Glenn Beck's Nazi fetish: Obama's Afghanistan time line is like retreating before Nazis at Normandy
December 02, 2009 9:49 am ET
From the December 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
This is not in our vital national interest - this has absolutely nothing to do with the national interest. We are not securing or protecting america from anything by fighting taliban and random pushtan tribes in afghanistan. There are no footballs or nazis involved here - WWWII was clear. Hitler would have attempted to conquer America eventually. I guarantee over the next 500 years, the taliban will never, ever invade the US. Not even a remote chance and the taliban are just as likely to harbor a terrorist group at this point as maybe 50 other nations across the world. Are we going to invade and topple 50 governments now because they are run by extremists and dictators?
That's what Obama is dealing with, and why he's had months of meetings with experts and advisors on Afghanistan, Pakistan, military, and intelligence. While I may not agree ideologically with the current state of afffairs, and have strong disagreements with Obama's policies from time to time, there are just some times when one needs to defer to the judgement and knowledge of those who are in a better position to make sane and viable decisions. I think this is one of those times.
These days, we're tending to reduce policy decisions to "vs Bush" elementary logic, just trying to do things the opposite of what we think Bush would have done, and it's not doing us any favors by being shallow.
There were chances to catch the 9/11 attackers, but Bush was too busy vacationin' and stuff to make it a priority.
Also, this 18 month withdrawal. The President did not say he would withdraw ALL the troops. He could withdraw, 10, 50 and still keep this statement that the right wing is so on about.
Furthermore, despite the presidents attempts I really fail to see how the taliban which is essentially now an ousted government of afghanistan now based in pakistan could pose a threat to US security outside of the threat to our troops in afghanistan and pakistan currently.
Fact is al queda has collapsed and the few remaining members have fled to pakistan. The taliban has been ousted but retain significant membership in pakistan. We cannot invade pakistan so we are sending troops to afghanistan to try to implement strong local governments to help tell the pakistani government that we are committed so that they actually start a legitimate assault on the taliban in pakistan so that the taliban hopefully poses no more threat to karzai's government when we leave and we placed the CIA in pakistan to eliminate key taliban leadership. The only threat here is that taliban in pakistan can invade afghanistan once we leave paving the way for re=installation of the taliban rule. However, even such a scenario would be extremely unlikely never mind the possibility that the taliban would once again risk US invasion by continuing to harbor terrorists. There are many other countries throughout the world that would have no problem harboring terrorists and would likely be more welcoming than the taliban who lost the entire country as a result of invasion for doing so in the first place.
It's not just us PHYSICALLY being in their lands that they hate. They also hate our CULTURE being exported into their countries. They see our CULTURE itself as an attack on Islam.
The question really boils down to whether you think there's such a thing as a moderate, reasonable Muslim or not. If you do, then you should realize that worrying about radicals hating our very culture is a big, fat waste of time, because it doesn't say anything about what the average Muslim thinks. That radical group can hate us for whatever rationalized reason they want, but those people shouldn't be given any motivation to listen to them.
Think about it. These are places that deny women basic rights. What do you think they think of America when we export things like Lady Gaga into their lands, and claim that such things are progress?
Moderate Muslims don't want such things in their lands either. A moderate in a Muslim country is to the right SOCIALLY of Michael Savage.
That is a very ignorant thing to say. And it is mean, too. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near Michael Savage, socially or otherwise.
For instance, the "moderate" who ran against Ahmadenijad called for the "progressive" idea of having adulterers flogged in private, as opposed to the "conservative" stance of having them done in public.
Sorry, but you have to understand that people like Michael Savage just give opinions about what they think is right and wrong socially. In MANY Islamic countries, they just put "social deviants" to death. So yes, OFTEN, moderates in Muslim countries could be considered to be to the right of people like Savage on social issues.
The comment about Savage that I made is relevant. Savage just states opinions that you may not agree with about what he thinks is immoral. In MANY Muslim countries, they simply beat and or kill those who they consider immoral.
So YES, moderates in MANY Muslims countries could be considered to be to the right of Michael Savage. My God! They THROW ACID ON LITTLE GIRLS WHO WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL, but you think Michael Savage is the greater wrong?
Your ignorance and bigotry is astounding.
Sorry, but I'd rather be honest. Sometimes being honest and being PC aren't the same. If you're equating sporadic acts of violence by religious fanatics in America to the REGULAR acts committed in certain Middle Eastern countries, I think you are the ignorant one.
A personal example: My stepmother is a Jordanian Muslim. She and my Jewish father traveled to Jordan to visit her family. They are all "moderate" Muslims, and had no qualms whatsoever about their relative marrying a Jewish man.
How many other countries are there that give women rights besides us? This is what I've never understood about this "culture" argument. If it's really about cultural issues, why aren't they making a coordinated attack on Amsterdam?
When "average" Muslims think that at outside force is trying to wage war on their fundamental beliefs by promoting things that they consider to be immoral, yes, they to can be turned to extremists.
Southern white Christians aren't the only religious fanatics in this world.
It's got nothing to do with our culture.
Nobody's saying that there aren't fanatics within the Muslim community. The point of contention is your argument that the rank and file of Muslims are fanatics.
I notice you didn't answer the question, either.
Turn off the radio and Fox . . . try READING.
Also, it's the Mullahs and such who rile the average poor Muslims who don't have internet access and such to the "dangers of evil American culture."
Those people will continue to tell the Muslims that American culture is a threat to Islam, and people will continue to be willing to die and kill others for their religion. The situation is truly FUBAR.
Also, the Mullahs EXPLOIT poverty in Islamic countries to recruit people, so often they don't want things to be rebuilt.
Only because they haven't been given the legal opportunity since the Salem Witch Trials and I intend to keep it that way to my dying breath. And the Mullahs doing the recruiting are no better than that Pastor who admits to praying for Obama's death.
When that starts happening, then I'll recognize the relevance of your comparison.
Perhaps what they need is for us not to flood their countries with what they consider to be immoral and against their religion.
Ummm.... No. The Muslim religion has not been around for thousands of years, and that "culture" you speak of was very different when the Muslim empires in the Middle East were the most advanced and enlightened in the world back in the 7th to 13th centuries.
You do know that the birth of Islam is traced to 610 CE, right? You really seem to have no idea about either Middle Eastern culture or the religion of Islam itself. Maybe you should research it on your own before listening to talking points
We make it easier to recruit and radicalize Islamic extremists.
I'll quote Jon Stewart when he was discussing nation-building last night, he said, "I'd love it if Ice Cream cured cancer but I don't think going to Ben & Jerry's twice a week is going to help".
It would be awesome if nation-building worked, but in this case I think we've seen that it doesn't.
It's more about us being in their lands.
BTW, the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 never have to hit us again if their goals are achieved. George W. Bush and his crew of domestic terrorists pretty much did that by scaring the beegies out of people like you. Terror is a tool, not an enemy. If terror or FEAR works to change the behavior of the victim, the terrorists have won.
And also, how do you kill an idea, or a thought process, which is really what terrorism really is.
But I guess American Jews (who are a powerful political influence) don't count as part of our culture.
One of the 'forgotten events' was when Usama bin Laden did a video that explained that he wanted US troops/bases out of areas that some consider 'sacred'. For those who say that the Fort Hood shootings were 'terrorism', there was no political/cultural reason for those shootings. 9/11 was because of US interference in various Arab states (and non-Arab, such as Iran)
In the real world, murdering people because you perceive them to be representative of a culture that is looking to oppress another counts as a cultural reason.
You are the one who is affecting "psudo-intellectuallism." You have no idea what you are talking about, you are just repeating crap you've heard your heroes on Fox and hate talk radio spew.
Let me guess, you agree with John Paradox that there was no political/cultural reason for the Ft. Hood shootings?
Link
FBI
How do you know these things? Are you privy to high level intelligence reports? How do you explain the fact that there is a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and escalation of violence?
"The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan, with its senior leadership having moved to the western region of Pakistan.
Gen. David Petraeus said affiliated groups have "enclaves and sanctuaries" in Afghanistan and that "tentacles of Al Qaeda" have touched countries throughout the Middle East and northern Africa. But he said the terrorist group has suffered" very significant losses" in recent months, and agreed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent assessment that there is no Al Qaeda based in his country."
So one would assume continuing to fight al queda in afghanistan would be futile considering there is no al queda in afghanistan and not much presence in pakistan either at this juncture.
I said later in that very same comment that "The taliban has been ousted but retain significant membership in pakistan." The two groups must not be confused and are not interchangeable and even really all that related - the key relationship is that the taliban allowed al queda to stay in afghanistan before and immediately after 9/11 before the invasion and that both were ousted from afghanistan and fled to pakistan but al queda have most disbanded, were killed or dispersed to other countries as said above. Taliban membership has gone up for many reasons - one, we concentrated all our resources in iraq after the initial afghan invasion and lost significant gains and influence in afghanistan in the process. Two, the mere occupation of American troops in afghanistan is being used as a recruitment rallying cry by the taliban to all the massive numbers of afghani refugees in pakistan to take up arms and join the taliban against what they call an occupying force. Three, the tribal regions contain pashtun tribes in afghanistan that are particularly hostile to foreign invaders and significant numbers have joined with the taliban to fight off american troops only because they both share the mutual goal of ridding the country of US troops and influence. Finally, many afghans actually consider the taliban the rightful government throughout afghanistan and think karzai is just some puppet regime and have joined with the taliban to help put them back in power for self-serving purposes.
Actions of a law enforcment nature have been shown to be more effective. Cheaper in funding and in resultant causualties.
And what's with the difficulty of maintaining a coherent train of thought with this imbecile? Having bad facts is one thing, but sprinkling them everywhere while darting randomly through your forest of ignorance is inchomprehensible.
How can you say that? Didn't the President tell us last night that in fact, just recently, persons associated with the Taliban came from the border area and were in this country plannning to kill Americans? Was that a lie? Do you not realize that those people are sociopathic religious zealots who would have no problem killing you, despite your belief that they mean you no harm? I'll be the first to show disdain for war. I've seen it, firsthand. I for one and glad this President has evaluated this situation and I believe his conclusion that there are elements over there who do in fact pose a threat to me, my family,and this nation. I'm also glad he is willing to meet that threat head on.
And seriously you didnt read or misunderstoof what you copies and pasted. I said taliban are not a threat except to AMERICANS IN AFGHANISTAN! Meaning the taliban is not a threat to american civilians in america and never really was a threat except that they allowed al queda to stay in afghanistan but many governments allow known or suspected terrorists safe haven. The taliban itself is a massive group. It is like the equivalent of a political party that ran the entire government for almost a decade. It controlled the entirety of the country for years prior to US invasion. Yes, they are radical muslims but everyone in power in afghanistan has some radical extremism. This country has been at war for close to 4 straight decades - the soviets and the US reduced the country to rumble and then, just left leaving a population of armed teenagers which saw its leadership flee to other countries at the start of decades of civil war. My point is the taliban is not a threat to attack america while al queda was. If your looking for a criminal, you don't buy the city in which he is hiding. You don't kill the owner of the hotel he is staying at - that is essentially what we are now doing by staying merely to fight off the taliban. Believing the president is not the issue - obama did not lie but his justification for continued war did not make sense. The taliban itself did not attack the US EVER! And most people in it are native afghani people and those who want the US to leave.
It seems to me that the taliban met its ultimate demise by first harboring al queda. Because of such a tactic, it was removed from power, lost control of the country and was forced to move into pakistan. Why then would the leadership decide that the best move is to just to take up the mission of a crushed organization considered a terrorist organization throughout the world when it was this same organization that resulted in their current desperate and weakened state of affairs. It just makes little sense politically or logistically to take up a global terrorist cause. Did al queda members merely infiltrate through the ranks? In my opinion, that is really the only way such dramatic shift in ideology could occur.
"...It has become more difficult to separate the localized insurgency from the international terrorists as they are largely part of the same movement now. The short term goal of the Taliban is to take back Afghanistan and eventually Pakistan. From there, the global extremist movement would set its sights on targets further afield..." --by all your eyes
There is no proof of that and to me that is the same old argument(domino theory)we used to align ourselves with the corrupt drug dealing leaders in South Viet Nam. The actions your premise supposes will only exacerbate the problem as those fighting for independence and foreign occupation are lumped into the same pot as Al-Queda and our military presence in Afghanistan is destabilizing Pakistan. George Bush left a mess but it would be a mistake for us to continue to escalate war in that region,a war we neither have the financial or the conventional military resources to fight. Also it is a mistake to look at Afghanistan as seperate from what our presence has been not only there but in the middle-east. We have backed every corrupt regime in that region against the interest of the people,which makes it hard to sell them with the idea we are on their side and a force for good.
You need to go and read what Sharpe has written, he has a very, very good handle on what is going on in the Afghan/Pakistan region. The border area being discussed is not the U.S. border, but the area that spans the Afghan/Pakistan border in an area known as the Tribal Lands. This area is under the control of the Pashtun people. A very proud, very old group. They accept almost no authority outside their own group and they have been that was for milennia. Many of the Taliban are Pashtun. We can not defeat them and drive them away. We need to get them on our side by working with them and helping them. Go and watch "Charlie Wilson's War" and pay attention at the end, when we abandoned them at the end of the war. Go and watch the National Geographic special "The Search for the Afghan Girl" or even read "The Kite Runner" by Khalid Hosseini. This is a different world we are dealing with and we must deal with it in its own terms, not ours, if we want peace. And read some of my posts above, too. Remember, some of these terrorists have never seen running water! They have no comprehension of our world and our ways.
It's really a shame Beck won't run for office because that's the language the world needs to hear now from the U.S.A.
Yes, Beck's analogy shows that he thinks the only reason football teams ever lose games is because they're "just not that into it". He's a great proponent that one in a competition can overcome physical and tactical defencienies by emotional zealotry. Also known as the "Gipper" gambit.
As for Beck: What in hell does he know about military matters?
Wow. You really believe that? Wow.
Oh, that's right. He fended off those Mexicans in the Border War of 1993. How could I forget that.
Apparently you're not in Texas. So your experience in the national guard is not relevant.
And I used the google to try to find any instance of Governor Bush "commanding" the Texas National Guard. Couldn't find anything.
As for Bush's "service" in the TANG, you might want to do a search for Bush's actual military records which were released pursuant to an FOIA lawsuit filed by the Associated Press. Not much to write home about . . . . and, they pretty much parallel the "fake" ones used in Rathergate. He never completed his commitment.
Read the Constitution and your history. You seem to be woefully lacking in knowledge of either of them.
Also, Obama doesn't need vast experience in military manners. Why? This is why he has a Joint Staff made up of some of the most senior, and most respected members of our military.
Funny thing is, apparently Obama is listening to his Chiefs, and Bush decided to listen to his political advisors when going to war, instead of the folks in the know.
How many armored divisions do any of the above have?
When was the last time any of them left their borders?
Who is the world's sole remaining super power?
How many countries have we invaded in the last 30 years?
Do the RW nuts ever peek out from under their beds?
That’s because if no one stands up to these people they very well could end up being the next Hitler. You people are the modern day equivalent to Neville Chamberlain. Just give them what they want and im sure all those people you listed above will play nice.
Being filled with irrational paranoid fear is no way to go through life.
And really, behind it all, it's about treating the place where we live better, and really, what's wrong with that? Nothing, nothing at all.
Randy