(top reddit comment) SixBiscuit 368 points 5 hours ago*

Predicting an Iraq war in April 2002 was not exactly difficult or limited to Ron Paul. The rest of the video has a certain amount of horoscope logic to it.

>> A major war... the largest since WWII.

Nope. Iraq is in no way larger than Vietnam even. -- http://www.lies.com/wp/2006/11/05/us-deaths-in-iraq-vs-vietnam-the-handoff/

>> The Karzai government will fail and US involvement will end in Afghanistan

Nope. -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/03/us-afghanistan-election-idUSTRE6320X220100403

>> An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States

Nope. -- http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/fed/key-interest-rates.asp

He is completely off on the scope of what he predicted. The video is manipulative. I'd really like to see a Paul supporter write these out and back them up.

For instance crude oil did shoot up to record highs but not because of an oil embargo. Does he get credit for predicting that? He's half right. Oil shot up because of instability in the region and speculation, not an embargo.

What about what he's left out. If he had such clever predictive powers why isn't Iran mentioned? Iran filling the power vaccum Iraq's destabilization left is something that could have been easily predicted but he doesn't.

Saying that the Arab Spring was the Islamic fundamentalist overthrowing their government is mischaracterizing what happened. Yes Islamic fundamentalist may end up in power in Egypt and Libya but they were not the instigators of the uprisings.

No doubt Ron Paul along with Hunter S. Thompson and a lot of people knew going into Iraq was a terrible fucking idea and would lead to ruin. That doesn't make him some sort of Cassandrian prophet. It means he was one of the few elected officials brave enough to speak out against it. Which is admirable but it hardly makes him alone. Powell believed it was a terrible idea at the time as well but was too chickenshit to stand up and stop it.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

So what, we have to accept the legitimacy of leaders who are actively exterminating their own people now? I was against Afghanistan. I was against Iraq. Gadhafi was right in the middle of killing Libyan citizens, those citizens asked for aid, and we decided to help them install a government that won't butcher civilians? How dare we! Sovereignty is a convenient concept for regulating actions between nations. It isn't a moral necessity. This was a case where the moral choice was not the one that respected sovereignty.
I don't see a world in which puppet governments are making us a colonial power, though I won't deny that Bush and Cheney hoped for that. Iraq is now aligning with Iran. Karzai is so far off the reservation that if Afghanistan were Vietnam, we'd have assassinated him twice by now. Most critics of the Libya action are worried that the transitional government is a bunch of Islamists who played nice to get our help and now intend to train terrorists and pick fights with Israel. The truth is that Libyans will probably be a lot friendlier to the US and Europe than they were a year ago. But maybe, for once, that's because we've earned it.
>> ^criticalthud:
I'm a little weirded out too by what just happened in Libya. As much of a fucktard as Gadhafi was, this was yet another leader of a sovereign nation felled by a U.S. and oil-interest-backed coup. No one is really talking about that. Instead, even Jon Stewart is taking an "atta-boy" attitude towards this administration. and relishing in how little it cost.
the next Lybian regime will be a democracy in name only and friendly to US and European interests: light, sweet crude.
Then the IMF will come in under the pretext of "re-building" the country and really fuck the people.
I think we are still a little complacent about our country essentially waging aggressive war.



we have of course, actively supported dictators who have exterminated their own people or violently put down any protests. and we continue to. it's happening right now. The point is, "revolution" in the name of democracy only occurs when US interests are favored. otherwise the US categorizes 'rebellion' or 'revolution'...or even dissent as a terrorist action against a legitimate state. When it favors the US or other high powered interests, "revolution" is simply a pretext for us to topple regimes that are unfriendly to US interests.

So what, we have to accept the legitimacy of leaders who are actively exterminating their own people now? I was against Afghanistan. I was against Iraq. Gadhafi was right in the middle of killing Libyan citizens, those citizens asked for aid, and we decided to help them install a government that won't butcher civilians? How dare we! Sovereignty is a convenient concept for regulating actions between nations. It isn't a moral necessity. This was a case where the moral choice was not the one that respected sovereignty.

I don't see a world in which puppet governments are making us a colonial power, though I won't deny that Bush and Cheney hoped for that. Iraq is now aligning with Iran. Karzai is so far off the reservation that if Afghanistan were Vietnam, we'd have assassinated him twice by now. Most critics of the Libya action are worried that the transitional government is a bunch of Islamists who played nice to get our help and now intend to train terrorists and pick fights with Israel. The truth is that Libyans will probably be a lot friendlier to the US and Europe than they were a year ago. But maybe, for once, that's because we've earned it.

>> ^criticalthud:

I'm a little weirded out too by what just happened in Libya. As much of a fucktard as Gadhafi was, this was yet another leader of a sovereign nation felled by a U.S. and oil-interest-backed coup. No one is really talking about that. Instead, even Jon Stewart is taking an "atta-boy" attitude towards this administration. and relishing in how little it cost.
the next Lybian regime will be a democracy in name only and friendly to US and European interests: light, sweet crude.
Then the IMF will come in under the pretext of "re-building" the country and really fuck the people.
I think we are still a little complacent about our country essentially waging aggressive war.

Karzai is another US neo-dictator goon. He supposedly won an election, however we all know darn well that he didn't win it. The US wanted him in, so he was in. Irrespective of the so-called election results.

The only value Afghanistan holds for the US is that they want to put an oil pipeline through there. The US government is paying huge sums of money to try to make sure it succeeds. In the end, the US taxpayer pays in cash for the war. The Afghanis pay for it with their lives. The arms traders and oil companies profit.

We were not attacked from or by Afghanistan. Let us connect the dots and look at this logically without the simplistic view which the general US population so quickly likes to fall into.

We were attacked by Saudi nationals, led by a Saudi national who is a member of a Saudi elite family (who was protected by the Bush clan on 9/11). These Saudi's were funded by Arab money. Not 'Afghani' money. To be further detailed. Individuals in Al Qaeda were 'trained' in Afghanistan at camps which were originally established by the US CIA to train the locals to fight against Russia. These groups were funded, equipped, and trained by the USA. Bin Laden was in the leadership at the time. So if we are talking about associations of associations here, the US was technically attacked by individuals trained by US leadership. That is if you want to label anyone or anything associated with the training camps as being guilty of attacks against the U.S. Yes the Taliban are fundy wackos for sure.. but the Taliban did not attack us.

Iran may have some involvement. But the US equipped and funded Saddam/Iraq and fueled a long and brutal war between the two nations. Millions died as a result. Chemical weapons were used on both sides of that war. Chemical weapons and technology provided to Iraq by the US and their allies. Iraq and Iran were not responsible for the planning and execution of 9/11. That has been proven. Bush wanted you to think otherwise to justify his illegal war. Simply to overthrow Saddam, who stopped listening to his CIA puppet masters YEARS before. This has happened the US many many times. They stick a dictator in power, and they shit hits the fan. Panama, Nicaragua, Iran, the list goes on. Then the US wonders why they have enemies out there. We keep meddling and destabilizing regions. Why? An unstable region is a region which is not united. They pose a far less of a threat to US power as a result. That is why the middle east (the part that doesn't bend over to US power) is not allowed to unify.

Now more about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is NOT a nation. We label it as one, however it is a mishmash of very very different tribes within the same region. Many hold different beliefs and languages. 'Afghanistan' as it is known is not recognized by the local populace in the same sense as you would call the US a 'country'. The borders were drawn by westerners, and the so-called 'country' has been invaded numerous times by foreign powers. The British came in and failed. The Russians came in and failed. How are we to believe the US will be any more successful? They won't. The US CANNOT enforce a western government and values upon a land of tribes, where tribe comes first before so-called nationality.

The Karzai government is a sham. A US placed goon in power. The elections were a sham. They were rigged, and the likely to win candidate walked out due to the corruption. Karzai is a president of a city. Not a nation. Beyond his cities borders he holds no more sway that another tribal chief. Without constant military protection, he wouldn't survive a short walk to the end of the block. He is not a president of a nation. He is a representative, a local extension to the occupying force.

What to be done? Our mission is done. It is failed. Bin Laden escaped. Afghanistan is not the US's responsibility. It is the Afghanis. Let them free themselves. Let them choose their way forward. It may be bloody, but it is their nation and their culture. The US had it's bloody internal conflicts. The US earned it's way to where it is today. We build it ourselves based on our own culture and methods. It is not the same as theirs. It will not work for them. They need to find their own way.

Lets rebuild the US and stop throwing wasted resources at a dead land that would take from us with one hand, and stab us in the back with the other. The US should NOT be nation building.

The outrage is hilarious. God help these talking heads if they're ever forced to come to grips with actual reality. Their heads will a'splode.

We have been funding the Taliban for thirty years. Hamid Karzai is an ex US oil executive. It's all war for profit and most of you in the media are complicit. Put that on the little crawler at the bottom of the screen.

To be honest he's right on dithering, but that's not entirely Obama's fault. Part of the problem has been McChrystal leaked report on Afghanistan which confronted him with being forced to make an immediate decision or appearing to waver. The fraudulent elections have also made committing more troops before the debacle is resolved unfeasible and would have appeared as if he was propping up a pro-US autocratic regime. Now that Karzai has agreed to a second round recount, and there exists the potential for a power sharing agreement eventuating with Abdullah, the symbolic gesture of committing more troops becomes more genuine, as well as politically plausible at home.

He's blatantly wrong on the missile shield though. The chance of Russia, particularly given how much of a hit its economy took from the global economic downturn, of making any big strides into Eastern Europe are slim. After all, it's actions into Georgia while disproportionate were arguably provoked. It's clear the main purpose of them from the start was to protect against the threat of a nuclear Iran. But then, the process of setting up this missile shield angered Russia, which then caused it become closer both economically in their willingness to help build nuclear reactors and in providing valuable VETO votes against further sanctions through the UN, which formed a catch 22. Especially considering the unproven nature of the missile shields, and the value of Russia as an ally versus slightly thornier relationships between the US and Eastern Europe, it seems that dismantling them was easily the best option considering the downsides of both choices.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'autotune, news, barelypolitical, the view, rachel maddow, lyrics in' to 'autotune, news, barelypolitical, the view, rachel maddow, ron paul, karzai, lyrics in' - edited by calvados

Hilarious article concerning the BSG finale from the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_depressed_distant_since?utm_source=a-section

"I'm a little concerned," first lady Michelle Obama was overheard saying at a fundraising event Tuesday. "When Firefly was canceled, he walked around like a zombie for a week, and Serenity was the only thing that snapped him out of it. Last night he said he felt like he had just discovered David Axelrod was one of the Final Five, whatever that means."

"When we spoke last month, he said season three was his least favorite because some of the episodes with Helo and the Sagittarons—and pretty much anything that involved Cally—were boring and didn't advance the plot," Afghan president Hamid Karzai said. "But I told him that when you watch it all on DVD, and you don't have to wait a whole week for a new show, those peripheral episodes actually add new color to the already established world."

Totally true. Especially considering what Farhad has said, the best course of action in these sensitive times would be to really think this through. I am personally very conflicted about the US occupation of Iraq, but I have always felt like our presence in Afghanistan is somehow a little more justified. And Farhad, its good that you point that out (coming from Uzbekistan, I'm sure you know a heck of a lot about what makes a post-soviet country "tick"). I have a feeling that once Karzai is out, things may become more clear as to what needs to be done.

Jonathan Keith "Jack" Idema is an American citizen convicted in September 2004 for running a private prison in Afghanistan and torturing Afghan citizens. At the time of his arrest and conviction, Idema had been portraying himself as a U.S. government-sponsored special forces operative on a mission to apprehend terrorists. However, the U.S. government has repeatedly denied such claims. Idema was granted a pardon by Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai in April 2007, departing Afghanistan in early June, having served three years of a ten-year sentence.
More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Idema

The clip is from As-Sahab, the media production house of Al-Qaeda, used to relay the organization's views to the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-Sahab

The Taliban being aided by the Iranians is the dumbest shit faced lie ever pushed out by these talking heads.

Post collapse of the USSR, the US interest in Afghanistan evaporated, the aid ceased and the country was left without a concrete head of state owing to the Soviet-Afghan war. Warlords arose each vying for power, Pakistan got heavily involved in the Pashtun regions and cultivated the growth of the Taliban via it's Afghan War ISI connections, a Pashtun state influenced by Pakistan would be a lucrative accomplishment for such a strategically located nation.

Support also came from Saudi Arabia as they supported a creation of a Islamic Sunni Sharia state regardless of how flawed the Taliban interpretation of Islam was. Iran being a Shia state was not comfortable with such a development, and supported the warlords of the North and the previous government. To a lesser degree other Central Asian nations got involved.

Afghanistan could lead to lucrative Oil and Gas pipelines from the former Central Asian Nations to ports in Pakistan or Iran.

What happened over the next few years was a great game being played between the Central Asian States, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Each trying to influence the Taliban or the warlords depending on who was aligned with their interests. However the Taliban listened to no one really, while basically taking over the entire country through constant war.

Iran supported more moderate or rather alternative forces to the Taliban (one can't claim any real democratic force was in play). Post 9/11 and the incursion of US forces, Iran also provided ample assistance to the Karzai government, a fact rarely reported on by the media or Washington because it dismantles the war driving narrative.

Iran never supported the Taliban.

To claim such a thing shows either a remarkable misunderstanding of the situation on the ground within its historical context or bold lies being pushed to create a larger bogey man out of Iran.

I believe it's a combination of both.

PS: If you desire a deeper understanding of how the Taliban developed and Afghanistan in the early to late 90s, I recommend Ahmed Rashid's Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia.

You know compared to his more Muslim driven rants where it comes off very hateful and arrogant I think this one is really well done.

I think this is your "lets be multicultural" attitude speaking, I mean, really what has Mr.Condell ever said about Islamists that they didnt deserve? Nothing. Right now, an Afghan man is awaiting his own execution in the name of Islam, because he downloaded an article questioning Islam's view of women.. I mean imagine for just 2 seconds what it would be like if, say one of our "christian" nations had done something similar. There wouldnt be ANY option but to compare that nation to 1930's Germany, or Orwells 1984-London for that matter, it would be viewed as fascism, and rightly so. Yet, in this case, because its ALL islam, and ALL religion, you hear reporters stress Karzai's need to "balance" this for the "conservative religious leaders" (http://www.videosift.com/video/Death-for-Downloading)What nonsense is this! Go out and FIGHT these fucking fascists, DESTROY their ideas. They are the enemies of free human beings all over the world. I'd say the same thing about Christian fascist loonies, Stalinist fascist loonies, and Islamist fascist loonies. Condell makes the same non-distinction between islamic fascism and all other fascism, and he couldnt be more rightly doing so.

The Afghan senate has backed off at least. Looks like it's up to Karzai.