Glenn Beck goes nuclear on Tom Hanks and our foreign policy

Glenn is right and I think he agrees with the Libertarians on this one 100%. Wars of nation building and bases all over the world is what the neocons inherited from the progressives, it is not conservative. A true conservative would always make sure wars are short and brutal, he would not nation build. There is a reason the founders did not want a standing army, the threat to liberty that comes with it is much worse than any foreign power.

I think the racism and terror Hanks was referring to was the anti-Semitism and military aggression of the Nazis. I also think that when we said the only solution was to “kill em all” he was talking about the Japanese having a refusal to surrender which made warfare with them difficult and oftentimes tragic. Beck most likely took his comments out of context in order to say something he already wanted to say. I am not familiar with Hanks' general political views, but even most progressive people in America will not criticize any aspect of the U.S. involvement in World War II. Did Band of Brothers have a liberal slant? I don't remember one. Pacific is going to be worth watching.

Well, Hanks DID try to compare that to today's current war and I THINK THAT'S what Beck was going off on him about.

“We're just trying to kill all the brown people.” I've heard a NUMBER of leftist idiots say this or things similar to it.

It's absolutely absurd. My cousin just posted Karl Rove's interview where he said he was proud to waterboard terror suspects and he called him a “sick man.”

I responded to his post by mentioning that when you compare waterboarding to what THEY do to US when they capture US…then waterboarding starts to seem like a PRETTY SWEET DEAL. I'd MUCH rather feel like I'm drowning for a few hours than to have a rusty hacksaw SLOWLY severing my head before I finally die.

I completely agree with you, there are many African countries under sinister dictatorship and even some which are US sponsored, so hearing O'reilly coming with a ''we went to Irak to take out a brutal dictatorship'' is more than I can take

The US foreign policy is pro-democracy and anti-dictatorship ? what a blatant lie and great joke ! Even Saddam sordid regime was US sponsored.

The true is that conservatives are so much like Cheer-leading drones that they can't face the true : Iraq was a mistake and so was Afghanistan.

All the we are fighting for the Iraqi democracy is BS, and O'Reilly should be man enough to recognise it, Beck did it, but only slowly.

Afghanistan should have been a punitive expedition: Enter kicking Ass, capture Bin Laden, get out Kicking Ass and let so confused that they don't know what happened

Even the excuse for the Afghan war is stupid : Terrorist doesn't need countrie to plan an attack. Most of 9/11 was planned in Germany. … what about bombing Berlin ? Even the reason given to go after the Taliban is lame. There are thousands of lunatics who scream all over the place that they want to destroy the US, but do they have the capacity ?

Even if the Taliban get a NUKE, the US have enough Patriot missile to take it out if the lunch it with a ICBM. Neither walking around with a Nuke is feasible, after all the CIA and co could spot it easily.

Even Saddam threat was overblown, after all even If he got WMD, He couldn't threaten the US, maybe Blackmail is neighbours, but then comes the question : Why in 1992 the US&Allies spared Saddam and its armies ? Why instead of whipping the bastard from the face of the earth, the US stopped and instead opted for sanctions who killed thousand of Children and claim it ''was worth''

Only a fool can believe that US foreign policy is driven by compassion

About North Korea, I side with Beck, the troops should come home, since their presence make no sense. Being there or not make not difference because :

- North Korea will get Nuke anyway
- South Korea can defeat North Korea without US troops

The only policy that make sense in Korea is that stop playing this game and have South Korea whipe North Korea once for all. Sure a deal must be reached with China, but this is not such a problem.

US savior of the world ? what a damn joke !

The fear that If the US retreat the Chinese will take it over and be the new police.
Not only the Chinese doesn't have the capacity now, but even if they do acquire, oversee expansion is not a top priority

Not all the founders were opposed to a standing army, including two that actually fought in the Revolution, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.

All too often what Thomas Jefferson thought is conflated with what all the Founders thought. They were not all on the same page on many issues.

Beck's a closet Ron Paul-bot on foreign policy. I think he kept those opinions to himself and linked himself to Rush as he was establishing himself, but now he's telling us what he has always thought on foreign policy. He's more a liberterian than a conservative in my view. And he needs to stop addressing his audience as America…that's goofy. Referring to liberals as “progressives” seems to be surrendering the language and that annoys me as well.

Well, “progressives” seems to be his basket, into which he puts all collectivists.

Personally, I think “collectivists” is a better term. I am a Nockian in that regard. There are, perhaps, a few important taxonomic distinctions one might want to make in an academic sense, but “collectivists” works to distinguish a whole family of political thought from classical liberals, who are diametrically opposed.

Untill righteousnes is sought after for it's own sake, mankind will not know what makes for peace.

I think he should call them liberals or socialists. Liberals want to be called progressives….they run away from the term liberal. You kind of sound like a fool when you rail against people that you label progressive.

Everything Tom Hanks says is PC. It's PC to label America as racist. We must flog ourselves for past racism to feel good about ourselves.

Sure, it would have been impossible for Saddam to load his nuke (once it was made) on a freighter and park it in NY harbor.

Impossible, I tell ya.

And, Iran will be impotent and restrained if they get a nuke. I love Happy Talk!!!

Speaking only for myself, I find it useful to understand how we got here. I've learned a lot of history from Jonah Goldberg and, yes, Beck.

For many years, I've been quite conflicted about TR and some of his policies.

FDR and Lyndon Johnson were far more leftwing than Teddy.

Again, I live in the present and I'm concerned about the future, and I don't think a dead president in Teddy presents any problem for us, but Obama does, and that's where the focus needs to be. If you think Teddy was as leftwing as Obama, your little history lessons from Beck seem to be making you less informed.

I agree with your focus on the present threat. TOTALLY.

Please don't misunderstand. TR was a very BAD precedent, and set many very bad precedents against the Constitution. That is where I live, BTW. As a student of both the law and history, it is good to know where we started to go wrong. It helps to know how to set things right again.

I personally think some of Beck's criticisms of Roosvelt are off base. There were a lot of crony capitalists during Roosevelt's day, companies seeking to have monopolies, which flies in the face of free market conservativism.

I'm not sure why we need to know about Teddy Roosevelt to explain to people why socialism is wrong. Obama is all we need. I think Beck actually hurts conservativism when he tries to suggest Republicans just as bad as Democrats like Obama. That's simply not true. Republicans have no been perfect but I'll taking a McCain or Teddy Roosevelt over an Obama anyday.

Self-fearmongering and paranoia seems to have become US preferred sport lol

Firstly: In what purpose would Saddam load a nuke to NY harbour ? makes no sense at all. This plot is just stupid, so Saddam work is ass to get a Nuke(just one) and load on a container to NY and then ? Detonate it ? what is the purpose ? Saddam wasn't not a Islamic Nutjob anti-american, just a Dictator
Even if He did tried to stupid plot, He would have to outfox the MOSSAD and CIA, you see the problem with you paranoid plot is that as soon has Saddam had got Nukes, everyone would know it and from there smuggling the NUKE to the US would be very difficult

Secondly: Iran get a Nuclear weapon ! run for you lives !!!!!!!!

Not so much, see Iran Get ONE, maybe 10 Nuclear weapons and mount them on IRBM missiles … so what ?

Israel have 200 NUKES, US NUKES vs Iran 10 Nukes ????? It is gona to be a massacre lol

Don't forget that both the US and Israel have anti-ballistic missiles, Iran have none, so who in your mind will survive a nuclear exchange ???

Even if Iran launch an attack, the will not only take the risk of getting out-nuked, but Israel will not only be trigger happy … but they will pound Iran so much that they will stay in the stone age for the next century. Israel alone can fully respond to a Iranian attack, firstly by Nuking Iran, then bombing and finally sending some IDF dudes to bring some Ayatollahs home

Seriously, what are the threat that Iran posse ??? which one ??? One US Carrier group alone could finish Iran in one week.

This is just silly self-fearmongering and Conservatives failing to grasp to they are wrong on foreign policy

Did you read Dr. Hanson? What points did he make that you refute?

Do ideas and self-defense play no part in wars?

If I violently defend myself against an attack by a person of another race, is my motivation “race”…?!?!?

Yes, there was racism in Vietnam. The war was won in 68. The demos withdrew support and we pulled out–men and financial support. Vietnam fell and 3 million Vietnamese,Cambodians, and Laos died. Would the demos have pulled us out of Europe? It shows who the real racists are.

I was ONLY using Africa as a metaphor for the “helping restore Iraq's government” argument. We DID what we SHOULD HAVE which was get the BAD GUY who WANTED TO ATTACK US OUT OF POWER. After that…”RESTORING GOVERNMENT?” BULLCRAP.

#3 ALSO goes further to prove my point that if we STOPPED PLAYING POLICE…we could rotate our troops for REAL border security instead of some fence with INEFFECTIVE CIVILIANS FAILING TO DO THEIR JOB.

It's simply a matter of understanding history, so you don't repeat it. Also, the reason he uses “progressives” is because it's a SLOW and PROGRESSIVE PROCESS.

Teddy adds some more government, then FDR, then LBJ, then Carter, then Bush Sr., then Clinton, then Bush Jr., and NOW OBAMA. PIECE-BY-PIECE is how this has come about and UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS' ORIGINS can HELP US STOP IT.

You CAN'T JUST read history though. History ISN'T THE ONLY portion of education you need, but it's PART of it.

The MOST IMPORTANT thing is the CONSTITUTION. Learn THAT bad boy IN & OUT. If you LEARN, ABSORB, and REMEMBER the Constitution IN FULL…then you'll KNOW THEN how to BEST COMBAT TYRANNY.

I'm sure ideology (possibly a worse motivation than racism) plays a large part in wars too; VDH can probably fill multiple volumes explaining how ideology leads to war.

I did not read his piece but I am open to all historians of any stripe. I reject whitewashing of our military history in southeast Asia though, so I'm still open to reading him if he is honest about the racism and terrorism committed by the United States against the Japanese and Vietnamese people.

I think it's nonsense to say that wars only happen due to ideas and self-defense — especially the wars in southeast and east Asia in particular. Let's not forget that the only country to use nuclear terrorism is ours.

Now now. This is where you & I are gonna have to disagree and I DON'T think this conflicts with the Libertarian point of view on war EITHER.

We DO need to go after people who THREATEN US. Even if it's not a huge threat…it's STILL A THREAT. Also…we're talking NUCLEAR CAPABILITY here. Yeah, MAYBE we can stop it before it does any damage, but let's just say MAYBE WE CAN'T. The damage from some one “WEAK” Iranian nuke can STILL WIPE OUT AN ENTIRE MAJOR CITY. Just look at Hiroshima….ONE BOMB. Nagasaki…ONE BOMB. That would absolutely CRIPPLE our country and economy for AT LEAST a WHILE. There's no mistake that we SHOULD be going after the guys with the nukes and we need to do it MORE PROACTIVELY than we currently are. We just need to take Adinajaad (or however you spell his name out) and KJI ONE DICTATOR AT A TIME and THEN refocus our war efforts on HOMELAND SECURITY.

My FOUR LARGEST beefs with the CURRENT war are that we DIVERTED ourselves by goin after Saddam, DIDN'T LEAVE AFTER FINISHING IRAQ, we like fighting MULTIPLE WARS AT ONCE instead of ONE-AT-A-TIME, and this is the ONLY war in OUR ENTIRE HISTORY that WASN'T TAXPAYER FUNDED.

I'm just curious. HOW MANY war-supporters at the moment would support this thing if they had to ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT? Make the argument that we'll have to pay for all our deficits later anyway…but that's NO EXCUSE because had this been TAXPAYER FUNDED…we WOULDN'T OWE BILLIONS IN INTEREST like we DO NOW.

I think Tyler's post points out the imbecillity of yours. You are so naive and can't even see it. You use words like fear mongering to discredit conservative analyis but then you try to use tenuous arguments that you think look convincing but are really found wanting.
One nuclear attack on its own can cause massive carnage. And you think this is acceptable for a evil regime like the one in Tehran to have a nuclear weapon at its disposal? Your kind of politics has an aversion to taking the tough effective actions when the US has the chance. This is because you left wing nutcases don't want to be viewed as a 'warmonger' etc. It is better to do the right thing and be rebuked for it if this is the price of doing the right thing. You say that the US can easily dispense with the Iran if it had to, but once they get the bomb it is far more unlikely that the US will attack it and you should know this. Iran's position will be stronger if it gets the bomb. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you.