Glen Beck Explains Himself and Answers his Critics

[AuH20]

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3946009&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50 204809c04

Good stuff.

[Invalid]

u can't embed youtube videos here. u just have to link

[Anti Federalist]

Code sez wht?

[Liberty Star]

This is fantsastic.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/24/beck-slavery/


After watching these two vids, I think I'm a convert now and in future will be questioning people who say Glenn has mental health issues.

[tremendoustie]

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3946009&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50 204809c04

Good stuff.

This is really good.

[TER]

Beck is a patriot in my book.

[sailor]

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3946009&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50 204809c04

Good stuff.

Loooooooooooooooooooooongwinded.

[unconsious767]

Thank you Glen Beck !!

We will use you until you reveal your true agenda. You aren't fooling a bunch of people.

[slacker921]

This is fantsastic.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/24/beck-slavery/


After watching these two vids, I think I'm a convert now and in future will be questioning people who say Glenn has mental health issues.

Shhh... you'll upset the Beck lovers with that link.

[JoshLowry]

Something in common with Howard Beale: They're both actors following a script.

It's FOX news for crying out loud. Beck is not an independent agency.

It's the same fucking oligarchy that decided to demonize Ron Paul in 2007.

[AuH20]

This is fantsastic.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/24/beck-slavery/


After watching these two vids, I think I'm a convert now and in future will be questioning people who say Glenn has mental health issues.

Beck is actually right, but there wasn't a valid reason why any boots should have landed there to begin with. Whats horrible is opening up these theater of operations in these hellholes and leaving a power vacuum. It s completely irresponsible. Ron Paul was the only one with the foresight to see this, by voting against the war from the beginning.

[AuH20]

Something in common with Howard Beale: They're both actors following a script.

It's FOX news for crying out loud. Beck is not an independent agency.

It's the same fucking oligarchy that decided to demonize Ron Paul in 2007.

he's a transfer from CNN/headline news. He has the unenviable 5 pm time slot for Christ's sake. I wouldn't ever consider him part of the stable. Ailes keeps him around for giggles. If he replaces O'Reilly you could be onto something, but until then your theory is just that.

[JoshLowry]

he's a transfer from CNN/headline news. He has the 5 pm time slot for Christ's sake. I wouldn't ever consider him part of the stable. Ailes keeps him around for giggles. If he replaces O'Reilly you could be onto something but until then your theory is just that.

You think they just hand out hourly shows at FOX?

Of course it is all planned out.

[AuH20]

You think they just hand out hourly shows at FOX?

Of course it is all planned out.

Anything for ratings. Sell advertising. Fox would push liberal talk if it sold.

[JoshLowry]

Anything for ratings. Sell advertising. Fox would push liberal talk if it sold.

No, it's a cycle.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088

[nbruno322]

You think they just hand out hourly shows at FOX?

Of course it is all planned out.


Probably not. Do you think Judge Napolitano is a phony and all his appearances are staged/planned and his "Freedom Watch" is a farse? That's all on Fox too.

[JoshLowry]

Probably not. Do you think Judge Napolitano is a phony and all his appearances are staged/planned and his "Freedom Watch" is a farse? That's all on Fox too.

That's an internet show.

They won't ever give him an hour show on national tv. Ever.

[jmdrake]

Beck is actually right, but there wasn't a valid reason why any boots should have landed there to begin with. Whats horrible is opening up these theater of operations in these hellholes and leaving a power vacuum. It s completely irresponsible. Ron Paul was the only one with the foresight to see this, by voting against the war from the beginning.

Uh...no. He's not. Not on Iraq. The Iraqi people don't want us there. (That's why Obama is "drawing down" troops by 2011. ) We don't solve problems by compounding the same mistakes. Sure we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. But we can't stay there indefinitely just to prove we are "moral".

Back to the thread, I'm glad Beck is speaking out. But I'm waiting to see if he's willing to admit where he was wrong over the past 8 years.

[AuH20]

Uh...no. He's not. Not on Iraq. The Iraqi people don't want us there. (That's why Obama is "drawing down" troops by 2011. ) We don't solve problems by compounding the same mistakes. Sure we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. But we can't stay there indefinitely just to prove we are "moral".


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.

[jmdrake]

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.

And how many years does that take? Two? Four? Eight? Fifty? The problem isn't leaving a "semblance of order". That would have happened years ago if we had pulled out. It just wouldn't have been OUR order. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't have fit the needs of the Iraqi people. Just look at what happened in Somalia. After we pulled out (which was the RIGHT thing to do) a government eventually formed and there was a brief respite of peace. But the government wasn't to our liking so we funded the Ethiopians (who are barely able to feed themselves) to go in and destabalize (excuse me "bring freedom") to the country. Now its back in shambles. Sorry. Becks still wrong. Ron was right. We should have pulled out of Iraq yesterday. We're merely delaying the inevitable. That is the creation of a stable government that is not friendly to us.

[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. :p

[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. :p

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.

[jmdrake]

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


1) The CIA backed the coup that caused the destabilization which opened the door for Pol Pot.

2) Pol Pot was still VERY MUCH in charge when the CIA backed the khmer rogue.

3) The only reason the killing fields had stopped was because the NVA invaded.



Now in regard to the "illegal" bombing, the Ho Chi Minh trail was one of the primary supply routes 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, more servicemen and south vietnamese die. In war, you play to win as quickly as possible.


:rolleyes: You don't go bombing a sovereign nation that's not at war with you to cut off a supply route. You negotiate with them. But even if you DO go that way, you don't cry croc tears over the "millions of deaths" caused by your "pullout" when a large part of those deaths were caused by YOUR bombing! Besides it was a war we didn't need to fight. Nixon could have save more lives by pulling out sooner then he arguably did by bombing. Of course that makes your argument all the more laughable. Nixon followed your "brilliant strategy" he ended up pulling out anyway.



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.

I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Of course after you "won" the war and you allowed the Vietnamese "free and fair elections" and they voted in the communists then what? That's the problem with your "strategy". It doesn't allow for the fact that people might not WANT the government we "approve" of. Just look at Hamas in the West Bank. They were democratically elected, and totally "unacceptable" to "American interests" as they have been defined. The government in south Vietnam was never legitimate by any stretch of the imagination. Left to their own devices they would have fallen at some point anyway. After your imaginary "2 year victory" South Vietnam would have been in the same predicament without a permanent contingent of U.S. troops like we have in South Korea.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Invalid]

Ronald Reagan: an Autopsy by Murray Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html)


(Enter the Neocons Section)


The neocons were (and remain today) New Dealers, as they frankly describe themselves, remarkably without raising any conservative eyebrows. They are what used to be called, in more precise ideological days, "extreme right-wing Social Democrats." In other words, they are still Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Humphrey Democrats. Their objective, as they moved (partially) into the Republican Party and the conservative movement, was to reshape it to become, with minor changes, a Roosevelt-Truman-etc. movement; that is, a liberal movement shorn of the dread "L" word and of post-McGovern liberalism. To verify this point all we have to do is note how many times Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, et al., properly reviled by conservatives while they were alive, are now lauded, even canonized, by the current neocon-run movement, from Ronnie Reagan on down. And no one calls them on this Orwellian revision of conservative movement history.
As statists-to-the-core the neocons had no problem taking the lead in crusades to restrict individual liberties, whether it be in the name of rooting out "subversives," or of inculcating broadly religious ("Judeo-Christian") or moral values. They were happy to form a cozy alliance with the Moral Majority, the mass of fundamentalists who entered the arena of conservative politics in the mid-1970s. The fundamentalists were goaded out of their quietist millenarian dreams (e.g., the imminent approach of Armageddon) and into conservative political action by the accumulation of moral permissivism in American life. The legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade was undoubtedly the trigger, but this decision came on top of a cumulative effect of the sexual revolution, the militant homosexual movement "out of the closet" and into the streets, the spread of pornography, and the visible decay of the public school system. The entry of the Moral Majority transformed American politics, not the least by furnishing the elite cadre of neocons with a mass base to guide and manipulate.
In economic matter, the neocons showed no more love of liberty, though this is obscured by the fact that the neocons wish to trim the welfare state of its post-Sixties excrescences, particularly since these were largely designed to aid black people. What the neocons want is a smaller, more "efficient" welfare state, within which bounds they would graciously allow the market to operate. The market is acceptable as a narrow instrumental device; their view of private property and the free market is essentially identical to Gorbachev’s in the Soviet Union.
Why did the Right permit itself to be bamboozled by the neocons? Largely because the conservatives had been inexorably drifting Stateward in the same manner. In response to the crushing defeat of Goldwater, the Right had become ever less libertarian and less principled, and ever more attuned to the "responsibilities" and moderations of Power. It is a far cry from three decades ago when Bill Buckley used to say that he too is an "anarchist" but that we have to put off all thoughts of liberty until the "international Communist conspiracy" is crushed. Those old Chodorovian libertarian days are long gone, and so is National Review as any haven for libertarian ideas. War mongering, militarism, theocracy, and limited "free" markets – this is really what Buckleyism amounted to by the late 1970s.

[LATruth]

Why can't it be that just maybe Glenn Beck is actually speaking truth and how he feels? Why does it have to be an agenda? Maybe he's "mad as hell and just not going to take it anymore". That's cause for a true paradigm shift in thinking is it not? Remember back to the time when you weren't "awake" and 1st "came out" in light of the truth, did someone claim YOU had an agenda? :mad:

beck is telling you to take his words at face value, not to read between lines. And if that causes you to think and be mad, GOOD! Very few shows on so called "news" channels are inspiring thought in a matter consistent with our views, and as soon as one does we conspire and talk trash about them. Sad really.

[acptulsa]

Why can't it be that just maybe Glenn Beck is actually speaking truth and how he feels? Why does it have to be an agenda? Maybe he's "mad as hell and just not going to take it anymore". That's cause for a true paradigm shift in thinking is it not? Remember back to the time when you weren't "awake" and 1st "came out" in light of the truth, did someone claim YOU had an agenda? :mad:

He's working for Murdoch. People are trying to figure out if they can trust him enough to say to people, "Listen to x and learn." But, he's working for Murdoch. So, the other shoe is very likely to drop at some point, imo.

Use him while we got him. But never, ever get in a position where you can't drop him like a hot rock. That's my advice.

Did you read the thread?

[Invalid]

Murdoch is probably getting pissed at Beck as we speak.

[jmdrake]

Why can't it be that just maybe Glenn Beck is actually speaking truth and how he feels? Why does it have to be an agenda? Maybe he's "mad as hell and just not going to take it anymore". That's cause for a true paradigm shift in thinking is it not? Remember back to the time when you weren't "awake" and 1st "came out" in light of the truth, did someone claim YOU had an agenda? :mad:

beck is telling you to take his words at face value, not to read between lines. And if that causes you to think and be mad, GOOD! Very few shows on so called "news" channels are inspiring thought in a matter consistent with our views, and as soon as one does we conspire and talk trash about them. Sad really.

Sure. Maybe he is. Then again maybe Bob Barr was and just lapsed into la la land as soon as Obama became president. (Still mad at Barr for backing Obama's gun grabbing attorney general).

Here's the rub. In the past 4 to 6 months there have definitely been neocons who have jumped on the "liberty bandwaggon". (Newt Gingrich immediately comes to mind.) Those who have had a true change of heart will show. As the good book says "by their fruits ye shall know them". So far Beck IS showing some good fruit so I'll reserve judgement. But there's nothing wrong with keeping an eye on him. Last year there were several times when people would say "See! Glen Beck is really on our side!" We'd get our hopes up only to be stabbed in the back yet again. But hey, we'll see. He is being more helpful then hurtful these days.

[constituent]

Nope.

Yep.



I don't think you even know what a neocon is.

Alright, put your money where your mouth is. Pull something out of Zuras and enlighten me.

;)

[Zuras]

He's working for Murdoch. People are trying to figure out if they can trust him enough to say to people, "Listen to x and learn." But, he's working for Murdoch. So, the other shoe is very likely to drop at some point, imo.

Use him while we got him. But never, ever get in a position where you can't drop him like a hot rock. That's my advice.

Did you read the thread?

Good God. He's a talking head on TV. Some of you make it sound like you have to marry the guy or be one of his apostles or something, instead of watching his show to, uhhh, watch his show. LAst I checked, there wasn't a "llibertarian channel".

[acptulsa]

Good God. He's a talking head on TV. Some of you make it sound like you have to marry the guy or be one of his apostles or something, instead of watching his show to, uhhh, watch his show.

You seem not to be trying to help the people around you become educated. Which may well be a good thing...

[constituent]

Good God. He's a talking head on TV. Some of you make it sound like you have to marry the guy or be one of his apostles or something, instead of watching his show to, uhhh, watch his show.

I'll leave watching his show to "uhhh, watch his show" to the dumb ass lowest common denominator crowd, the idiocracy.

[AuH20]

1) The CIA backed the coup that caused the destabilization which opened the door for Pol Pot.

2) Pol Pot was still VERY MUCH in charge when the CIA backed the khmer rogue.

3) The only reason the killing fields had stopped was because the NVA invaded.


The Khmer Rouge was completely backed by the Vietnamese and Chinese during its formative years. The CIA did not back them until the post-war years, when they crossed the border and waged war on the Vietnamese. Originally King Sihanouk had been a stooge for the NVA and even let them maintain bases in Eastern Cambodia. Eventually, the acting prime minister Lol Ning pulled the rug from underneath the King and took over the government, resulting in a a pro-Western stance. The Khmer Rouge eventually toppled Ning and the rest is history.

:
rolleyes: You don't go bombing a sovereign nation that's not at war with you to cut off a supply route. You negotiate with them. But even if you DO go that way, you don't cry croc tears over the "millions of deaths" caused by your "pullout" when a large part of those deaths were caused by YOUR bombing! Besides it was a war we didn't need to fight. Nixon could have save more lives by pulling out sooner then he arguably did by bombing. Of course that makes your argument all the more laughable. Nixon followed your "brilliant strategy" he ended up pulling out anyway.

Nixon tried all he could diplomatically with Cambodia. He sent Ning 155 million dollars to combat the NVA and the Viet Cong but they were overwhelmed.

By the time Nixon entered the fold, the war had been lost at home. He was given the unenviable task of a hammering an "honorable peace" agreement with the North. And to do that, you need leverage.


I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place. Of course after you "won" the war and you allowed the Vietnamese "free and fair elections" and they voted in the communists then what? That's the problem with your "strategy". It doesn't allow for the fact that people might not WANT the government we "approve" of. Just look at Hamas in the West Bank. They were democratically elected, and totally "unacceptable" to "American interests" as they have been defined. The government in south Vietnam was never legitimate by any stretch of the imagination. Left to their own devices they would have fallen at some point anyway. After your imaginary "2 year victory" South Vietnam would have been in the same predicament without a permanent contingent of U.S. troops like we have in South Korea.

Of course not. I wouldn't want to be trapped in a land war in Asia with no clear objectives. Diem was a brutal dictator who terrorized the Buddhists. As soon as Kennedy gave his support for the coup d'etat that unseated Diem and his brother, we were thrown into the war.

[jmdrake]

The Khmer Rouge was completely backed by the Vietnamese and Chinese during its formative years. The CIA did not back them until the post-war years, when they crossed the border and waged war on the Vietnamese.

The Khmer Rouge wouldn't have even been able to come to power initially if it weren't for the combination of the CIA coup and the illegal bombing campaign. And your argument still fails because some of the deaths in Cambodia you attribute to the U.S. "abandoning" Vietnam happened after the CIA backed the Khmer Rouge.




Originally King Sihanouk had been a stooge for the NVA and even let them maintain bases in Eastern Cambodia. Eventually, the acting prime minister Lol Ning pulled the rug from underneath the King and took over the government, resulting in a a pro-Western stance. The Khmer Rouge eventually toppled Ning and the rest is history.


Originally King Sihanouk was trying to stay neutral. Sihanouk didn't allow the NVA to establish bases until 1965, long after the Vietnam war had started. When he was deposed he was actually trying to reduce Vietnam's influence in his country. The involvement of the CIA in the coup is well document.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-IbQvd13uToC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=CIA+cambodia+coup&source=bl&ots=cGtaNcAjdB&sig=gD_OFQe7o32i5mpgy1d_RuI9j7Q&hl=en&ei=i13JScmdG5Gktwfp74GoAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result



By the time Nixon entered the fold, the war had been lost at home. He was given the unenviable task of a hammering an "honorable peace" agreement with the North. And to do that, you need leverage.


:rolleyes: Make up your mind. Did you want Nixon to stay or didn't you? And bombing Cambodia did little to nothing to gain "leverage" negotiating with Vietnam. You're conflating the bombings of Hanoi with the bombings of Cambodia. All the bombing of Cambodia did was to destabilize the country and set up the very attrocities you falsely blame on our withdrawal.




Of course not. I wouldn't want to be trapped in a land war in Asia with no clear objectives. Diem was a brutal dictator who terrorized the Buddhists. As soon as Kennedy gave his support for the coup d'etat that unseated Diem and his brother, we were thrown into the war.

:rolleys: The Gulf of Tokin happened post Kennedy. And the only way we were "thrown" into the war is based on the Glen Beck logic that we can't walk away from our own stupid mistakes.

Final serious question. At what point would you have walked away from Vietnam? At what point would you walk away from Iraq? When "victory" is achieved? When "honorable victory" is achieved? Hell if you're using Nixon's exit from Vietnam as a standard we could have "honorably left" Iraq in 2003 when Bush declared "major combat operations are over". It's easy to sit back and say "We shouldn't stay indefinitely but we should just leave either". In fact it's a cop out. Either there is an actual objective that can be reached or there isn't. If there isn't we do nobody a service by just hanging around taking the "death by 1 thousand cuts" until Glen Beck (and you apparently) finally realize it's not a good idea.

[angelatc]

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.

Then have a meeting with the countries that surround it and let them figure out how to handle it.

[pcosmar]

Glen Beck Explains Himself and Answers his Critics


“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

Joseph Goebbels

Ah, I think I understand.