How much of this is true?

[Brainfade]

Riveting stuff. But, is his version of the Iran-Iraq history and Saudi-Iraq-Kuwait-Afghan-Osama accurate? Somewhat right? Or mostly wrong and misguided? I8NhRPo0WAo&feature=player_embedded

[Cricket_2_Death]

The paleoconservative viewpoint which is what this is based on his very appealing when you try to put reason to what is behind terrorism. However, I do believe it is very misguided. Logic can't be applied to disgusting Islamic Terrorists. If you ask a terrorist why they want to kill Americans/Jews/Hindus/whatever their answers are nothing like what this video is trying to make people believe. The Mullahs teaching them have taught them blind hate which is what they have thrived on since the beginning. Indians out of all people should know terrorists really don't have some kind of super complex, public-hidden motive for their actions against innocents. I will say that I do believe Ron Paul and his supporters are sincere in what they believe but their flaw is attempting to apply that to Islamic Extremism... which in my view can only be dealt with in the way they choose to treat others.

[Brainfade]

The paleoconservative viewpoint which is what this is based on his very appealing when you try to put reason to what is behind terrorism. However, I do believe it is very misguided. Logic can't be applied to disgusting Islamic Terrorists. If you ask a terrorist why they want to kill Americans/Jews/Hindus/whatever their answers are nothing like what this video is trying to make people believe. The Mullahs teaching them have taught them blind hate which is what they have thrived on since the beginning. Indians out of all people should know terrorists really don't have some kind of super complex, public-hidden motive for their actions against innocents. I will say that I do believe Ron Paul and his supporters are sincere in what they believe but their flaw is attempting to apply that to Islamic Extremism... which in my view can only be dealt with in the way they choose to treat others.

But, would you agree that there is a pattern of propping up of dictators until they become inconvenient, and then going to war to remove them? Obviously, this policy has not helped matters for 60 years (even if it wasn't the *root* of the terrorist-problem). I have this view of a defensive, not a pre-emptive military. One that was more invested more in protecting our borders than in jumping on foreign soil to take care of the problem and never being able to leave. 'Nam, 'A'stan, Iraq - all decade-old wars with very little to show. Thoughts?

[Cricket_2_Death]

But' date=' would you agree that there is a pattern of propping up of dictators until they become inconvenient, and then going to war to remove them? Obviously, this policy has not helped matters for 60 years (even if it wasn't the *root* of the terrorist-problem). I have this view of a defensive, not a pre-emptive military. One that was more invested more in protecting our borders than in jumping on foreign soil to take care of the problem and never being able to leave. 'Nam, 'A'stan, Iraq - all decade-old wars with very little to show. Thoughts?[/quote'] I know what you mean. Each case varies greatly though, for instance with Iraq. Everything was going great until Saddam got consumed by his power. He really shot himself in the foot by using Biological weapons (a form of WMD) against his own people - the Kurds. Then he decided to invade Kuwait, in retrospect people can look back and blame it all on the U.S. but this wouldn't be doing justice to the truth. It would be very interesting to think of what Iraq would be like right now with Saddam in control had he NOT made those two idiotic blunders. I don't think America is as double-faced that Paleocons are making it out to be. I also think Vietnam was fought incorrectly from the beginning. The whole defensive first mindset when they went in was a big mistake. It should have been a complete all out offensive against the North from the start, pummeling them into submission and starving them with blockades. The fear of China and the USSR intervening was what stopped the U.S. from truly taking a path that would have brought fast victory. I know I'm not really being very thorough but there are so many details to go into.

[Brainfade]

I know what you mean. Each case varies greatly though' date=' for instance with Iraq. Everything was going great until Saddam got consumed by his power. He really shot himself in the foot by using [b']Biological weapons (a form of WMD) against his own people - the Kurds. Then he decided to invade Kuwait, in retrospect people can look back and blame it all on the U.S. but this wouldn't be doing justice to the truth. It would be very interesting to think of what Iraq would be like right now with Saddam in control had he NOT made those two idiotic blunders. I don't think America is as double-faced that Paleocons are making it out to be. I also think Vietnam was fought incorrectly from the beginning. The whole defensive first mindset when they went in was a big mistake. It should have been a complete all out offensive against the North from the start, pummeling them into submission and starving them with blockades. The fear of China and the USSR intervening was what stopped the U.S. from truly taking a path that would have brought fast victory. I know I'm not really being very thorough but there are so many details to go into.

Not to harp on details, but I thought Saddam used chemical (not biological) warfare against the Kurds.

[Cricket_2_Death]

Not to harp on details' date=' but I thought Saddam used chemical (not biological) warfare against the Kurds.[/quote'] You are correct, sorry for the mix up. The chemical weapons were also used against the Iranian soldiers which I forgot to mention. I think he was extensively pursing biological weapons but I'm unsure if he was able to completely develop any.

[yoda]

Good video CA. I really like Ron Paul and his stance on foreign policy and totally agree with him. Most of the terrorism problems the US faces are self inflicted wounds. At some point the US has to seriously go through an introspection to see if this really is worth it. Spending trillions waging wars world over, creating more enemies, and then spending trillions more protecting yourself against these newly created enemies.

[surajmal]

Good video CA. I really like Ron Paul and his stance on foreign policy and totally agree with him. Most of the terrorism problems the US faces are self inflicted wounds. At some point the US has to seriously go through an introspection to see if this really is worth it. Spending trillions waging wars world over' date=' creating more enemies, and then spending trillions more protecting yourself against these newly created enemies.[/quote'] its the economy stupid. Yeah, it keeps the cycle going. However, I think, the cycle will be broken once there are new energy sources on the market. Some alternate to gasoline (I don't really like the options available at present) as well as nuclear fusion reactors (u235 is damn expensive too) for the grid. But then you could see skirmishes in outerspace because moon happens to be a rich source of tritium. Actually, I think this world is gonna end in a world wide fireball soon enough. Human beings are cvnts. plain and simple.

[Clarke]

There is no doubt about it, America by itself would be much better off without all those wars and external interventions. It would be interesting to note though, what would the world look like .. for instance, at what point would have China stopped in 1962 ? Would they simply hand over the captured territory ? There is a documentary that does explore the possibility in the current context, recommended if you do not hate Niall Ferguson. Its also a lesson for those who constantly bicker "America wages wars for oil". [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQtNxKZZnbE]The World Without US - YouTube[/ame]

[Cricket_2_Death]

There is no doubt about it, America by itself would be much better off without all those wars and external interventions. It would be interesting to note though, what would the world look like .. for instance, at what point would have China stopped in 1962 ? Would they simply hand over the captured territory ? There is a documentary that does explore the possibility in the current context, recommended if you do not hate Niall Ferguson. Its also a lesson for those who constantly bicker "America wages wars for oil". The World Without US - YouTube

Watched a few minutes of this and it looks good. I'm going to go ahead and watch the whole thing before I go to sleep, thanks for this. :icflove: