Democrats (and some GOP) need a lesson in accountability
I must begin by giving a hat tip to Mike Lief for this story; his post (and blog for that matter) has a level of insight that escapes me as my sinus infection and impending bronchitis have rendered my thought processes handicapped at the moment.
Several House Representatives have initiated House Resolution 1595, a WWII reparations bill to pay surviving residents of Guam who were attacked by the Japanese. Yes, the taxpayers of the United States are going to pay WWII Chamorro's reparations for "death, rape, severe personal injury, personal injury, forced labor, forced march, or internment" caused by the Japanese military occupation of Guam. John Campbell has some perspective on the cost to taxpayers.
What the hell do these people have against being an American that lends credence to the idea that we are responsible for the troubles that befall others when an enemy of the U.S. harms them?
I scratch my head at this resolution, given the sympathy evoking title of 'Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act', the same way I wondered why there was no statute of limitations on the slavery issue and why reparationists demand subsequent monetary payment to black Americans. There is a loose tie between the two but they are both based on a premise that "America sucks and should pay out the ass for it."
When reading the Resolution you will see phrases like the one that leads off Section 2- "RECOGNITION OF THE SUFFERING AND LOYALTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF GUAM". Further down, this paragraph:
Here is a list of representatives who support this Resolution:House List
I wrote a letter to Niel Abercrombie, Hawaii Democrat Representative, expressing my distaste of his support for this Resolution. I would encourage you to do the same.
Several House Representatives have initiated House Resolution 1595, a WWII reparations bill to pay surviving residents of Guam who were attacked by the Japanese. Yes, the taxpayers of the United States are going to pay WWII Chamorro's reparations for "death, rape, severe personal injury, personal injury, forced labor, forced march, or internment" caused by the Japanese military occupation of Guam. John Campbell has some perspective on the cost to taxpayers.
What the hell do these people have against being an American that lends credence to the idea that we are responsible for the troubles that befall others when an enemy of the U.S. harms them?
I scratch my head at this resolution, given the sympathy evoking title of 'Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act', the same way I wondered why there was no statute of limitations on the slavery issue and why reparationists demand subsequent monetary payment to black Americans. There is a loose tie between the two but they are both based on a premise that "America sucks and should pay out the ass for it."
When reading the Resolution you will see phrases like the one that leads off Section 2- "RECOGNITION OF THE SUFFERING AND LOYALTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF GUAM". Further down, this paragraph:
The United States forever will be grateful to the residents of Guam for their steadfast loyalty to the United States of America, as demonstrated by the countless acts of courage they performed despite the threat of death or great bodily harm they faced at the hands of the Imperial Japanese military forces that occupied Guam during World War II.I have been to Guam many times and have visited the sites on the island that honor the people of Guam and their bravery and their allegiance to the United States. But why are they singled out to be the sole benificiaries of Japanese atrocities? Will these America haters find a small island in the Atlantic theater of WWII that suffered German occupation and offer them the same reparations?
Here is a list of representatives who support this Resolution:House List
I wrote a letter to Niel Abercrombie, Hawaii Democrat Representative, expressing my distaste of his support for this Resolution. I would encourage you to do the same.
If you actually read the bill & the history behind it, you would find that after WWII the United States incurred all war debt by signing the peace treaty.
ReplyDeleteThis bill has the U.S. government paying for damanges and suffering caused by Japan because the World War II peace treaty with Tokyo prevented further claims resulting from the war.
Therefore, its the United States government's responsibilty and instead of posing misinformed questions, the real question here should be "why has it taken over 60+ years for these reparations?"
I did actually read the bill, but kudos for your lame attempt at a history lesson. Since you jumped to the conclusion that I did not read the bill, I will reciprocate and assume you are from Abercrombie's office, attempting to justify this bill on his behalf.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what history book told you that the U.S. would pick up the tab for the war debt. To refresh your memory, Clause 16 of the Treaty of San Francisco states:
"As an expression of its desire to indemnify those members of the armed forces of the Allied Powers who suffered undue hardships while prisoners of war of Japan, Japan will transfer its assets and those of its nationals in countries which were neutral during the war, or which were at war with any of the Allied Powers, or, at its option, the equivalent of such assets, to the International Committee of the Red Cross which shall liquidate such assets and distribute the resultant fund to appropriate national agencies, for the benefit of former prisoners of war and their families on such basis as it may determine to be equitable. The categories of assets described in Article 14(a)2(II)(ii) through (v) of the present Treaty shall be excepted from transfer, as well as assets of Japanese natural persons not residents of Japan on the first coming into force of the Treaty. It is equally understood that the transfer provision of this Article has no application to the 19,770 shares in the Bank for International Settlements presently owned by Japanese financial institutions."
So, it seems Japan was held responsible for part of the reparations. Why couldn't they have forked over reparations to Guam?
Clause 14 of the treaty stated that "Japan will promptly enter into negotiations with Allied Powers so desiring, whose present territories were occupied by Japanese forces and damaged by Japan, with a view to assisting to compensate those countries for the cost of repairing the damage done, by making available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for the Allied Powers in question."
Japan was held responsible for those reparations.
Nice try.