Beck: fight the war to win, or just bring the troops home

[emazur]

Now we finally know Beck's up-to-date position on the wars. He is more hawkish than libertarians on foreign policy (which he admits in the Couric interview). More like Goldwater I guess. It's a mixed message - we at RPF just want the troops to come home, but Beck says do what is necessary to win and finish it, or just bring the troops home. So really he thinks Obama should send in more troops to Afghan and pound them hard, but if Obama's gonna half-ass it and drag the war on and on, Beck wants out. But he does call for troop withdrawal from around the world in other countries. This is pretty much what I assumed his views were and it's probably the best we can expect from Beck on foreign policy. If Obama does bullshit around in Afghan and Beck calls him out on that and demands troop withdrawal, then Beck should be praised by us all. It's up to the individual to decide if the message he is giving here in the video is praiseworthy or not - I expect mixed reactions from this board. One thing probably all of us can agree on is that he's foolish for not regretting the initial intervention into Iraq.
YouTube - Beck: fight the war to win, or just bring the troops home

 

[nobody's_hero]

Heck, even I'll admit that they need to have some kind of goal. There's no sense it standing over there waiting to get shot when our troops don't have any concise objective at all.

But, they never had any real goals other than the ones that the profiteers will never face justice for, so, they should come home.

(Of course, we're screwed if we stay, because 'you can't win an occupation')

 

[erowe1]

There should be a moratorium on the word "win" in the context of this Afghanistan war. I wonder if most of the people who talk about winning it even have a vague concept of what that would mean when they say it.

 

[MRoCkEd]

He's coming along, slowly but surely. He no longer wants us to police the world and instead wants to "let South Korea, Japan and Germany fund their own security." Saying we should "fight hard and get out or just get out" is a big step for him.

 

[Dianne]

Actually I hold Obama totally responsible for every soldier's death in Afghanistan atm. He has left the troups we have there as sitting ducks, without the proper support they need.

He needs to pull them out immediately to save their lives, or add more per his general's instructions. I would prefer to see them pulled out immediately !! I am totally anti-war, but I hate to wake up every morning to see five more of our soldiers dead, while Obama doing talk shows and pushing his socialism...

Remember these guys and gals had no choice when they were deployed to Afghanistan, and Obama has thrown them in the chitter. Their lives are the least of his priorities. Just another reflection of his true bastardism.

 

[MsDoodahs]

If the nation is going to send troops "in to win" or whatever, then do you think Beck means declaration of war by Congress?

(I did not listen to this but I did hear the Couric interview last night)

 

[MRoCkEd]

If the nation is going to send troops "in to win" or whatever, then do you think Beck means declaration of war by Congress?

(I did not listen to this but I did hear the Couric interview last night)

He did say he agreed with Rand on the declaration of war.

 

[fisharmor]

He's coming along, slowly but surely. He no longer wants us to police the world and instead wants to "let South Korea, Japan and Germany fund their own security." Saying we should "fight hard and get out or just get out" is a big step for him.

QFT
I don't know about you guys, but I had to go through this transitional stage (admittedly, three years ago) where I realized the war wasn't what everyone was saying it was. It shattered my whole political paradigm. Putting the pieces back together takes some time.

If he's not just trolling for ratings, but actually going through the same transformation, then he's a max of 6 months away from being like Justin Raimondo.

 

[constituent]

like i've been saying, his false-choices are the key to understanding his motives.


when he says "fight to win" OR "just bring the troops home," you tell me what the fox audience hears...

 

[emazur]

like i've been saying, his false-choices are the key to understanding his motives.


when he says "fight to win" OR "just bring the troops home," you tell me what the fox audience hears...

It's pretty clear from listening to this that Beck wants to fight to win and as you say that is what the Fox audience wants to hear. We all know that he should just call for a full withdrawal b/c Afghanistan can't be won and b/c we can't afford it. But he's also saying that he will support an Afghan withdrawal if Obama doesn't do what the generals are requesting. Do you think there's a snowball's chance in hell Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al will call for withdrawal if Obama doesn't bow down to the wishes of the military brass?

The false-choice isn't up to a neo-con audience to decide, it's up to Obama.

 

[emazur]

If the nation is going to send troops "in to win" or whatever, then do you think Beck means declaration of war by Congress?

No, he's referring to McChrystal's request that more troops would be necessary to win in Afghanistan. Besides, I thought we did declare war in Afghanistan. If not, what was that authorization to use force in Afghan thing that Dr. Paul voted in favor of back in 2001?

 

[wildfirepower]

USA "war on terror" costs $200 Billion per year.

 

[Todd]

That's been Dr. Paul's point all along. A Declaration of war defines key objectives to that war. When they're accomplished the troops come home. He knows that no one is likely to do that and that is why it hasn't happened in 60 years.

Beck doesn't seem to go far enough.

 

[constituent]

No, he's referring to McChrystal's request that more troops would be necessary to win in Afghanistan.

Then he and McChrystal (new name to me, who got bumped for his promotion I wonder?) have obviously missed the many eloquent arguments advanced by parties too numerous to mention that suggest we cannot win by blowing them up (and that, in fact, it is our constantly blowing people up and destroying their social/political infrastructure that causes their violent reaction in the first place).

Besides, I thought we did declare war in Afghanistan. If not, what was that authorization to use force in Afghan thing that Dr. Paul voted in favor of back in 2001?

"We" authorized the president to use force. Some say it's the same, others don't. Ron Paul's vote on Afghanistan is one of the major rubs for me...

 

[YumYum]

He's coming along, slowly but surely. He no longer wants us to police the world and instead wants to "let South Korea, Japan and Germany fund their own security." Saying we should "fight hard and get out or just get out" is a big step for him.

I doubt he is "coming along, slowly but surely." He interviewed yesterday John Bolton, and was upset that Obama is letting Israel down by demanding they give up the settlements in the West Bank. Beck and Palin are Israel Firsters, and are only stealing parts of Ron Paul's message to win an audience with conservatives. He wants us to pull out of South Korea, Japan and Germany so we can put those troops and resources in the Middle East to fight the Zionists wars.

 

[Liberty Star]

Although he's been called a mentally unstable neocon in the past, but Beck's right on this. If we want to help Iraqi and Afghan children and take care of Iran, we have to fight with the aim to win or what's the point?


YouTube - Glenn Beck Iraq, The Real Story

YouTube - Beck: Iraq "was always about getting to Iran" & WMD's bonus

 

[JoshLowry]

You can't win an occupation.

 

[Kylie]

He's coming along, slowly but surely. He no longer wants us to police the world and instead wants to "let South Korea, Japan and Germany fund their own security." Saying we should "fight hard and get out or just get out" is a big step for him.

It has taken me until now to really decide how I felt about it. I can appreciate his way of thinking. I don't want us there....or anywhere for that matter. Unless we have a clear and concise plan, we don't do it.

Actually I hold Obama totally responsible for every soldier's death in Afghanistan atm. He has left the troups we have there as sitting ducks, without the proper support they need.

He needs to pull them out immediately to save their lives, or add more per his general's instructions. I would prefer to see them pulled out immediately !! I am totally anti-war, but I hate to wake up every morning to see five more of our soldiers dead, while Obama doing talk shows and pushing his socialism...

Remember these guys and gals had no choice when they were deployed to Afghanistan, and Obama has thrown them in the chitter. Their lives are the least of his priorities. Just another reflection of his true bastardism.

I just want a decision made, one way or the other. To let them sit there without a clear plan of action is fucked up.

USA "war on terror" costs $200 Billion per year.

What's really messed up is that looks like a small number now.

What's $200 billion is the grand scheme of things, ya know?

 

[Liberty Star]

I could be wrong but what inferred from his recent statements is that we should care less about about prorecting local populations and get the kill going. He even said we should terrorize them in one of the videos if I heard it right.