Glenn Beck goes nuclear on Tom Hanks and our foreign policy
This is a long clip, but it’s a great discussion clip. The clip starts out with Beck vehemently responding to Hanks’ remarks that WWII was about racism and terror. But then it evolves into something even juicier. Around the 3:30 mark, Beck begins to talk about his ideal for our foreign policy, which reminded me alot of Ron Paul, and then it becomes an argument between Beck & Pat vs Stu on what we should or should not be doing with our military around the world.
I would weigh in with my thoughts, but to be honest I am torn between the arguments that Beck & Stu are making. I will say that I’ve never been a proponent of nation building, as George Bush advocated back in the 2000 Presidential debates. Off the cuff the idea of responding with force to someone who attacks us and then letting them put the pieces back together has some merit but I can also see the good that’s been done in Iraq from staying with them through this process and helping them develop a government that will make them more stable.
Also, if you don’t listen to the end there’s a good chance you could misunderstand what Beck’s reasons are for his stance, and his time-line of when it should happen.
I look forward to a good discussion here. Enjoy the video:
View Comments to “Glenn Beck goes nuclear on Tom Hanks and our foreign policy”
Leave a Reply
subscribe to us
required viewing
Pambas, why are you so judgmental and so critical of the actions and motives of your country? You sound so cynical. Of course your government and country is not perfect, but they try to undertake the actions and devise policies that support and promote the US national interest. You sound really down on conservatives. I'm the first to admit conservatives don't always get it right, but at least they try to advocate the most effective policies and not take the easy route which your buddies do- opt for appeasement or nonsensical policies like open ended diplomacy. If I were American I'd be proud and I wouldn't find fault so easily and hold it to such an unrealistic high standard. Compared to most other countries the US is a saint and I believe your country has the right ideals and is making a big mistake veering in a socialist/statist direction. I don't think anyone here thinks the US foreign policy is solely benign and I for one am reluctant to paint their motives in such a dark light as you seem to. You guys on the left seem like you are just waiting for an opportunity to condemn the conservatives in your country who want to take the tough decisions to try to solve problems/issues that affect the US. You just want to point score and win political battles and not fight for the good of your country.
You call me a lefty nutcase but you are yourself being a right wing nutcase !
Firstly, even if Iran get the bomb, they will still be unable to launch a successful attack against the US, much less survive it, but then were You fall short is that you will likely fall short is WHY THE US IS NOT TAKING CARE OF IRAN ????
Let me answer : Because conservatives were such George W BuSHeeps that they could tell him that Afghanistan and Iraq was a mistake, such a big mistake that now the US can't even afford a pre-emptive strike against Iran
It is just like a Bill O'Reilly interview the Big Fat Idiot … sorry Michael Moore
Moore : What we went in Iraq ?
O'Reilly : Because of the Saddam was a sordid dictator
Moore : Wasn't it about WMD ?
O'Reilly : In the beginning but after … (random set of ''conservative'' BS excuses)
If you don't admit that the whole Bush wars were mistakes and stopping repeating he same Hannity and O'reilly BS talking points then you will always fail. It even sounds like conservative is just being a War-Going George W BuSHeep right wing Nutcase
Lets see the whole ''war on terror'' the paragon of US foreign policy dumbness:
200 000 troops + 1 trillion $ vs 5000 Ashish nut-case commanded by a Saudi Idiot who hide in a cave ?!?!? are you kidding me ?
Are those terrorist genius ? superman ? tell when does a ''conservative'' brain doesn't grasp the fact that the whole ''war on terror'' is dumb ? since when fighting a strategy is ''intelligent'' ???
Lets stop with all the bravado idiocy, drop this stupid foreign policy and stop fearmongering yourself
Iran is not a threat, with or without a bomb : 10 000+ US Nukes, 200 Israely Nukes & 3000 Patriot interceptor vs 100 Iranian nukes … yes Iran is sooooo dangerousssssss
If you can at least make the argument that we need to protect Israel … then maybe we can seriously talk about it and why not use some Israeli tactics like : enter beat the crap out of them, capture/kill the responsable, get out and beat the crap out of them instead of the dumb policeman&nationbuilder of the world … to end not even having options to deal with Iran
What to do now ? Give the Kurds loots of weapons, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and launch a combined Israeli/US strike to level Iran … and lets admit that BuSHeep BS attitude is what get us in this trouble in the first place
ETA:
lets take the Horror scenario that Iran lunch ONE lone attack against the US … kind of just to kill US citizens.
What do we do ? The US can lunch at least 10 Patriots anti-ballistic interceptor and 10 Nukes to intercept it. The Idea is to detonate a NUKE to disable the incoming Iranian incoming Nuke
Sooooo are the Iranian then going to use a Death Star ??? lol
Hi Pambas. Yes I guess I am rather right wing, but I beg to differ about the nutcase bit. But maybe I am. Anyway I find it much more practical to be a conservative than a social engineering cheese eating surrender monkey like my friends on the left. I make no apologies for being right of center and I believe in things like strong national security, limited government, freedom of speech and belief in traditional western values. I believe in putting the country’s interest first and am against things that serve appearances if they are at the expense of the nation’s interest. I guess I am a traditionalist.
I think some of your post is sound but I'd like to respond to a few things you raised or pointed out.
You are right that Iran won’t be able to attack the US, but they will be able to put pressure on US interests in the region. They will have altered the power relationships/balance of power in the middle east region and this could have detrimental implications for US interests IMHO. The US is not taking care of Iran because the Obama administration is unwilling to consider using the military option to stop Iran from getting the bomb. This is a mistake I feel. I know it is unpopular to launch a strike against Iran but it will secure the US’s interest in the region and protect Israel as well.
I don’t think Iraq and Afghanistan are a mistake. The US was bold and was right to wage wars in both countries. If you are unwilling to deal ruthlessly with a bloodthirsty enemy they will see this as weakness and will keep attacking you and you will continue to have a problem. You have to make examples of these enemies. The US has to project strength and power and be willing to exercise that power if and when it feels it has to. If you have power but refrain from using it eventually you will cease to have it and other more willing actors will step up to fill the void.
I think the primary reason behind the Iraq invasion was that Saddam was in fact trying to acquire WMD (recall in 1983 the Israeli strike on Iraq's nuclear facility in Baghdad). The UN passed a resolution saying that if Iraq didn’t co-operate with the Weapons Inspectors there would be “serious consequences”. So the language used was open to interpretation and it could be interpreted as giving the UN the authority to take military action if Saddam didn’t comply with the resolution and he sure as hell didn’t, so the US backed up the resolution with force. There definitely was a justification for military action even if WMD couldn’t be found at the time or ascertained to exist. So regime change was a consequence of Saddam’s refusal to co-operate and comply. Too bad for him. He had to play cat and mouse and mess with the world’s most powerful country. He should have played a better hand.
I don’t think these 2 wars have to be viewed as mistakes, and the bold invasions could bode well for the US in the long term. It is bold to try to seek to reform the political systems of both countries so that rather than be sources of terrorism and hotbeds of anti western sentiment destined to contribute to more attacks against the US and its allies, these 2 societies could become stable modern countries that developed socially, politically and economically. It could turn out ok but I have little faith in the people that inhabit these 2 countries. They are not freedom loving people and do not look like they want to create political systems that are based on the values that our countries are rooted in. I don’t believe they want to embrace the western values that make our countries free and secular (other than voting in a democratic election). That is not the US’s fault. It was worth a try and I hope as a consequence it will shake up Islam and help bring about a reformation that that religion desperately needs. I hope the desire for change and freedom reaches critical mass in those two countries one day, but I could be asking for too much.
The terrorists have a lot of supporters and they are a formidable enemy. They have the motivation, stamina and will to fight the world’s only superpower and its allies. They know the west has no stomach for conflict and they feel they just need to bide their time and the west will give up in due time. That is what they are banking on- our lack of will and unwillingness to fight a sustained conflict with radical Islam.
I agree that the term “war on terror” is a stupid term and a misnomer. It should be a war on Islam/radical Islam (if they want to be PC) because that is who we are fighting (when I say we I mean the whole west). We should be clear about who we are fighting and be ruthless with those who sympathise with the enemy’s objectives. There are far too many apologists for radical Islam in the west. Our mistake is not sorting them out. We have to be aggressive with them.
Back to Iran, we do need to protect Israel. She is our ally and deserves the support and solidarity and we should give her the green light to take whatever action the Israeli government feels that they need to take. Simple as that. We need to look out for our buddies and make them stronger and promote their security interests and help do what it takes to make our enemies weaker or pummel them if we have to let our friends do it if we don’t want to.
I think the US should leave Iraq once it feels it has achieved its objectives and leave Iraq to stand on its own. Hopefully the roots of Iraqi democracy are strong enough now. They should be able to stand on their own two feet now. I’ve heard that there is still work to be done, but the surge gave a real opportunity for Iraq to form a stable democratic country and the future doesn’t look as bleak as it once did.
I think the US have to stay the course in Afghanistan and do what it takes to defeat the Taliban and be ruthless with them and convince the Afghani people who the real enemy is. I think McChrystal is doing a good job.
As for Iran I would love to see the US try to undermine the Iranian government and encourage those Iranians who want change to seek it now and fight for it. No need to alienate the Iranian people if they are on our side. We should seek the removal of the government as they are a perpetual thorn in western countries’ sides.
Lastly I agree the Iranians cannot strike the US, but we should prevent them from having the capability to strike our allies in the region. Just because the US is immune to a nuclear attack from Iran, doesn’t mean it should be left to its own devices to acquire a bomb and wreak havoc in a volatile region.
War against Radical Islam ?????? With all due respect, this is dumber than the ''War on terror''
Firstly tell me how does Attacking and conquering Iraq and Afghanistan could have prevented something like 9/11. To refresh you : 10 nutcases meet in secret in EUROPE AND US, took flying lessons, boarded planes and high jacked them and flew them in WTC.
Any sensible people would understand that the problem is that :
- People with Islamic background where allowed to enter the US
- Air-planes flew completely unarmed making it easy for the terrorist to hijack the plane
So now tell me how does bombing Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia does prevent another conspiracies of this kind ?
You can come with all the ''radical Islamist hate us'' crape … they can whine all day long reading they crappy books or smoking pot and saying that they will destroy the US it doesn't change anything. This come with the similar crape that 9/11 was a ''act of war''.
The war on terror is misguided, and all the we ''want to help the iraqi and Afghan to embrace democracy'' is also useless
Terrorism is a criminal activities, in the same page as the assassination of JFK, MLK, the tentative to kill Reagan, and in this way you can't solve it with military solution, but law enforcement like : improving security in sensible sites, keeping individuals inclined to participate in those plots out, and some solid investigation
The worst that you can do is deem the Terrorist to be some kind ''Uber-Soldiers'' and make them worth of a ''war'' !!! I mean ? this is like responding to some skin head idiots by wagging war ?
Why does the US doesn't learn with Israel and make stuff that works like :
Wage war to destroy real threat, take only the dudes that matter and keep potential terrorist out.
Why the hell would you say it's to be expected because he's Mormon?
I'm glad my religion is so funny to you. I see you're making huge assumptions about it as well. Do you understand the “special underwear”? I doubt it. Have you ever thought what you have read or heard might just be wrong?
I'm sorry you think it is a flaw to be LDS. I think it's a flaw to joke about other people's religious beliefs.
This doesn't seem like the right place to attack religion. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that's really all that should matter to you-if anything.
You're right. I DID go a little TOO FAR. When I get caught up in certain thoughts, it tends to flow and I forget to turn the faucet off.
Sorry if I offended you. It's NOT JUST Mormonism I find to be a flaw, but ALL RELIGION PERIOD. My belief is that one does not need religion to bring them closer to God.
The divinity of the spirit is VERY important, so at least we can agree on that much if nothing else.
Thank you.