Perhaps, but I still think that Ron Paul is an idiot.

I have very little patience for people who accept money from white supremacists and don't see what the problem is.

Yes, that's exactly the impression I got when I visited Iraq. (Of course, I paid for the trip and all security arrangements myself, which I had to do because the media refuse to report the few simple things I needed to know about the country.)

Exactly. Note that the United Kingdom also has such an infrastructure. And that's very good for the world. Here is hoping that India will start doing that too.

No, that alone might not be enough. But I already thought he was an idiot before I read this new well-researched (in his way) article of his.

And what did we get when it fell apart? Maintaining an empire is much cheaper than living the chaos (power vacuum) that is the alternative. It is true that it is the US that has to pay for the "empire", but for the worldatlarge it is still the better deal.

I don't think Ron Paul's ignorance can be cured. And I'm not sure it is ignorance. I find it quite possible that he actually understand the whole thing but is too dumb to realise that facts should trump ideology (many nominally smart people are). That's why I think he is an idiot. I have more faith in Barack Obama than I have in Ron Paul. I have no doubt that Ron Paul would have gone through with his extremist plans if he had become President, whereas Barack Obama seems to be unable to cope with the job and tries not to change too much. That's a lot better.

Ron Paul was the number one candidate I didn't want to win. Barrack Obama was number two. I wanted McCain, Romney, or Hillary to win.

Bingo!  Having a bunch of troothers support also didn't help that idiots cause.  I take notice when freaking Stormfront (NEO-NAZIS) support your candidacy (and Ron did not denounce it).  Which is why I consider Ron Paul to be an insane idiot.

Most people would disagree that Obama "tries not to change too much."

Also, Obama has frequently been given the exact definition of socialism, yet he still doesn't think he's a socialist.  I'm not sure why you would think he's any smarter than Ron Paul.

Yeah, not only neo-Nazis but also prostitutes and various other shady dealers.  I definitely agree that he could have chosen his supporters a little more wisely.

Oh Leauki, there you go again! No need to throw a fit. Let's see here;

So, the fact that Saddam pretty much started his career as a hired thug under the employ of the CIA has NO bearing whatsoever on any of this? Just pure happenstance?

Now, I'm going to respond to a couple of your remarks regarding terrorism in Iraq-

Who exactly are these terrorists? Wait a minute, many of them -were- terrorists (also known as insurgents in some circles) who are now being paid and armed by the U.S. That's what the awakening councils are. I thought all terrorists had to be hunted down and wiped out, that we had to fight them over there instead of fighting them over here? Instead, Petraeus...being a very smart fellow...recognized that the solution had to be political and NOT based on military might...a lesson Israel would be wise to learn. And the proof is in the pudding. Once the majority of the so-called "terrorists" went on U.S payroll to provide security it exposed how weak AQ in Iraq really was.

So, the invasion of Iraq was all about terrorism, yet had nothing to do with the terrorists who had actually carried out the worst terrorist attack in the history of the U.S?

Hhhmmm.... so, then you're not aware of the interview that Bin Laden gave in the 1990's in which he clearly stated this is exactly what he did want to happen. In the interview, Bin Laden clearly laid out that they were planning on carrying out a large attack, they were hoping this attack would trigger a "cowboy" response in which the U.S would use disproportionate military force to invade an arab country, and that this would then give AQ a chance to get easier access to U.S forces -and- help to turn the bulk of the arab world and international sentiment against the U.S. And this is exactly what happened. BTW, his plan is decades in scope and we're only at about the halfway point.

erm... no.... I seem to remember oil being in the 30-something dollar a barrel range before the invasion, then during and after it rose as high as 150 dollars a barrel (was that in 2007 or 2008?) The recent collapse of the price has nothing to do with the war in Iraq but the collapse of the entire underpinnings of our financial system. The cause of the "credit crisis" as you refer to it is far, far more complicated than lending money to deadbeat poor people and was decades in the making.

This is indeed interesting... with what army would the U.S have used to invade Germany in 1930? It's army was tiny and had woefully inadequate equipment at the time, and the U.S economy was in utter shambles and in no position to do -anything- under the Republican Hoover. the U.S didn't start to work seriously on it's military until the mid to late 30's, and moreso because they foresaw a battle royale with Japan on the horizon. Even after being pushed involuntarily into the war in 41', it took almost 3 more years of heavy duty development until the invasion of Normandy. This is also historical revisionism at it's worst. Should the U.S have also tried invading the Soviet Union to prevent the millions killed by Stalin in purges and gulags?

Hhhmm..... and you are an expert on the militaries of NATO countries because....? I find it very interesting that over half of the troops in Afghanistan are from NATO countries and the U.S ambassadors to their respective allies have begged and cajoled us to send as many troops as we can spare there.

For someone who's never put on a uniform you seem to be an expert on other nations military capabilities!

Wow. I never knew that putting on a uniform causes someone to become an expert in military capabilities.

Stupid civilians.

I am surprisingly well-informed about certain things.

You don't think that the US having to "beg and cajole" is a strong indication that fighting a war with NATO is as easy as it should be?

You know, I was told by well-informed liberals that the American military is made up of uneducated yahoos.

Some of Ron Paul's positions are admirable, but his affiliation with or support for certain crackpot ideas undermine his credibility, to put the best face I can on it.  This 'analogy' is so naive & dismissive of reality, it's not surprising that you agree 'wholeheartedly' with it.

Well, let's look at NATO-

It's a military alliance originally created for the sole purpose of opposing the Soviet Union, primarily in a defensive capacity.

An operation in Afghanistsan is a far stretch from the supposed purpose for NATO in the first place, -and- it's a challenge to an organization built around traditional warfighting (going up against armor, aircraft and large troop formations) now being asked to carry out counter-insurgency and occupation duties. One thing that has withstood the test of time up until this point is that Afghanistan has been the grave of empires. In fact, I'm surprised the British decided to go back there again, considering the failure that some of their previous occupations encountered.

Who can say how it will end? One thing I know for certain, it's never a good idea to alienate your allies and spurn them after they contributed soldiers and material for your war!

the op has a lot of imagination but little use for facts, history, or connotation.

Those labeled terrorists are not freedom fighters fighting troops who just go randomly murdering families, they are the ones who murder women and children.

And the USA is a free country, not a despotic shithole, so the citizenry would have reason to be upset at occupation.

sarcasm: Yes... 3000 innocent people deserved to be murdered by "freedom fighters" who "just wanted the foreign troops who rape and murder out of their country".

The fact of the matter is that you draw parallels where none exist. The murders of 9-11 were due to religious fanaticism and the beleif infidels should be killed, not freedom fighting.

Taltamir, he is right. 911 was because of the US' meddling in the middle east.

And likewise Pearl Harbour was because of American support for China (which was being raped by Japan) and the Nazis declared war on the US because of American support for the United Kingdom.

What people like Arty fail to explain is not why 911 happened (I completely agree with him why it happened) or how we could have prevented it (I also agree with him there) but only whether it is morraly and strategically acceptable for the US NOT to resist tyranny and thereby becoming part of the conflict.

Of course the US could have just watched the Arabs murder the Jews, the Assyrians, the Kurds, and the various African tribes the UN granted them ownership of. And I am absolutely certain that if the US had simply accepted slavery in Sudan, a few million dead Jews and hundreds of thousands of refugees in the Mediterranea, gas attacks against Kurds (and the odd war with Iran), andan invasion of Saudi Arabia by Iraq or whichever Arab tyrant became powerful enough to do so, the US would have been among the last to be attacked. There would have been no 911 in 2001.

It would have taken another 30 years.

So, yes, it was US meddling that caused 911.

Just like the Jews' presence in Europe caused the Shoah and the Jews' presense in the middle east caused the Farhud, the explusion of Jews from Arab countries, and the wars against Israel.

I assume the genocide in Sudan is also caused by the presence of Nilo-Saharan (black) tribes in the Darfur region. Heck, "Darfur" is Arabic for "dwelling of the Fur", with "Fur" being the name of a Nilo-Saharan tribe who live there and "dar" (Dalet Alef Resh, the Alef is a long vowel, I think) meaning "dwelling" or "home". They even acknowledge that the land is not theirs and murder still!

But in a way, Arty is right, and all those things are being caused not by the Arabs but by the obstacles other peoples' existence puts in their way.

true, but I was refering to his double standards, the suggestion that the USA is there murdering women and children, and that the so called "freedom fighters" are both striking back at an armed force with no intent of harming innocents and at the same time also justified in murdering 3000 innocents in that case (despite the clear contradiction between the two claims).

He paints a picture of good rebels fighting the oppressive evil empite, which is simply not the case.

So Ron Paul is an immoral liar. Big deal. His supporters consider lying a virtue, I am sure. (Or maybe I am wrong and they spoke up against his lies.)

nono... lying to show the evil of someone you know to be evil based on second hand accounts you heard from other people who were totally NOT lying to you is a point of pride for liberals.

I mean that literally, I keep on hearing proud stories of lies they made up in order to showcase the evil of... well you get the point.

more along the lines of... "israel is evil, I read an account of them murdering women and children, this is why I photoshoped this picture and spread it around campus, to show people exactly how evil they are... why did i photoshop it? well, i was having difficulties finding an authentic picture that shows how evil they are... which is because they are so evil they always destroy the good evidence you know..."