Glen Beck Explains Himself and Answers his Critics

[constituent]

I agree about the indefinite timeline. However, you can't simply leave a country rudderless, with rival factions terrorizing the populace, after you dispose of their government. You have to leave some semblance of order, even if it is not a functional democracy.

So then you don't support self-determination?

And what if the country is "rudderless, with rival factions terrorizing the populace" while we're there? It makes no sense to say we have to stay there because of the problems that exist almost exclusively due to "our" presence.

Not only that, it's total neo-con bilge.

 

[AuH20]

So then you don't support self-determination?

And what if the country is "rudderless, with rival factions terrorizing the populace" while we're there? It makes no sense to say we have to stay there because of the problems that exist almost exclusively due to "our" presence.

Not only that, it's total neo-con bilge.

I support self-determination but you have to provide some foundation for the power base that you intentionally imploded. And IMHO, I don't consider acting responsible as neocon bilge. In our society, we expect the citizen to be free yet act responsibly, if this freedom of choice leads to unfortunate repurcussions. I view nation-states in a similar light. With that said, the United States does not owe the Iraqi people a functional state, since that's ultimately their own personal struggle.

 

[constituent]

I support self-determination but you have to provide some foundation for the power base that you intentionally imploded.

Pure double speak.

And IMHO, I don't consider acting responsible as neocon bilge.

More double speak.

How is stealing from others to "provide some foundation for the power base" acting responsibly?

Don't bother answering, it isn't.

Pure neo-con bilge.

In our society, we expect the citizen to be free yet act responsibly, if this freedom of choice leads to unfortunate repurcussions.

Huh?

With that said, the United States does not owe the Iraqi people a functional state, since that's ultimately their own personal struggle.

So what do "we" "owe" "them?"

 

[JoshLowry]

I support self-determination but you have to provide some foundation for the power base that you intentionally imploded. And IMHO, I don't consider acting responsible as neocon bilge. In our society, we expect the citizen to be free yet act responsibly, if this freedom of choice leads to unfortunate repurcussions. I view nation states in a similar manner. With that said, the United States does not owe the Iraqi people a functional state, since that's ultimately their personal struggle.

ALI: What can we do about Iraq? If we cut and run, we will see chaos. Don’t we owe the Iraqi people a moral responsibility to at least establish a modicum of functionality after having decimated them for the past 10 years, including the catastrophic UN sanctions? Or, do you favor staying there for several years? What’s your take on this?

PAUL: Nah, I’d get out of there. We do have a moral responsibility, but it’s the people who perpetuated the war. So, the Halliburtons of the world and all the private groups that made the money and all the Neocons that made the policy, yeah, if you can hold them accountable, they’re the ones who are morally responsible and they should pay. But the average American citizen didn’t do it, and the money isn’t here, and we just further injure our economy and it causes more unemployment and inflation. So, I would say just quit the bleeding literally and figuratively.
So, I would say, “No, come home.” The people who say it’s going to be chaotic if we leave are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk and the oil would pay for everything. Of course back then oil was $27 a barrel and now it’s $127 a barrel or more. I remember the Sixties they told us we couldn’t leave Vietnam because it would be a domino effect, well, it didn’t happen. Vietnam is now capitalistic and they trade with us and we visit there and invest in there. And China is our backer, so it doesn’t always work out the way these people predict. But the whole argument is ” If we leave now, there will be chaos.” What do we have now? I think both countries are a lot worse off than they are telling us. And I think it’s going to get a lot worse.

 

[slacker921]

So what do "we" "owe" "them?"

We owe them respect. They told us officially that they wanted us OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY and we should respect that.

 

[AuH20]

We lost 150k lives after Saigon fell, not even counting the millions that died later during the Khmer Rouge purge in Cambodia. Are you willing to have these deaths on your conscience for the rest of your life? Thats really the issue. The warmongers perpetuate these long term entanglements into contentious areas of the world and then we're forced into these no-win scenarios. I respect your opinion but I don't see how its responsible in the grand scheme of things. You can't just throw up your hands and sentence thousands to death because its the easy thing to do. Thats where I disagree with the Doctor.

 

[AuH20]

We owe them respect. They told us officially that they wanted us OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY and we should respect that.

I agree but you can't leave the country without power, water and somewhat stable police force. Thats what I was talking about. The bare essentials.

 

[silverhandorder]

Why do people keep shifting the blame to Beck, for that matter Fox too. Obviously they are propaganda centers. Beck still has not earned my trust. That said who do you think allowed this to happen? The regular people that would rather not think and let them do the thinking for them. Beck and Fox talking like us will not change those people only we will.

In the end I suggest people think about what would be easier to turn a person to your side who is sympathetic to the message already even tho for the wrong reasons or turn a neo-con or a liberal to the message.

 

[Kraig]

I agree but you can't leave the country without power, water and somewhat stable police force. Thats what I was talking about. The bare essentials.

We can, and those things are impossible for the US government to provide.

 

[constituent]

We owe them respect. They told us officially that they wanted us OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY and we should respect that.

Good answer.

 

[constituent]

In the end I suggest people think about what would be easier to turn a person to your side who is sympathetic to the message already even tho for the wrong reasons or turn a neo-con or a liberal to the message.

A "liberal" unquestionably.

 

[Zuras]

A "liberal" unquestionably.

It was a trick question.

There is no difference between a modern liberal and a neo-con, unless you want to look at the lies they tell.

 

[JoshLowry]

We lost 150k lives after Saigon fell, not even counting the millions that died later during the Khmer Rouge purge in Cambodia. Are you willing to have these deaths on your conscience for the rest of your life? Thats really the issue. The warmongers perpetuate these long term entanglements into contentious areas of the world and then we're forced into these no-win scenarios. I respect your opinion but I don't see how its responsible in the grand scheme of things. You can't just throw up your hands and sentence thousands to death because its the easy thing to do. Thats where I disagree with the Doctor.

It's not on my conscience. The neocons, elite, and media propaganda got us into this mess. It's not an issue for me at all. They are responsible for every person that has died there. The Iraqi's have asked us to leave, they don't want us there, that is why we are attacked to this day. It's not hundreds of thousands of terrorists that we have killed. We are occupying their country and telling them how to do things.

You are the one sentencing our people to death. Americans will die unnecessarily every day that we are there. I'm not throwing my hands in the air and giving up. I'm for a solution to the end of an unjust war. I don't want to "fix" Iraq. Their people can fix their own country, we have enough problems right here at home.

 

[constituent]

There is no difference between a modern liberal and a neo-con, unless you want to look at the lies they tell.

Maybe in politics.

Of course, most people aren't in politics.

 

[Zuras]

Maybe in politics.

Of course, most people aren't in politics.

I don't think neocons even exist outside of politics/punditry.

 

[constituent]

I don't think neocons even exist outside of politics/punditry.

Now you're just trolling.

 

[jmdrake]

We lost 150k lives after Saigon fell, not even counting the millions that died later during the Khmer Rouge purge in Cambodia.

What history books have you been reading? The world according to neocon propaganda? The reason millions died in Cambodia is because the illegal U.S. bombing campaign destabilized the government, and the CIA backed a coup against the monarchy. The "killing fields" were stopped by the invasion of Cambodia by the north Vietnamese. Later the U.S. backed the khmer rogue! It's the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap that's the cause of most of the misery in the world!

One more thing. Vietnam is now a nation at peace and a trading partner of the U.S. That never would have happened if we had followed your logic and stayed their indefinitely.

 

[AuH20]

What history books have you been reading? The world according to neocon propaganda? The reason millions died in Cambodia is because the illegal U.S. bombing campaign destabilized the government, and the CIA backed a coup against the monarchy. The "killing fields" were stopped by the invasion of Cambodia by the north Vietnamese. Later the U.S. backed the khmer rogue! It's the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap that's the cause of most of the misery in the world!

The CIA activity was post-Pol Pot/killing fields. And I certainly don't support it.

Now in regard to the "illegal" bombing, the Ho Chi Minh trail was the primary supply route for the Viet Cong. So by your logic, you're just going to let your enemy flood the south with men and arms and doing nothing about it? Nixon was a SOB but he had the right strategy. Everyday you ignore the trail, the potential for more servicemen and south vietnamese to die increases. In war, you play to win as quickly as possible.

One more thing. Vietnam is now a nation at peace and a trading partner of the U.S. That never would have happened if we had followed your logic and stayed their indefinitely.

I would have had the war won in 2 years miniumum instead of dragging it out for 16 years, thanks to our friend Mr. McNamara. Bureaucrats have no clue about warfare because they're not actively participating and risking their neck. Patton and MacArthur understood this.

 

[Zuras]

Now you're just trolling.

Nope. I don't think you even know what a neocon is. People here seem to throw that word around like it means anything and everything, and in the bargain making it mean absolutely nothing.

 

[Invalid]

Punch Neocons.