He's a smart guy trying to argue an idiotic point. It is too bad because this is the best argument for intervention I have heard and it is still horrible.
D'souza is not a "Conservative," nor was Ronald Reagan.
Americans are losing more of their "liberties" at home while D'souza deludes himself into believing that we are spreading liberty in the Middle East.
D'souza acts like a Israeli settler who just kicked Palestinians off of their land and is full of fear and trepidation that he'll get sacked without the assistance of the U.S. Military.
Here's the thing, why is he buyihng in to this idea of the bush administration of "planting a seed of democracy". How do you do that? It sounds awfully like idealism to me. It's impossible to bring democracy to a country that is based on Islamic fascism. How do you go about the goal, there is nothing defined I can't see how it would not be a waste of money. Ron Paul from what I hear brings a constitutional clear goal that makes sense and does bring vague "planting seed of democracy"
The start of every American war and most invasions of history began with "we are here to help you".
This guy is a nationalist. He actually believes unlike every government in world history that the US is divine and our fate is to spread light. This is why he plays to the "dont turn tail and run" or 911 issue. He is more concerned about pride and emotions rather than the good of our rights and nation. Rebels dont take rights. They fight for them. That's why they are called rebels.
I love Ron Paul, but when it comes to religion and Islam he is an idiot. God, he looks like a chicken there
As for the Iran issue, the day after 9-11 the Ayn Rand Institute ran an editorial saying that exactly that should be done: So, politicians had access to the arguments.
I think Dinesh is wrong about everything. He seems to not understand the other way of encouraging individual freedom: via the internet and communications, and by setting a good example. He points out that young muslims are fighting us, but how could they fight us if we weren't over there? No way. By terrorism in the US? Ever heard of defensive tech? Get Craig Venter and Bill Gates and explosives sensors all over the place, and let us all carry guns. Problem solved- as much as possible.
I think Dinesh is wrong about everything. He seems to not understand the other way of encouraging individual freedom: via the internet and communications, and by setting a good example. He points out that young muslims are fighting us, but how could they fight us if we weren't over there? No way. By terrorism in the US? Ever heard of defensive tech? Get Craig Venter and Bill Gates and explosives sensors all over the place, and let us all carry guns. Problem solved- as much as possible.
where does it say that libertarians have to promote liberty at all? libertarians face no dilemma as "protecting your liberty" means protecting your own individual liberty not someone else's. protecting someone's elses liberty is ok as you are free to do that but it is subordinate to protecting your own liberty. after all you cant speak for that person, who is to say they want you to protect their liberty.
You're not lending the libertarian cause any credibility since obviously we need people who will protect their nation when called upon... not only do defend themselves, but in service to the conceptual ideals of freedom, liberty, and democracy.
I find myself drawn to libertarianism, but the point I could never compromise on is the nonsense about non-interventionism. It hardly even merits serious discussion since the libertarian argument is completely ideologically-driven.
@tubub excuse me there is no libertarian 'cause'. i put my way of life forward and if others believe it then they can adopt it. if the army cant get enough people who want to defend their country, then implicitly the country doesnt want to survive. however we dont have that problem. there is NO concept of non-interventionism in the sense of isolationism, think of it more as no nation building. all philosophies are ideologically driven except libertarians have got history on their side.
dinesh has got it ALL wrong, we DONT force liberty down other peoples throats. we protect our own individual liberty. libertarians ALL draw the line on impinging on someone else's rights. a libertarian cannot force someone to be a libertarian, because in that case you are infringing on their liberty.
D'Souza is a very smart man. I disagree that we're there for every American's benefit. We're there for the benefit of the few at the time and behind the curtains of the senate and congress.
@warriorpoet375 what debate were you watching. it is obvious that dinesh knows nothing about history and blowback. and as a person who lived in the UAE for 13 years i can tell you that people arent saying lets attack because they are decadent, they hate us because we are over there. also non interventionism is at the core of libertarian principles, i have no right to tell someone to accept my moral philosophy at the point of a gun otherwise i am infringing on his right not to accept it.
Alot of wars in history was rigged by the big bankers. Money lenders made a HUGE profits from wars. Lending money to countries at war to buy weapons and pay troops.
American delusion...that they won the Second Wold War. The United States entered the war a full two years after the fact. The British Commenwelth held Germany at bay on it's own without America. Typical American propaganda.
uhh what is American propaganda exactly? Everyone knows that we entered the war AFTER we were attacked in 1941... Your point being? Lend-lease program was enacted before that, and the war would have undoubtedly been lost without our forces and support.
We did win in Iraq... with British assistance. Thanks for the troops in Basra.
Why don't you learn a bit of history sometime. All you can respond with is "complete rubbish"... Really? How so? Rommel could've evaded Montgomery for god knows how long, who finally cornered him and squeezed him in from two sides? Who led the invasion of Sicily and Italy? Who assauled the beaches of France and stormed to Germany? Who defeated Japan island to island and bomed them into submission? Lend-Lease...
LOL who ever said anything about Dick Cheney and Bush being heroes or serving in Vietnam? That has nothing to do with our victory in Iraq. I'm happy all you can do is make irrelevant remarks because you have nothing to refute my claims with. Bye...
That's because your (American) claims are total made up shit with historical revisionism as it's base. The British Commenwelth won both wars in Europe and if it wasn't for us America would be speaking German right now. You owe us a thank you.
simple as this, there is no justification for picking a random country out of a hat and decide that, because American values are so supreme to all others, we invade their country and instate a new form of government. what arrogance! furthermore, why iraq? there are ailing countries allllll over the world, and we are showing preference to only one? anyway, where does the government get the authority to invade foreign countries to attempt to instate liberty? certainly not the Constitution
second critic: his shallow analysis of civil war in the USA (slaves had to fight to get their freedom yadayada).
third critic: he has an accent. I am not from the USA, but i find it funny that he has not gotten rid of his accent yet, he does not have an in depth understanding of US history, yet he seemingly buys he feels entitled to say something like "we went there, and fought Hitler, and we were right" ( I paraphrase).
I had a strong hint he would be a poor debater right from his first argument:...Non-intervention can be useful, but should be subordinate to the primary principle of liberty, if libertarian are to be consistent.
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about! He says Bin Laden was behind 9/11. If you check the FBI website, you will see that he's not wanted in connection with 9/11! I wonder why that is? Also Bush said himself that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!
We were attacked by the Japanese and were asserting force against the Germans who crossed into the foreign soil, of several countries... We did not intervene until we were attacked... This man is way way off base... We fought our revolution, let them fight their's... Also, we are not even a democracy, but a constititional republic, that has rights... Yet we promote democracy around the world??? and we pick and choose where to intervene... case closed...
D'Souza is frighteningly ignorant of U.S. history. His analogies to past U.S. conflicts fall completely flat. The U.S. was involved in WWII because another sovereign state (Japan) attacked us. Iraq did not attack us. Also, the American Revolution emerged from within. It was not imposed by France or Great Britain or Germany.
D'Souza is a neoconservative and imperialist. He has no place at an event called FreedomFest.
Exactly. Idiots like this dont realise radicalism is a direct result of interventionism. You cant expect a buncch of pissed off poor Muslims to no radicalise.
Its a mixture of things. Try not to ad hominem everytime someone disagrees with the way you look at things and you have no substantial evidence to refute him...
Isolationism has never worked for the US. What Ron Paul doesn't want to talk about is "Kiss of Death" operations in Iraq, where we'd roll into a neighborhood, find all the friendlies, and leave. What happened to the friendly people? They were killed. Put that on a larger perspective in the Middle East. Goodbye Secularism.
First, isoloationism and what Ron Paul advocates is not simply moving away, it's not interfering and allowing the protocol of the free market to do its magic.
Second, Kiss of Death is irrelvent to the point I made.
I can debate this, but rabid neocons like this deserve nothing but ad hominem attacks, arguing with them logically is about as usefull as convincing creationists.
@tubub ron paul doesnt support isolationism, listen to what he is saying. he follows jefferson's mantra which is "trade with all and entangling alliances with none". is jefferson an idiot. ron is talking about no nation building and if you are going to war then at least declare otherwise you are acting like a king.
Yes, avoid foreign entanglements, but don't be a weak-handed, coward nation and CERTAINLY do not run away from your commitments like we did in Vietnam. As I've shown before, Paul befits the definition of an isolationist.
As for Jefferson, google Barbary Wars, Louisiana Purchase, and Empire of Liberty. Jefferson was an expansionist, perhaps even an imperialist in a distinctly American sense. He was not an isolationist like Paul, who's just a glib, isolationist ideologue.
@tubub "do not run away from your commitments like we did in Vietnam."
if the vietnamese dont want you there why would you stay? isnt life more important than pride?
the barbary wars was fighting pirates who attacked trade vessels. what nation was jefferson was building? you dirty his name by insinuating such nonsense. also dont forget the embargo act which was jefferson's biggest blunder where he restricted freedoms here and look how that turned out for him.
Commitment to South Vietnam... Obviously the commies didn't want us there, but that's why we were at war with them -.-
I respect life and that's I oppose Communism. You're actually not as much a libertarian as you just unbelievably idealistic... as if the Reds were going around with rainbow flags and pink ponies touting peace. One naive motherfucker.
@tubub "I respect life and that's I oppose Communism." Explain... communism is political and economic system that i dont support but i dont see how it is incompatible with life. that is just a ridiculous non sequitur.
and we didnt destroy the USSR through military excursions, they destroyed themselves because they could compete economically. just goes to show.
Communism makes the individual subservient to an artificially created state. A very large factor in the USSR's fall was in fact their inability to compete with us militarily, but their insistent attempts to do so around the world and in arms races, namely nuclear arms. Communism is a system with bad commerce while capitalism is the opposite, so the Soviet Union simply couldn't sustain their expenditures. They didn't self-immolate, that's just a load of poster-modernist bullshit
@tubub the military was one of MANY things that soviets tried to compete with the US on, along with the space race, steel production, technological innovation etc... they failed because a communist state cant create wealth, only the private sector can create wealth. communism couldnt sustain their expenditures, and that is exactly why they self-imploded. just like i said they couldnt compete economically.
Yeah, and? That doesn't prove my point wrong. Go google a chart of Soviet military expenditures vs everything else and there you go. That's exactly what I just said, not you, and that doesn't mean their implosion was solely based on some cliche that "Communism doesn't work" therefore the entire Cold War was meaningless. They very well would've persisted if they didn't have outside competition.
@tubub communism doesnt work. the government is centralized and no wealth is created. they failed way before the 1989, if you believe not having enough toilet paper for your country and mass starvation is not a failure i dont know what is. they failed long before they left. authoritarians dont leave so easily. its also quite ironic that i keep saying that soviet military expansion led to their economic ruin but you refuse to acknowledge that it will lead to our ruin.
@tubub also you are the ideological one that wants to defeat the communists, the terrorists, the extreme muslims but fail to recognise that we are already stretched, dont have enough money and if everyone keeps going out there then who is going to protect us here. it is simple, i am practical in foreign policy and you are way too adventurous. we dont have unlimited resources.
How are you practical? You suggested that if the army doesn't have any recruits, oh well then I guess we all just die. That's just absurd. America's power hinges on her global military apparatus, we leave one country and that country is left to the influence of our opponents. Afghanistan, Vietnam, China, Russia... these are all examples of such.
Believing that a strong military is a necessity for any community is common sense. "The art of war is of vital importance to the state"
@tubub how are you going to fund this if we have no money? not practical. live within your means, arent you supposed to be a fiscal conservative? america was economically a lot more powerful before woodrow wilson you know. what good is power if you are not prosperous?
ya if people arent willing to defend the country then why should that country survive? the people have implicitly willed to be that way. after all we are a democracy. and we dont have the draft and can still get people so...
wow! this guy had five people applaud him, most likely was his wife and kids. and yes I do think the other guys are shills. Ron Paul was right on the economy and he is right about intervention and entangling alliances
this guy uses very weak arguments. it's like he's a high school student pulling shit that his parents told him out of his ass. this asshole is preaching to the choir, he's not really arguing anything
There are so many holes in this guy's arguments, I don't even know where to start. But in a nutshell, he puts the "liberty" of foreign lands above our own...that our soldiers and marines have to give up their lives and we have to face economic consequences and spend the lives of our family members to democratize foreign lands. We did it ourselves. They can do it themselves.
He uses big words and flashy rhetoric to brush up his otherwise fallacious ideas.
Moreover, this man's ideology is the one of the main reasons America is falling into the shitter. We just can't afford it any longer.
Not to mention all he needs to do is read some of Washington and J.Q. Adams' speeches to get an idea of what American foreign policy should have been, and stop trying to put words in their mouths.
Osama Bin Laden said he knew he could never beat the great U.S. military, so he is bankrupting us, that hit and run strategy they use on us is good for them because they can do it forever, and forever is along time funding a war. And if Danish is so adament about spreading liberty through arms then why doesn't he go fight?
Don't you Republican Supporters know that the Great Depression was brought on by three straight Republican Presidents and that travesty had to be fixed by a Democrat.
Dinesh has no CLUE what he is talking about when he speaks of libertarianism. Libertarianism is about freedom of action as long as it doesn't INVADE OTHERS' FREEDOM. I think bombing the crud out of civilians sort of invades their freedoms. Not to mention taxing us through coercion/violence to get the funds. Ugh.
"* Freedom often comes through force. For example through a revolution. Revolutions are rarely peaceful and never legal. It took a civil war to secure freedom for African Americans."
^!!!!!! Automatic fail. Anyone with half a brain knows the Civil War had nothing to do with slaves. Lincoln owned slaves and freed the slaves to cripple the South. And the North owned slaves too. Jesus Christ.
The North HAD slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederacy. It wasn't till later that the Northern slaves were completely freed.
Odd though, I looked into Lincoln and slaves and it seems he didn't, but I was positive that he had owned some at some point.
"* Is the libertarian position that we should sit back and watch this happen? Realistically we have interests in the Middle East and we should defend them."
I don't know who this Dinesh idiot is, but he obviously knows jack squat about libertarianism and is, intellectually speaking, the lowest on the food chain.
The only real problem with America is that you sometimes get Presidents like JF Kennedy and Bill Clinton in the house and they cause a lot of damagde the republicans laster has to deal with and fix. Thank you..
He's very intellegent and a good debater, however his argument is flawed. There is a saying that says, "A people gets the government it deserves." Ultimately and always, the power is in the peoples hand, and the people have to answer to whom they give that power to. If a government is corrupt/evil, then it is the people of that nation that has the responcibility to purge it. It is their sacrafice to make, not Americas with the blood of its own sons and daughters.
No I dissagre. If America would not intervine the problem would sooner or later hit and there would be several more 911s. To say 911 is a cause of international politics is cheap and not a fact like Ron Paul says. He should keep to his economics and stay out of the big politic issues. I can only agree on one reason with foregin poliitcs and the hate against US goverment, its the Israeli position and hugde backup to this country. They hate america for supporting Israel.
So then you would have no problem having chineese or russian bases here in America? You would have no problem seeing foreign troops in our city and towns? You would have no problem with foreign nations making policies for America? You would have no problem with foreign nations selecting our leadership, even the presidency? If that would piss you off, then you agree with Ron Paul. If that doesn't piss you off... then I am not sure what to think of you.
America doesnt need help, its the broken non democracy nations that need the troops present and a selected leader. Please understand the difference. If this what you said is Ron Pauls argument then indeed he is very ignorant as I thought.
I don't believe these nations asked for our help. In fact, it is for those very reasons they hate us. When we kicked out the democratically elected shaw of Iran and placed our own leader in, guess what happened... Even our forefathers were strongly against us entangling ourselves in such a way, which is why they wrote up the constitution as they did. The ignorance is not in my part my friend, but yours. Fortunately there is a cure. Read the constitution and federalist papers.
Your ides are shared with the liberals and the opposit of what the conservativs trying to preserve from the forefathers and the constitution of America. You say dont care about the rest of the world, let them solve their own problem. Thats a sort of mind set that caused 911. Its not true they attack You because you were over there before, its because they are a sick nation with sick leaders that provoke these things. They need to be put in there place and sent back to hell through US Boombs. ;)
Oh ya, I'm not a liberal. Pro life, Pro 2nd amendment, ultimately pro constitutionalist. However, concerning the middle east, we have been messing with them since WWII. They didn't attack us because they hate our freedoms, they hate our lifestyle, or whatever. They truly hate us because we have been messing with them for decades. Wouldn't you be pissed if another nation was messing with us?
That is such crap!!! I don't believe they had anything to do with the 911 attacks. That's such an easy answer to say they did it because they are sick. The people that OWN this world are sick enough to do something like kill 5000 innocent people for a profit. And they are the only people I see who are benefiting from this stupid freaking war. And to say "they need to be put in there place and sent back to hell through US bombs" is the most arrogant thing you could have said.
Neocon republicans don't know any history and are literally destroying the Constitution day by day. I can't accept the fact that you're this stupid. You're more than likely a troll.
America doesn't need help? When a president is elected and nobody elected him. When we go to war but nobody wanted us to go. When our rights are being stripped from us out of fear of terrorism. We are becoming a non-democracy nation. You can FEEL it, we are losing our country to a small group of over-paid war-loving tyrants.
WHAT AN ARGUEMENT!! Here's one for ya "go Fuck yourself" You'll be crying a river when you wake the hell up. It's not patriotic to blame and complain.....it's American you fool!!
A minor point: D'Souza has apparentely never heard of Turkey, which for all its faults is a (VERY) secular democracy with a considerable degree of personal and economic freedom. Turkey is, of course, also an example of a relatively peaceful revolution from above on the part of the Young Turks of the early 20th century.
D'Souza makes a good argument, yet the wisdom found in the Constitution speaks louder. Non interventionism as prescribed by the Constitution and espoused by Ron Paul is a ultimately a practical policy.
Our Constitution, already in place, provides the guidance and *wisdom* to steer our affairs. Should war be necessary, let Congress decide. We need to get back to the basics.
All we need to do to pursue liberty is to understand and follow the Constitution.
no. dsouza does NOT make a good argument. noninterventionism and liberty go hand in hand. interventionism and powerful government, high taxes, central banks, and domestic surveilance go hand in hand. just one example, in order to intervene in WWI, the united states government HAD to drop the gold standard and issue fiat. obviously such a dramatic change in policy had extreme consequences in the concentration of power, wealth, and influence, and paved the way for the contemporary welfare state.
You gotta love it when the same government that over threw more democratically elected leaders than anyone els since ww2 has the nerve to talk about spreading of democracy around the world.
No, the government that instead of scaling back its military budget after the end of the Gulf war, increased its budget. Speaking spreading democracy, the intention was never to spread democracy. Thats just a cover to exert economic and political control. For example, Iraqi farmers are banned from using recycled seeds (something they had been doing for thousands of years). They are only allowed to buy seeds that they buy from Monsanto.
Like I said before, the US overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran in 1953 and replaced him with a dictator that the US backed for a quarter of a century. And that is just one example of many when it comes to overthrowing democratically elected leaders. You can play with the world and kill and invade al you want. You have the power to do it. I just hope that you know the answer to the question that so many Americans pose and that question is: "Why do they hate us?".
The only time the US defeated a communist movement in direct combat was in Grenada. Compare with wars in Vietnam and Korea.
The history of the conflict US democracy and capitalism vs. communist was a triumph of "convert by example", not by force. Communist was defeated because it could not compare, in peace, to capitalist democracy.
The same is true with Muslim extremists: they can beat the west in a war of bombs and determination but not one of ideas or mass prosperity and opportunity.
The so called democracy in Iraq is still controlled by the US. Monsanto forbids the Iraqi farmers from recycling and using new seeds. They have to buy genetically modified seeds from Monsanto. Thats one example of the agenda that is taken place under the cover of spreading democracy.
Dinesh O'Souza needs a serious history lesson. The middle east never new democracy before the Iraq war? is he for real? The Iranians democratically elected Muhammed Mosadeque who was overthrown by the US via the CIA in 1953. Israel is not a islamic or a secular tyranny. It is a democracy. Not that I like Israel but its still a democracy. Even today the Iranians elect the leaders of their country. The US has backed all those dictators in the middle east for decades.
You won't get anyhere with Dinesh. he guy is the worst debater I've ever seen. His entire set of arguments are straw m or other blatent logical fallacies. He hasn't a clue how to form well supported conlusions baseed on evdiencbecause he refuses to engage with the evidence. A rue mntal midget who is wroughwith right wing ideology.
One of Dinesh Desuza's arguments are week. Dinesh Desuza said its ok to be an ally of the lesser evil to combat the bigger evil. A lot of people see the US government as more of a threat to the world than Alqaida and rightfully so. For example. The US government starved over half a millioin iraqis to death. Its killing the planet with chemicals. It overthrew democratically elected leaders and so one. So does that mean its ok for those people to join alqaeda? Of course not.
Dinesh is trying to tell you that someone has insulted our mothers and though we've forgotten the time we insulted their mothers, well we're not gonna let them get away with it. He believe the end justifies the means, so no matter what the casualties no matter how economicaly ravaged our own country becomes it's all worth it because maybe somewhere down the line Democracy may take hold. Dinesh in a sense would come to your house and with a gun if necessary force you to get different curtains.
Lol thanks for bringing an important point. Dinesh Desuza is an idiot. Saudia Arabia is not secular nor is it a democracy. I am surprised they allow such stupid individuals in such an important debate
D'Souza's argument is just silly. And it only addresses the issue of withdrawing from Iraq. What about the argument that we didn't need to go there IN THE FIRST PLACE? The real libertarian argument is that we shouldn't engage in wars that don't pursue our own national security. It's all well and good that we're promoting "liberty" in Iraq (though that's untrue anyway). But Americans care about their OWN liberty--the liberty not to be taxed to death to pay for the promotion of liberty abroad.
It was driven by a geniune moral compulsion to rebuild a 2 shattered societies. It is completely different to all US wars since to so called promote democracy. It is more to further US imperialism and exploit the nations effected by so called US police actions. Like grabbing the oil in Iran in the 1950s or the trying to thief the oil from Iraq in the 21st century.
Ron Paul is right since Woodraw Wilson US has lost its way as regards to foreign policy and needs to get back to non intervention.
Finally I see a lot of posts using Germany and Japan to justify illegal foreign police actions by the United States. If you read history properly US in world war 2 occupied Germany and Japan as a result of military victory in response to Aggressive action by Germany and Japan. In that the difference is US didn't specifically occupy Germany and Japan TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY. It is more like my god we won this terrible global conflict lets rebuild Germany and Japan that we devastated.
Oh and another thing since Dinesh D'Souza is so concerned that US should spread democracy. I wonder why the US and the Brits overthrew the democractically elected Moussedegh of Iran and istalled the Shah to secure Iranian oil.
Also recently the palestinians democratically elected Hamas into power. What does US,UK and other so called beacons of democracy do? They suspend dealing with the Palestinians for peace negotiatians. Its all Smokescreens and mirrors. Ron Paul makes the most sense.
Dsouza is morally bereft. He's speaking of ends justifying means. Just because we "can" or might be able to create artificial liberty elsewhere by force doesn't mean we should.
I thought D'Souza was brilliant! Espescially his closing remark "Freedom is a cause worth fighting for.". And I'm glad that he mentioned the success stories of Germany and Japan, both of which benefited enormously from US occupation and rebuilding efforts and both of which are healthy, powerful, first-world nations today. And I would like to point out that neither modern-day Japan or Germany could be reasonably accused of being a "U.S. puppet state", they still have very unique cultures.
This guy is laughable, they said the same thing about communism. If this one little country falls, then this one and so forth. He said it himself, they have been unsuccessful promoting an Islamic dictatorship anywhere else.
The notion we must stay in a place, that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, to prove something to a caveman is asinine.The US must conquer a portion of Iraq's land for Muslim Democracy?we're supposed to believe it'll end at Iraq?Are we to spill our blood to the last drop?"If we believe in freedom, we should stay and fight for it".WHAT FREEDOMS.WE ARE LOSING THEM!If Iraqi's thirst for freedom,they can band together and do it themselves.
He goes on saying that we need to go to Iraq to police that part of the world and he cleverly uses the sob story of choosing between Islamic tyranny and Secular tyranny. Hmm, he spent 5 minutes talking about that but at 7:25, he briefly mentions for one second "the pursuit of our own economic welfare..." Hmmm, think about it.
Freedom is not free, everyone has to get it themselves. We did not IMPOSE freedom on Germany and Japan. The Civil war did not end subjigation of black Americans. Abe Lincoln said he didnt do it to free the slaves but to preserve the Union. His examples are B.S.
Framing bin Laden's reasoning with the ubiquitous 'paper tiger' argument is propaganda at it's best. What better way to get America to bury you in a carpet of bombs than to propose this. Our unfindable Saudi ally gave us the new Pearl Harbor which allowed us to war on countries we already planned to bomb.
We're imposing democracy in Iraq like Europeans were settling & civilizing Africa. These are all but buzz words for, "installing puppet regimes to get our paws on much needed natural resources".
N.Korea was farther ahead w/ nukes than Iran, so why is D'Souza obsessed w/ her? Another obedient, sycophant, political hack of the Zionist powers that be. A striver who wants to fit it and shed his culture.
D'souza is revolting,ugly stupid mofo.
rubstrol 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Freedom is not free
cocoinfinity1 2 months ago
He's a smart guy trying to argue an idiotic point. It is too bad because this is the best argument for intervention I have heard and it is still horrible.
BenLevine16 7 months ago 5
D'souza is not a "Conservative," nor was Ronald Reagan.
Americans are losing more of their "liberties" at home while D'souza deludes himself into believing that we are spreading liberty in the Middle East.
D'souza acts like a Israeli settler who just kicked Palestinians off of their land and is full of fear and trepidation that he'll get sacked without the assistance of the U.S. Military.
The paranoid style of the Neo-Conservatives.
bradchesney11 9 months ago
Here's the thing, why is he buyihng in to this idea of the bush administration of "planting a seed of democracy". How do you do that? It sounds awfully like idealism to me. It's impossible to bring democracy to a country that is based on Islamic fascism. How do you go about the goal, there is nothing defined I can't see how it would not be a waste of money. Ron Paul from what I hear brings a constitutional clear goal that makes sense and does bring vague "planting seed of democracy"
Pdrum2 9 months ago
he should stick to the foreign policy instead of criticizing libertarianism
Pdrum2 9 months ago
D' Souza misunderstand the word liberty that libertarians use, he uses freedom from corcion, unless he disapproves of classical liberalism
Pdrum2 9 months ago
The start of every American war and most invasions of history began with "we are here to help you".
This guy is a nationalist. He actually believes unlike every government in world history that the US is divine and our fate is to spread light. This is why he plays to the "dont turn tail and run" or 911 issue. He is more concerned about pride and emotions rather than the good of our rights and nation. Rebels dont take rights. They fight for them. That's why they are called rebels.
Jononutoob 10 months ago
d'souza is very sausageeeee!
Prsnhoot 1 year ago
d'souza is just living in his own, evangelical weird world.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
This guy is fool hearty jackass
daizee106 1 year ago
I love Ron Paul, but when it comes to religion and Islam he is an idiot. God, he looks like a chicken there
As for the Iran issue, the day after 9-11 the Ayn Rand Institute ran an editorial saying that exactly that should be done: So, politicians had access to the arguments.
MetaMorphy 1 year ago
weak
jalexander3 1 year ago
I guess 49 is "young" in these circles.
fdh2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think Dinesh is wrong about everything. He seems to not understand the other way of encouraging individual freedom: via the internet and communications, and by setting a good example. He points out that young muslims are fighting us, but how could they fight us if we weren't over there? No way. By terrorism in the US? Ever heard of defensive tech? Get Craig Venter and Bill Gates and explosives sensors all over the place, and let us all carry guns. Problem solved- as much as possible.
libertarianjury 1 year ago
I think Dinesh is wrong about everything. He seems to not understand the other way of encouraging individual freedom: via the internet and communications, and by setting a good example. He points out that young muslims are fighting us, but how could they fight us if we weren't over there? No way. By terrorism in the US? Ever heard of defensive tech? Get Craig Venter and Bill Gates and explosives sensors all over the place, and let us all carry guns. Problem solved- as much as possible.
libertarianjury 1 year ago
where does it say that libertarians have to promote liberty at all? libertarians face no dilemma as "protecting your liberty" means protecting your own individual liberty not someone else's. protecting someone's elses liberty is ok as you are free to do that but it is subordinate to protecting your own liberty. after all you cant speak for that person, who is to say they want you to protect their liberty.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
You're not lending the libertarian cause any credibility since obviously we need people who will protect their nation when called upon... not only do defend themselves, but in service to the conceptual ideals of freedom, liberty, and democracy.
I find myself drawn to libertarianism, but the point I could never compromise on is the nonsense about non-interventionism. It hardly even merits serious discussion since the libertarian argument is completely ideologically-driven.
tubub 1 year ago
@tubub excuse me there is no libertarian 'cause'. i put my way of life forward and if others believe it then they can adopt it. if the army cant get enough people who want to defend their country, then implicitly the country doesnt want to survive. however we dont have that problem. there is NO concept of non-interventionism in the sense of isolationism, think of it more as no nation building. all philosophies are ideologically driven except libertarians have got history on their side.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
dinesh has got it ALL wrong, we DONT force liberty down other peoples throats. we protect our own individual liberty. libertarians ALL draw the line on impinging on someone else's rights. a libertarian cannot force someone to be a libertarian, because in that case you are infringing on their liberty.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
D'Souza is a very smart man. I disagree that we're there for every American's benefit. We're there for the benefit of the few at the time and behind the curtains of the senate and congress.
slowascharlie 1 year ago
this guy is a fool
adamhaye 2 years ago
it seems d'souza knows as much about foreign policy as he does science
which is nothing at all
atomicdogg34 2 years ago
he has some fundamental flaws in his logic and he contradicted himself
the constitution's intent was to protect our own liberty, not foreign liberty
we also do not serve our own "economic welfare" by spending trillions of dollars in overseas campaigns
if i had to reply to this guys argument in one thought:
it is not our responsibility to fix the middle east, so why support military campaigns there??
ineternitypast 2 years ago
D'Souza is a genius!! Makes Paul look like the joke he is!
warriorpoet375 2 years ago
saying it makes it true?
elfred1980 2 years ago
@warriorpoet375 what debate were you watching. it is obvious that dinesh knows nothing about history and blowback. and as a person who lived in the UAE for 13 years i can tell you that people arent saying lets attack because they are decadent, they hate us because we are over there. also non interventionism is at the core of libertarian principles, i have no right to tell someone to accept my moral philosophy at the point of a gun otherwise i am infringing on his right not to accept it.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
What a jackass.
baggytheo 2 years ago 2
This guy is a joke.
Sweden80Here 2 years ago
Alot of wars in history was rigged by the big bankers. Money lenders made a HUGE profits from wars. Lending money to countries at war to buy weapons and pay troops.
superchink28 2 years ago
American delusion...that they won the Second Wold War. The United States entered the war a full two years after the fact. The British Commenwelth held Germany at bay on it's own without America. Typical American propaganda.
wovokanarchy 2 years ago
uhh what is American propaganda exactly? Everyone knows that we entered the war AFTER we were attacked in 1941... Your point being? Lend-lease program was enacted before that, and the war would have undoubtedly been lost without our forces and support.
tubub 2 years ago
Complete rubbish. You Yanks don't even know your own history let alone the worlds. Next you'll be saying you;ve won in Iraq.
wovokanarchy 2 years ago
We did win in Iraq... with British assistance. Thanks for the troops in Basra.
Why don't you learn a bit of history sometime. All you can respond with is "complete rubbish"... Really? How so? Rommel could've evaded Montgomery for god knows how long, who finally cornered him and squeezed him in from two sides? Who led the invasion of Sicily and Italy? Who assauled the beaches of France and stormed to Germany? Who defeated Japan island to island and bomed them into submission? Lend-Lease...
tubub 2 years ago
"We did win in Iraq"" Sad. You must also believe George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are war heros who served in Vietnam. Keep making up shit.
wovokanarchy 2 years ago
LOL who ever said anything about Dick Cheney and Bush being heroes or serving in Vietnam? That has nothing to do with our victory in Iraq. I'm happy all you can do is make irrelevant remarks because you have nothing to refute my claims with. Bye...
tubub 2 years ago
That's because your (American) claims are total made up shit with historical revisionism as it's base. The British Commenwelth won both wars in Europe and if it wasn't for us America would be speaking German right now. You owe us a thank you.
wovokanarchy 2 years ago
Your more arrogant than us. You don't have jack shit to bring up in your favor... dumbass.
tubub 2 years ago
YOU SUCK!
zulgyan 2 years ago
How can this idiot live with himself? The stupid stupid rabid conservative.
FUZZYisBIG 2 years ago
simple as this, there is no justification for picking a random country out of a hat and decide that, because American values are so supreme to all others, we invade their country and instate a new form of government. what arrogance! furthermore, why iraq? there are ailing countries allllll over the world, and we are showing preference to only one? anyway, where does the government get the authority to invade foreign countries to attempt to instate liberty? certainly not the Constitution
steveinamerica 2 years ago
This guy looks like an Indian Mr Bean, hes a joke
starlightdeadstar 2 years ago
He looks like a shallow guy from an acting class in Madras trying to impersonate a bad simplistic American debater
Is that guy considered a thinker in the USA?
MMABeijing 2 years ago
second critic: his shallow analysis of civil war in the USA (slaves had to fight to get their freedom yadayada).
third critic: he has an accent. I am not from the USA, but i find it funny that he has not gotten rid of his accent yet, he does not have an in depth understanding of US history, yet he seemingly buys he feels entitled to say something like "we went there, and fought Hitler, and we were right" ( I paraphrase).
MMABeijing 2 years ago
This guy is full of shit
I had a strong hint he would be a poor debater right from his first argument:...Non-intervention can be useful, but should be subordinate to the primary principle of liberty, if libertarian are to be consistent.
MMABeijing 2 years ago
9/11 was an economic attack in the same way that the teleban insurgency in Afghanistan was an economic attack on the Soviet Union.
2007 was the day that the folly of the US became apparent and Al Qaeda can justifiably declare victory.
I just hope Obama isn't the US's Gorbachev.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about! He says Bin Laden was behind 9/11. If you check the FBI website, you will see that he's not wanted in connection with 9/11! I wonder why that is? Also Bush said himself that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!
jerami101 2 years ago
watch out buddy. You seem too logical for anyone to understand. lol
SilencerRPMs 2 years ago
We were attacked by the Japanese and were asserting force against the Germans who crossed into the foreign soil, of several countries... We did not intervene until we were attacked... This man is way way off base... We fought our revolution, let them fight their's... Also, we are not even a democracy, but a constititional republic, that has rights... Yet we promote democracy around the world??? and we pick and choose where to intervene... case closed...
soliloqy 2 years ago
D'Souza is frighteningly ignorant of U.S. history. His analogies to past U.S. conflicts fall completely flat. The U.S. was involved in WWII because another sovereign state (Japan) attacked us. Iraq did not attack us. Also, the American Revolution emerged from within. It was not imposed by France or Great Britain or Germany.
D'Souza is a neoconservative and imperialist. He has no place at an event called FreedomFest.
UsualMike 3 years ago
Exactly. Idiots like this dont realise radicalism is a direct result of interventionism. You cant expect a buncch of pissed off poor Muslims to no radicalise.
What a disgusting neocon.
FUZZYisBIG 2 years ago
Its a mixture of things. Try not to ad hominem everytime someone disagrees with the way you look at things and you have no substantial evidence to refute him...
Isolationism has never worked for the US. What Ron Paul doesn't want to talk about is "Kiss of Death" operations in Iraq, where we'd roll into a neighborhood, find all the friendlies, and leave. What happened to the friendly people? They were killed. Put that on a larger perspective in the Middle East. Goodbye Secularism.
tubub 2 years ago
First, isoloationism and what Ron Paul advocates is not simply moving away, it's not interfering and allowing the protocol of the free market to do its magic.
Second, Kiss of Death is irrelvent to the point I made.
I can debate this, but rabid neocons like this deserve nothing but ad hominem attacks, arguing with them logically is about as usefull as convincing creationists.
FUZZYisBIG 2 years ago
uhh yeah, fuck neo-cons. Fuck libertarians too. They all suck. And the religious right? Well, fuck them as well.
tubub 2 years ago
Libertarians are the only ones left with any sense.
The religious right and neocons, damn right, fuck them.
FUZZYisBIG 2 years ago
@tubub ron paul doesnt support isolationism, listen to what he is saying. he follows jefferson's mantra which is "trade with all and entangling alliances with none". is jefferson an idiot. ron is talking about no nation building and if you are going to war then at least declare otherwise you are acting like a king.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Yes, avoid foreign entanglements, but don't be a weak-handed, coward nation and CERTAINLY do not run away from your commitments like we did in Vietnam. As I've shown before, Paul befits the definition of an isolationist.
As for Jefferson, google Barbary Wars, Louisiana Purchase, and Empire of Liberty. Jefferson was an expansionist, perhaps even an imperialist in a distinctly American sense. He was not an isolationist like Paul, who's just a glib, isolationist ideologue.
tubub 1 year ago
@tubub "do not run away from your commitments like we did in Vietnam."
if the vietnamese dont want you there why would you stay? isnt life more important than pride?
the barbary wars was fighting pirates who attacked trade vessels. what nation was jefferson was building? you dirty his name by insinuating such nonsense. also dont forget the embargo act which was jefferson's biggest blunder where he restricted freedoms here and look how that turned out for him.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Commitment to South Vietnam... Obviously the commies didn't want us there, but that's why we were at war with them -.-
I respect life and that's I oppose Communism. You're actually not as much a libertarian as you just unbelievably idealistic... as if the Reds were going around with rainbow flags and pink ponies touting peace. One naive motherfucker.
tubub 1 year ago
@tubub "I respect life and that's I oppose Communism." Explain... communism is political and economic system that i dont support but i dont see how it is incompatible with life. that is just a ridiculous non sequitur.
and we didnt destroy the USSR through military excursions, they destroyed themselves because they could compete economically. just goes to show.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Communism makes the individual subservient to an artificially created state. A very large factor in the USSR's fall was in fact their inability to compete with us militarily, but their insistent attempts to do so around the world and in arms races, namely nuclear arms. Communism is a system with bad commerce while capitalism is the opposite, so the Soviet Union simply couldn't sustain their expenditures. They didn't self-immolate, that's just a load of poster-modernist bullshit
tubub 1 year ago
@tubub the military was one of MANY things that soviets tried to compete with the US on, along with the space race, steel production, technological innovation etc... they failed because a communist state cant create wealth, only the private sector can create wealth. communism couldnt sustain their expenditures, and that is exactly why they self-imploded. just like i said they couldnt compete economically.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
Yeah, and? That doesn't prove my point wrong. Go google a chart of Soviet military expenditures vs everything else and there you go. That's exactly what I just said, not you, and that doesn't mean their implosion was solely based on some cliche that "Communism doesn't work" therefore the entire Cold War was meaningless. They very well would've persisted if they didn't have outside competition.
tubub 1 year ago
@tubub communism doesnt work. the government is centralized and no wealth is created. they failed way before the 1989, if you believe not having enough toilet paper for your country and mass starvation is not a failure i dont know what is. they failed long before they left. authoritarians dont leave so easily. its also quite ironic that i keep saying that soviet military expansion led to their economic ruin but you refuse to acknowledge that it will lead to our ruin.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@tubub also you are the ideological one that wants to defeat the communists, the terrorists, the extreme muslims but fail to recognise that we are already stretched, dont have enough money and if everyone keeps going out there then who is going to protect us here. it is simple, i am practical in foreign policy and you are way too adventurous. we dont have unlimited resources.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
How are you practical? You suggested that if the army doesn't have any recruits, oh well then I guess we all just die. That's just absurd. America's power hinges on her global military apparatus, we leave one country and that country is left to the influence of our opponents. Afghanistan, Vietnam, China, Russia... these are all examples of such.
Believing that a strong military is a necessity for any community is common sense. "The art of war is of vital importance to the state"
tubub 1 year ago
@tubub how are you going to fund this if we have no money? not practical. live within your means, arent you supposed to be a fiscal conservative? america was economically a lot more powerful before woodrow wilson you know. what good is power if you are not prosperous?
ya if people arent willing to defend the country then why should that country survive? the people have implicitly willed to be that way. after all we are a democracy. and we dont have the draft and can still get people so...
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi You can't be pro-war and be a real conservative. Gotta call them out for what they are - neoconservatives.
mit26chell 1 year ago
Comment removed
AntaresInScorpius 7 months ago
wow! this guy had five people applaud him, most likely was his wife and kids. and yes I do think the other guys are shills. Ron Paul was right on the economy and he is right about intervention and entangling alliances
jerryjam051 3 years ago
Wow, that is so refreshing to hear amongst these isolationist libertarians that dominate the party.
flatpickerz7 3 years ago
D'Souza is a fucking idiot.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
D'Souza is so delusional.
IcyNami 3 years ago
doesnt he look like Mr. Bean :)
jamesaef 3 years ago 2
what the fuxx!!!!
this Indian is full of shit...
jamesaef 3 years ago
this guy uses very weak arguments. it's like he's a high school student pulling shit that his parents told him out of his ass. this asshole is preaching to the choir, he's not really arguing anything
intercourseman69 3 years ago
D'Sous is a moron
WKaliber1 3 years ago
There are so many holes in this guy's arguments, I don't even know where to start. But in a nutshell, he puts the "liberty" of foreign lands above our own...that our soldiers and marines have to give up their lives and we have to face economic consequences and spend the lives of our family members to democratize foreign lands. We did it ourselves. They can do it themselves.
He uses big words and flashy rhetoric to brush up his otherwise fallacious ideas.
metalmike06 3 years ago 4
Moreover, this man's ideology is the one of the main reasons America is falling into the shitter. We just can't afford it any longer.
Not to mention all he needs to do is read some of Washington and J.Q. Adams' speeches to get an idea of what American foreign policy should have been, and stop trying to put words in their mouths.
metalmike06 3 years ago 4
Osama Bin Laden said he knew he could never beat the great U.S. military, so he is bankrupting us, that hit and run strategy they use on us is good for them because they can do it forever, and forever is along time funding a war. And if Danish is so adament about spreading liberty through arms then why doesn't he go fight?
theoriginalmarp 3 years ago
because he is an ivy league graduate, elite conservative thinker and national bestselling author...
kamalgilkesk 3 years ago
Dinesh D'Souza fuck off
motokeiru 3 years ago
youre just jealous that a nerd like him could fuck ann coulter!..................... he's a good christian!
kamalgilkesk 3 years ago
this guy is a liar...every statement is a lie except that americans run away when it gets tough..
and 911 was an inside job..
torontobboy21 3 years ago
Proof, now
thirdwheelfilms 3 years ago
do your own research. I am not here to guide idiots
torontobboy21 3 years ago
hahaha you moron
WKaliber1 3 years ago
You GO-GIRL!!!
RJGula 3 years ago
Don't you Republican Supporters know that the Great Depression was brought on by three straight Republican Presidents and that travesty had to be fixed by a Democrat.
coop1974a 3 years ago
The depression happend because of government defecits and overspending.
theoriginalmarp 3 years ago 3
By republicans and lack of oversight.
coop1974a 3 years ago
Dinesh needs to get glasses that fit properly.
vikingaprinsessan 3 years ago
Dinesh has no CLUE what he is talking about when he speaks of libertarianism. Libertarianism is about freedom of action as long as it doesn't INVADE OTHERS' FREEDOM. I think bombing the crud out of civilians sort of invades their freedoms. Not to mention taxing us through coercion/violence to get the funds. Ugh.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago 2
"* Freedom often comes through force. For example through a revolution. Revolutions are rarely peaceful and never legal. It took a civil war to secure freedom for African Americans."
^!!!!!! Automatic fail. Anyone with half a brain knows the Civil War had nothing to do with slaves. Lincoln owned slaves and freed the slaves to cripple the South. And the North owned slaves too. Jesus Christ.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
Lincoln didn't own slaves. It would have been nearly impossible for him to own slaves because he lived most of his life in the free North.
thomaserossi 3 years ago
The North HAD slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederacy. It wasn't till later that the Northern slaves were completely freed.
Odd though, I looked into Lincoln and slaves and it seems he didn't, but I was positive that he had owned some at some point.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
Your thinking of Washington and Jefferson.
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
"* Is the libertarian position that we should sit back and watch this happen? Realistically we have interests in the Middle East and we should defend them."
I don't know who this Dinesh idiot is, but he obviously knows jack squat about libertarianism and is, intellectually speaking, the lowest on the food chain.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
The only real problem with America is that you sometimes get Presidents like JF Kennedy and Bill Clinton in the house and they cause a lot of damagde the republicans laster has to deal with and fix. Thank you..
dealerovski82 3 years ago
Dinesh D'Souza owns this debate, the only one who makes any sense and has arguble comments.
dealerovski82 3 years ago
He's very intellegent and a good debater, however his argument is flawed. There is a saying that says, "A people gets the government it deserves." Ultimately and always, the power is in the peoples hand, and the people have to answer to whom they give that power to. If a government is corrupt/evil, then it is the people of that nation that has the responcibility to purge it. It is their sacrafice to make, not Americas with the blood of its own sons and daughters.
Captain077 3 years ago
No I dissagre. If America would not intervine the problem would sooner or later hit and there would be several more 911s. To say 911 is a cause of international politics is cheap and not a fact like Ron Paul says. He should keep to his economics and stay out of the big politic issues. I can only agree on one reason with foregin poliitcs and the hate against US goverment, its the Israeli position and hugde backup to this country. They hate america for supporting Israel.
dealerovski82 3 years ago
So then you would have no problem having chineese or russian bases here in America? You would have no problem seeing foreign troops in our city and towns? You would have no problem with foreign nations making policies for America? You would have no problem with foreign nations selecting our leadership, even the presidency? If that would piss you off, then you agree with Ron Paul. If that doesn't piss you off... then I am not sure what to think of you.
Captain077 3 years ago
America doesnt need help, its the broken non democracy nations that need the troops present and a selected leader. Please understand the difference. If this what you said is Ron Pauls argument then indeed he is very ignorant as I thought.
dealerovski82 3 years ago
I don't believe these nations asked for our help. In fact, it is for those very reasons they hate us. When we kicked out the democratically elected shaw of Iran and placed our own leader in, guess what happened... Even our forefathers were strongly against us entangling ourselves in such a way, which is why they wrote up the constitution as they did. The ignorance is not in my part my friend, but yours. Fortunately there is a cure. Read the constitution and federalist papers.
Captain077 3 years ago
Your ides are shared with the liberals and the opposit of what the conservativs trying to preserve from the forefathers and the constitution of America. You say dont care about the rest of the world, let them solve their own problem. Thats a sort of mind set that caused 911. Its not true they attack You because you were over there before, its because they are a sick nation with sick leaders that provoke these things. They need to be put in there place and sent back to hell through US Boombs. ;)
dealerovski82 3 years ago
"America is the well wishers to the freedom & Independance of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Q. Adams
"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." John Q. Adams.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with one should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison
Want more thoughts from how our forefathers felt about foreign alliences and entanglements?
Captain077 3 years ago
Oh ya, I'm not a liberal. Pro life, Pro 2nd amendment, ultimately pro constitutionalist. However, concerning the middle east, we have been messing with them since WWII. They didn't attack us because they hate our freedoms, they hate our lifestyle, or whatever. They truly hate us because we have been messing with them for decades. Wouldn't you be pissed if another nation was messing with us?
Captain077 3 years ago
That is such crap!!! I don't believe they had anything to do with the 911 attacks. That's such an easy answer to say they did it because they are sick. The people that OWN this world are sick enough to do something like kill 5000 innocent people for a profit. And they are the only people I see who are benefiting from this stupid freaking war. And to say "they need to be put in there place and sent back to hell through US bombs" is the most arrogant thing you could have said.
xxmalkaxx 3 years ago
Neocon republicans don't know any history and are literally destroying the Constitution day by day. I can't accept the fact that you're this stupid. You're more than likely a troll.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
u are a troll
dealerovski82 3 years ago
Nope, just had a strong reaction. Such a strong one that it requires four separate posts!
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
America doesn't need help? When a president is elected and nobody elected him. When we go to war but nobody wanted us to go. When our rights are being stripped from us out of fear of terrorism. We are becoming a non-democracy nation. You can FEEL it, we are losing our country to a small group of over-paid war-loving tyrants.
xxmalkaxx 3 years ago
oh holy God. Stop crying a river, its not patriotic to blame and complain. Get over it.
dealerovski82 3 years ago
It's also not patriotic to merge church and state, and believe in the loss of civil liberties.
xwaffles54 3 years ago
WHAT AN ARGUEMENT!! Here's one for ya "go Fuck yourself" You'll be crying a river when you wake the hell up. It's not patriotic to blame and complain.....it's American you fool!!
xxmalkaxx 3 years ago
Are we paying attention? Democracy is an American way of life. We need to set an example for others to follow, not force it down their throats.
xxmalkaxx 3 years ago
Wow Dinesh is sooooooooo wrong. He's been brainwashed.
bdc03 3 years ago
A minor point: D'Souza has apparentely never heard of Turkey, which for all its faults is a (VERY) secular democracy with a considerable degree of personal and economic freedom. Turkey is, of course, also an example of a relatively peaceful revolution from above on the part of the Young Turks of the early 20th century.
Myndir 3 years ago
Iraq can't be Turkey. Different people, different culture, different religious persuation.
leoca 3 years ago
D'Souza makes a good argument, yet the wisdom found in the Constitution speaks louder. Non interventionism as prescribed by the Constitution and espoused by Ron Paul is a ultimately a practical policy.
Our Constitution, already in place, provides the guidance and *wisdom* to steer our affairs. Should war be necessary, let Congress decide. We need to get back to the basics.
All we need to do to pursue liberty is to understand and follow the Constitution.
InTheSticks1881 3 years ago
no. dsouza does NOT make a good argument. noninterventionism and liberty go hand in hand. interventionism and powerful government, high taxes, central banks, and domestic surveilance go hand in hand. just one example, in order to intervene in WWI, the united states government HAD to drop the gold standard and issue fiat. obviously such a dramatic change in policy had extreme consequences in the concentration of power, wealth, and influence, and paved the way for the contemporary welfare state.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
You gotta love it when the same government that over threw more democratically elected leaders than anyone els since ww2 has the nerve to talk about spreading of democracy around the world.
Ainethil 3 years ago
you mean the same gov't that defeated the communists in order to spread democracy?
Buried3030 3 years ago
No, the government that instead of scaling back its military budget after the end of the Gulf war, increased its budget. Speaking spreading democracy, the intention was never to spread democracy. Thats just a cover to exert economic and political control. For example, Iraqi farmers are banned from using recycled seeds (something they had been doing for thousands of years). They are only allowed to buy seeds that they buy from Monsanto.
Ainethil 3 years ago 4
Like I said before, the US overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran in 1953 and replaced him with a dictator that the US backed for a quarter of a century. And that is just one example of many when it comes to overthrowing democratically elected leaders. You can play with the world and kill and invade al you want. You have the power to do it. I just hope that you know the answer to the question that so many Americans pose and that question is: "Why do they hate us?".
Ainethil 3 years ago 2
The only time the US defeated a communist movement in direct combat was in Grenada. Compare with wars in Vietnam and Korea.
The history of the conflict US democracy and capitalism vs. communist was a triumph of "convert by example", not by force. Communist was defeated because it could not compare, in peace, to capitalist democracy.
The same is true with Muslim extremists: they can beat the west in a war of bombs and determination but not one of ideas or mass prosperity and opportunity.
Myndir 3 years ago
The so called democracy in Iraq is still controlled by the US. Monsanto forbids the Iraqi farmers from recycling and using new seeds. They have to buy genetically modified seeds from Monsanto. Thats one example of the agenda that is taken place under the cover of spreading democracy.
Ainethil 3 years ago
Dinesh O'Souza needs a serious history lesson. The middle east never new democracy before the Iraq war? is he for real? The Iranians democratically elected Muhammed Mosadeque who was overthrown by the US via the CIA in 1953. Israel is not a islamic or a secular tyranny. It is a democracy. Not that I like Israel but its still a democracy. Even today the Iranians elect the leaders of their country. The US has backed all those dictators in the middle east for decades.
Ainethil 3 years ago
You won't get anyhere with Dinesh. he guy is the worst debater I've ever seen. His entire set of arguments are straw m or other blatent logical fallacies. He hasn't a clue how to form well supported conlusions baseed on evdiencbecause he refuses to engage with the evidence. A rue mntal midget who is wroughwith right wing ideology.
TavishHill 3 years ago
One of Dinesh Desuza's arguments are week. Dinesh Desuza said its ok to be an ally of the lesser evil to combat the bigger evil. A lot of people see the US government as more of a threat to the world than Alqaida and rightfully so. For example. The US government starved over half a millioin iraqis to death. Its killing the planet with chemicals. It overthrew democratically elected leaders and so one. So does that mean its ok for those people to join alqaeda? Of course not.
Ainethil 3 years ago
Dinesh is trying to tell you that someone has insulted our mothers and though we've forgotten the time we insulted their mothers, well we're not gonna let them get away with it. He believe the end justifies the means, so no matter what the casualties no matter how economicaly ravaged our own country becomes it's all worth it because maybe somewhere down the line Democracy may take hold. Dinesh in a sense would come to your house and with a gun if necessary force you to get different curtains.
UrinationNation 3 years ago
i sniggered a little bit when i heard "secular tyranny" and Saudi Arabia in the same sentence.
jonbad19 3 years ago
Lol thanks for bringing an important point. Dinesh Desuza is an idiot. Saudia Arabia is not secular nor is it a democracy. I am surprised they allow such stupid individuals in such an important debate
Ainethil 3 years ago
D'Souza's argument is just silly. And it only addresses the issue of withdrawing from Iraq. What about the argument that we didn't need to go there IN THE FIRST PLACE? The real libertarian argument is that we shouldn't engage in wars that don't pursue our own national security. It's all well and good that we're promoting "liberty" in Iraq (though that's untrue anyway). But Americans care about their OWN liberty--the liberty not to be taxed to death to pay for the promotion of liberty abroad.
megalosaniac 3 years ago
dinesh d'souza is ridiculous!
jakob0815 3 years ago
It was driven by a geniune moral compulsion to rebuild a 2 shattered societies. It is completely different to all US wars since to so called promote democracy. It is more to further US imperialism and exploit the nations effected by so called US police actions. Like grabbing the oil in Iran in the 1950s or the trying to thief the oil from Iraq in the 21st century.
Ron Paul is right since Woodraw Wilson US has lost its way as regards to foreign policy and needs to get back to non intervention.
markjayaweera 3 years ago
Finally I see a lot of posts using Germany and Japan to justify illegal foreign police actions by the United States. If you read history properly US in world war 2 occupied Germany and Japan as a result of military victory in response to Aggressive action by Germany and Japan. In that the difference is US didn't specifically occupy Germany and Japan TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY. It is more like my god we won this terrible global conflict lets rebuild Germany and Japan that we devastated.
markjayaweera 3 years ago
Oh and another thing since Dinesh D'Souza is so concerned that US should spread democracy. I wonder why the US and the Brits overthrew the democractically elected Moussedegh of Iran and istalled the Shah to secure Iranian oil.
Also recently the palestinians democratically elected Hamas into power. What does US,UK and other so called beacons of democracy do? They suspend dealing with the Palestinians for peace negotiatians. Its all Smokescreens and mirrors. Ron Paul makes the most sense.
markjayaweera 3 years ago
Mr Dinesh D'Souza you are talking rubbish!
This type of thinking I believe is what drives
and has driven US imperialism in the last 50 years.
Like Ron Paul says US should mind its own business and have a non interventionist foreign policy like the founding fathers intended.
GO RON PAUL 08!
markjayaweera 3 years ago
Dsouza is morally bereft. He's speaking of ends justifying means. Just because we "can" or might be able to create artificial liberty elsewhere by force doesn't mean we should.
Billiameo 3 years ago
Paul and Casey utterly failed in this debate, and Paul's a terrible orator. They sounded completely unprepared and were terrible at rebuting .
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
I thought D'Souza was brilliant! Espescially his closing remark "Freedom is a cause worth fighting for.". And I'm glad that he mentioned the success stories of Germany and Japan, both of which benefited enormously from US occupation and rebuilding efforts and both of which are healthy, powerful, first-world nations today. And I would like to point out that neither modern-day Japan or Germany could be reasonably accused of being a "U.S. puppet state", they still have very unique cultures.
csmustain 3 years ago
This guy is laughable, they said the same thing about communism. If this one little country falls, then this one and so forth. He said it himself, they have been unsuccessful promoting an Islamic dictatorship anywhere else.
bdc03 4 years ago
Spreading "Democracy" while slipping into tyranny. Ironic.
MooseOfReason 4 years ago 3
He is smart but not experienced so is misguided by his ideals..
jaxxfat 4 years ago 2
The notion we must stay in a place, that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, to prove something to a caveman is asinine.The US must conquer a portion of Iraq's land for Muslim Democracy?we're supposed to believe it'll end at Iraq?Are we to spill our blood to the last drop?"If we believe in freedom, we should stay and fight for it".WHAT FREEDOMS.WE ARE LOSING THEM!If Iraqi's thirst for freedom,they can band together and do it themselves.
vocalbrush 4 years ago 2
He goes on saying that we need to go to Iraq to police that part of the world and he cleverly uses the sob story of choosing between Islamic tyranny and Secular tyranny. Hmm, he spent 5 minutes talking about that but at 7:25, he briefly mentions for one second "the pursuit of our own economic welfare..." Hmmm, think about it.
ahset 4 years ago 2
Soooo..What was the point of attacking on 9/11?
So we could go into the middleast and pillage and destroy only to be driven out by the insurgents?...Im not sure if his points are very valid.
wowfreedavidp 4 years ago 2
This guy contradicts himself severely. 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Iran is not trying to take over Iraq, neocons want to take over both.
hiimallen 4 years ago
If you want to see how the US treats the countries it occupies, look no further than Japan.
chad23232323 4 years ago 2
The muslim's in the middle east do not call the U.S. occupation of Iraq "muslim democracy" they call it "U.S. tyranny"
hiimallen 4 years ago 2
Freedom is not free, everyone has to get it themselves. We did not IMPOSE freedom on Germany and Japan. The Civil war did not end subjigation of black Americans. Abe Lincoln said he didnt do it to free the slaves but to preserve the Union. His examples are B.S.
hiimallen 4 years ago
I don't agree with everything he says, but his greatest strength is the fact that he's realistic
toddlerman 4 years ago
Dinesh, you speak my mind. I couldn't agree more.
veriteez 4 years ago 2
Don't be an idiot. Try being well-informed. You might find it to your liking.
Viwithingor84 4 years ago
my man sounds like a robot
sarvens1 4 years ago
Framing bin Laden's reasoning with the ubiquitous 'paper tiger' argument is propaganda at it's best. What better way to get America to bury you in a carpet of bombs than to propose this. Our unfindable Saudi ally gave us the new Pearl Harbor which allowed us to war on countries we already planned to bomb.
proteanview 4 years ago
D'Souza is MIchelle Malkin, not simply because he pretends to be conservative, but for his reasons for doing so.
If these wars were really securing our liberty, that would be one thing, but they clearly are not.
proteanview 4 years ago
We're imposing democracy in Iraq like Europeans were settling & civilizing Africa. These are all but buzz words for, "installing puppet regimes to get our paws on much needed natural resources".
proteanview 4 years ago
N.Korea was farther ahead w/ nukes than Iran, so why is D'Souza obsessed w/ her? Another obedient, sycophant, political hack of the Zionist powers that be. A striver who wants to fit it and shed his culture.
proteanview 4 years ago
God bless African Americans who are waking up to Ron Paul. Give a listen to this station .. blogtalkradio(dot)com/blacksforronpaul
Oneblend 4 years ago
Sounds like Dinesh wants to pick up a rifle and go to the middle east.
midwestcharm 4 years ago
Neo-cons don't fight wars, they promote wars.
stewart0312 4 years ago
Dinesh misses the whole point. If it's a just and needed war, we should declare it.
midwestcharm 4 years ago
I agree with Dinesh on his point that our political Left is only aiding the domestic goals in Iraq. Finish the job.
ChristianViewer08 4 years ago
Dsouza mixed up facts and forget serious facts, that makes his analysis poor and incoherent.
/
/Ron Paul take up all facts and make it more coherent..
Sebosky1 4 years ago