Comments on: Glenn Beck goes nuclear on Tom Hanks and our foreign policy

By: Glenn Beck on Tom Hanks’ Military Annihilation Accusations | Maggie's Notebook

Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:51:33 +0000

[...] the video here or go over to RightScoop and read the commentary there before watching the [...]

By: Margie10

Margie10 — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:53:43 +0000

Thank you.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:35:35 +0000

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.

By: Margie10

Margie10 — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:17:19 +0000

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.

By: pambas

pambas — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:20:21 +0000

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.

By: Startabacklash

Startabacklash — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:41:31 +0000

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.

By: pambas

pambas — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:11:06 +0000

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

By: Startabacklash

Startabacklash — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:27:57 +0000

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.

By: pambas

pambas — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:08:15 +0000

I do strongly agree that We should go after the Bad guys and those who pose a threat, but it Must be a real threat

Lets just see Saddam Iraq and North Korea, they were both declining dictatorship who tried to acquire weapons to defend them-self not attack the US

So why attack them ? It only make sense for Irsael and South Korea, not the US, and in 1992 Irsael should have takken part of the war so everyone would have know not to mess with them. But even the 1992 war was plainly stuppid, instead of finishing it, you had a 10 year embargo that killed thousand of innocent children, this is plainly evil

About Iran, you are again just having a paranoia about Iran, but lets assume that the dudes are stupid enough to lunch an attack, their likely target is Israel and we all know it. So lets stop fool ourself, Israel and the US must take out Iranian Nukes, I agree, but lets not pretend that the current US strategy is working on it.

If the US was really on the Business of reality, they should have finished Saddam in 1992 in a quick and rapid war, and instead of a 10 embargo killing kids, they should have punished Saddam by give the Kurds enough weapons to change the balance of Power in Iraq. The instead of Nation Building Afghanistan, they should have just entered blow up stuff, capture Ben Laden and come home. After this Iran would have know is fate : DESTRUCTION

Because of the current US dumb strategy, Iran know the US will never attack, because the current US strategy is conquer and Nation-build so they know the US have no current capacity to Nation Build Iran. Also Afghanistan and Iraq are going to fall in Iranian hands anyway

Lets stop with the Bush-angover talking points, face it : Magnifying threat is what get you in trouble. Because the US over-estimated Al Qaeda and Saddam, now we strangle in 2 countries and unable to launch and attack against the guy who actually pose a REAL threat : IRAN

This is the tragedy of the current US policy : Wasting efforts in non-existent threat to finally being unable to confront real ones

Lets face it O'Reilly, Hanniti and all the BuSHeep Conservative have such a big ego and cheerleader mentality that they are just making a lot of stupid excuse for Iraq and Afghanistan and don't want to face the true : Both were mistake and waste of life and treasure

By: Startabacklash

Startabacklash — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:55:23 +0000

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.