand Paul.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Isolationism – like FAKE anti-War activists – benefits the aggressor (national SOCIALISM and Islamofascism).

      In the years prior to WW2 and today.

    • Doobee

      Ron Paul is a lunatic. Apparently Rand thinks a lot like one.

  • A Z

    “Sanctions were never really the issue though. Japan wanted European powers out of Asia. And it considered America a European power.”

    Pretty Much. Read the book Empress Dowager Cixi by Jung Chang. Read page 234, but also everything from the Sino-Japanese War on.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There’s a pattern of assuming that the other guy will be satisfied with what you think he should be satisfied with.

      • A Z

        After 1895 Japan got Taiwan. What they actually wanted was all of China.

        That is what happens when you lose a war.

  • georgejochnowitz

    Leftists and rightists (not to be confused with liberals and conservatives) are united by the most powerful political force on earth–anti-Zionism, the child of anti-Semitism.

    http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/LeftAndRightUnited.html

  • Shmalkandik

    Critics of Pau’s analysis need to read Toland, and remember that there was no majority supporting US entry into war before 7th December 1941.

    I suggest Pear Harbor occured as a result of a fit of absence of mind on pratically all levels of the US government. We stumbled over ourselves, for a war with the Japan that was not necessary

    Beyond that,
    here are some facts:

    1)US had NO strategic interests in China or French IndoChina.

    2) The Japanese did

    3) Roosevelt wanted the US in the war. We can agree those who claim he wanted to lose the first battle to Japan are wrong. Similarly, various US agencies had broken the IJN codes, and had the attack orders, but the problem was having too much information, and lacking any process to sort through it fast enough to make policy recommendations

    4) FDR’s desire to engage Japan was based on his belief in the absolute superiority of the USN over the IJN. His expertise in naval affairs, stemming from the time he had been Secretary of th Navy, may actually have hindered his understanding the import of the force changes the IN had made.

    5) Japan did not consider attacking the US till after the US placed an embargo on oil exports there. The IN was nearly entirely dependent on US, and only an 18 month suppply on hand. Their choice was to capitulte to US demands for Japan to withdraw from China entirely and French IndoChina. While it has emerged that this was much stronger than FDR wished to convey , there is no doubt now at this is what Japan’s military leaders believed to be his intention..

    The complementary error on the US side was that the oil embargo would cause Japan to reconsider its position and comply with the US desires on China and French Indochina.

    Combine these errors, and you get the enabling conditions for war.

    6) Most Americans agreed with Senator Harry Truman that that US policy should be to wair till WW2 was over and take on the winnger.

    7) Japan was amenable to bribses. Rather than adding to the layers of emgargo, the US coul have offered to Japan guarantees on loads, access to US markets, and raw materials (steel and oil) that would have supported the Konoye faction in Japan’s government, letting it claim that Japan could get all it needed from the US without the risk of waar..

    8) The japan woudl have attacked the British and Dutch in any case. But, there seems no reason to believe that US citizens would have supported entering the war on the UK’s side then, even as they did not support the same in 1940 when Great Britain itself was in danger of being invaded.

    9) Japan had been an ally in WW1and was hoping the US would support its naval treaty with the UK in 1922. The US did not. This was the first step in Japan’s elite moving from support to suspicion of the US.

    The issue is not an allocation of moral blame. Whatever the provocation, Japan threw the first punch. But, we should learn from this how close the US was to avoiding war with Japan, and that many of the actions the US took made with Japan more likely.

    We should learn prudence from our own history, and try to practice more of it in the future.

    Dulce bellum inexpertis.

    • A Z

      You should play that way, when you play a game of Risk.

      2.) Japan had a strategic interest in China? What does that mean? A pretext to invade?

      • Shmalkandik

        Yes pretty much the way nrew Jackson took Florida.

        • A Z

          Jackson who?

        • Doobee

          Except that America DID have a strategic interest in Florida. It’s just that JQ Adams didn’t authorize AJ to pursue it, but he did anyway. That’s because AJ understood the strategic interest America had in it.

        • A Z

          I recognize “Andrew Jackson” ( Adams–Onís Treaty). Either the name Andrew was not their before and/or I did not see the connection.

          I don’t remember Chinese Pirates attacking Japan or Okinawa or anything else. I have heard of numerous Japanese pirates for the last 4 centuries attacking China.

          Okinawa was an independent (client) kingdom until 1870 that the Japanese took, because China did not have the military to stop them

          Jackson chased a raiding part across the border. If we adjust the #s for inflation, maybe we would have a better feel for how big the incursion was.

          The U.S. admitting Texas into the Union is a matter of freedom of association. The Mexican government made the mistake.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      5. Japan had been planning for war with the US a good deal earlier than that.

      8 cancels out 7. Assuming the US had abased itself to the point that Japan no longer believed it would defend the UK, sooner or later Japan would have gone down the list to the US.

      There was no way of avoiding war. Only a way of delaying it.

      • Shmalkandik

        The US ORANGE plan considerably preceeded any thing Japan had planned or investigated. One of the reasons the USN ws not as prepared as it ould be was that it was that its thinking was formed by it.

        • Doobee

          Learn to spell.

    • Doobee

      Your post is so grammatically poor, it’s almost incomprehensible.

      “The issue is not an allocation of moral blame.”

      Except that’s exactly what you’ve suggested it appears, since you said, it appears, that Japan had a choice of two courses only. One was to attack the U.S. They chose that path.

      So Japan was ruled by militarists and racists who had imposed a dictatorship on Korea which went back until at least 1905 had invaded and conquered Manchuria in 1931. Moreover, the official religion of Japan, Shintoism, is essentially, a religion based in the racial and cultural supremacy of the Japanese people.

      But you prefer to think of Japan as a country which just couldn’t help itself in resorting to serious military violence on a country which had simply refused to supply it with oil so Japan could continue its Samurai traditions and imperial designs. Nice.

  • kevinstroup

    For all of Rand Paul’s blemishes, I will take him over a socialist any day.

    • gray_man

      So would I, but I wold take Ted Cruz over both the Paul’s put together.

  • AndyTexan

    Rand Paul’s eccentric foreign policy views are not his worst problem He clearly supports amnesty. Another amnesty is the the end of the United States. Just say NO. Let them self deport.

  • Doobee

    OMG, I had no idea he said this. Thanks, FPM. I had long though that there’s just something unsettling about Rand Paul. Now I see it isn’t just that he refuses for some strange reason to comb his hair. It’s that he’s a chip off the old block– the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. He’s a damm lunatic. Nurse Ratched must have let him out of the asylum. Good grief, he’s loonier than his father. I’m scratching him off my list of acceptable presidential candidates.

    • pete

      for me, it’s that whole defacto amnesty thingy – nothing says American sovereignty like – NO DESIRE whatsoever to protect her borders-nor her citizens…
      how can one be so studied and enamored of the constitution, yet goes all MEH, when it comes to border security AND still SWEAR AN OATH??

  • Infidel

    And, the Chinese were responsible for the Rape of Nanking.

  • WilliamRD

    How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

  • No RNC

    The Fleet was warned the Carriers were sent out to sea….read a bit more history.

  • Hidden Author

    If you were a tourist in North Korea and you saw a secret policeman haul off some innocent to a gulag, it would be foolish to charge the policeman, grab his gun and shoot him to free his captive even though morally the policeman is in the wrong. It would be even worse if you demanded that a second tourist do so with the help of a third tourist since then, you would immorally demand that others sacrifice to fulfill your own personal morality.

    While America has more power than a tourist in North Korea, its wars are similar in the sense that people still die over the heroic imperative to intervene. The Founding Father policy of being friends to other people’s struggle for freedom but partisans of only our own thus acquires a certain patriotic hue. That, I think, is the premise of the Pauls when they oppose America opposing Japan’s policy in opposition to China.

    • Doobee

      Well that certainly puts a comforting spin on the Pauls, but sorry, I’m not buying what they’re selling. These videos are irrefutable proof that both of the Pauls regard ALL governments–including the U.S. government–as inherently oppressive and irredeemably evil. Sorry, but that’s way too close to prog Barack Obama’s view. This country will not survive another president who believes that our government is the moral equivalent of the 3rd Reich or Stalin’s USSR. We may not even survive this President. Rand Paul is not the right man to be President of the United States.

  • Doobee

    We had a blockade on Germany AFTER WWI? That’s news to me.

  • Doobee

    While we’re on the topic of what? The Mexican War? Sorry, but AJ was already dead.

  • Frank

    Naturally, the oil blockade and ultimatum regarding China arent mentioned in this article.