Sunday, June 21, 2015

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Shows His Desire to Repeatedly Beat Women

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier exposes his true colors in this Craigslist post.
Deep down inside, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier has violent tendencies. He has anger, stress, control, and other issues.

He has demonstrated these tendencies, both overt and covertly, during his commentaries. Shortly after Andra Lorenz dumped him, he went on Dallas Rants and Raves to let out how he truly felt.

In one CL post, he suggests that if women continue to treat men the way they have been treating men, they may end up getting their butts kicked and beaten. He ends his rant with a "suggestion". In this suggestion, he "recommends" that these women "pretend" that the next man that they are with would "kill" them if they mistreated him.

By extension, they would "avoid" playing their games against men as if they were avoiding future harm.

Although the intention here was not that of murder, deep down inside he felt extreme rage. While he was writing that, a series of emotions were boiling to the point that he could easily be set off in a violent mood.

While in this mood, one "wrong" action would make him "fly off the handle." Once that happened, he would unleash his fury on the woman he felt had "wronged" him.

Granted, both men and women will play games with each other. Women play their game a specific way, and men will play their games in another specific way.

In Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier's mindset, he has a feeling of "lost control." There is a strong, primal desire to make things "right." Or, to regain control. In his mind, this kind of "wrongdoing" by the woman who doesn't do things his way in his favor is subject to his administering her a physical butt kicking.

One common theme, among Dennis Howard Chevalier's 7 marriages, is Dennis's verbal and physical abuse. Denny is prone to engaging in verbal and physical bullying. His sixth and seventh ex-wives escaped their marriage to him fearing for their lives.

Dennis is a ticking time bomb. If you are a woman, reading this information because you came across his advertisements, or he has responded to yours, run. Do not even give him a second thought. There's plenty of information on him on this blog and on the military blog "This Ain't Hell" for you to look over before you make a decision.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier is becoming more unstable. The longer he remains without a girlfriend, the more sense of loss of control he feels. This fuels up and builds up inside him. This means that the next woman that becomes unlucky enough to start a relationship with him faces danger.

She will wake up to his true nature. She will react accordingly. When this happens, she increases her vulnerability to receiving harm. There is a reasonable expectation that he will send his next girlfriend/wife to the emergency room or to the morgue.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Stalks Andra Lorenz

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier insists that the "problem" is with his ex fiance. He asks her if she has figured out if she "needed" help, then offers to help her get it. 

Andra Lorenz starts her New Year's (2015) right by dumping Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier.

Denny Chevalier's pride blinds him to the realities of his relationships. In almost every instance, he misinterprets his ex-wives/ex-girlfriend's reactions to him. When they react negatively to his controlling nature, his abusive tendencies, and his attitude problems, he attributes that to them changing.

He sees himself as a "constant." He assumes that there is "nothing" wrong with him.

It's as if he had "taken a dump" in the middle of the community park. In this scenario, people tell him that he shouldn't be relieving himself in the park like that, that his poo stinks, that he was causing health issues, and that his actions contributed to other negative impacts. In this scenario, he'd accuse these people of being obsessed with him and for bothering him for no reason.

Basically put, he doesn't think that his "poo" stinks.

So, when these women had enough of Dennis Chevalier's abusive, controlling, insecure, behavior, and they leave him, he doesn't see that they are done. He assumes that they are going through a temporary phase, and that they do not truly want to get rid of him.

In his latest case, the fact that half a year had gone by since Andra Lorenz dumped him does not faze him. Normally, if he were to find another date, he would leave his previous date/ex-wife alone.

After six months of trying multiple dating sites, and failing to get a new girlfriend, he returns to try to graze his ex-fiancé with his arrogance. His way of trying to get back with her? He sends her a text stating the following:

"well [sic] have you figured out yet you need help ? I can sill [sic] help you get it" [sic] -- Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier

In Dennis Howard Chevalier's mind, a woman that has problems with his control, narcissistic, and other issues "has" a "problem." In his mind, Denny Chevalier thinks that if these women "get help," they will go back to the way they were when they first met.

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier labels anybody, that identifies him in a way that hurts his ego and feelings, as people that "need help".

"This group at TAH are, as suspected a bunch of mentally ill abusers that need medication and help  and should be prayed for" - Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier, bottom sentence in photo 

Andra Lorenz caught Dennis Howard Chevalier spiking her drink with Valium. Denny figured that Valium would "calm her down." By extension, she would not be reactive to his abusive and hotheaded nature.

His sixth ex-wife suspected that Dennis Howard Chevalier was spiking her drink and food as well. She had no proof that he did so, but she had strong suspicions. When she left him, her energy and strength returned:

"I had to run for my life because I believe he was giving me something and making me ill! I was so sick I was begging him to take me to the hospital and he refused! I was in horrific pain and on the floor and he would not take me. Said I'll get over it! I have no proof but speculation, because as soon as I left him I was doing better!" -- fedupexwifeofdhc

All I have is the above screen capture of a phone number and the text. However, he has repeatedly screamed about people needing to get help. During his back and forth with the posters of This Ain't Hell (TAH), military blog, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier consistently stated that the veterans needed help.

Second to bottom sentence, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier suggests that we leave the world to those who have "stepped up" for those that "cannot help themselves." 

"OMG you need mental help!" - Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier, between statements 12 and 13. 

An American's Response to Richard Brunt's U.S. Midterm Elections Rant

"When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?" - Richard Brunt
Richard Brunt: Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections.

People like you, who were confused by the U.S. Midterm Elections, do not have a complete grasp of the facts. You demonstrate this confusion with the rest of your rant against the American Electorate. I will address them point by point.

Richard Brunt: Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs,

First, record profits do not always mean that the economy is doing "great." Without getting into the customer sales side of the house, a company could reduce its expenses on the production side of the house. This may include reduced hiring, layoffs of current employees, closing down non-profitable production, etc.

These variables would lead to "improved profits" on paper.

Second, keep in mind that whatever they are earning, it's despite the fact that President Obama's, and the Democrats', economically destructive policies are in place. The cold hard reality is that if his economic policies, as well as that of his Democrat allies, were not hamstringing the United States economy, our economy would be doing much better.

It would have done much better month for month. 

Richard Brunt: the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month,

First, most of that was part time jobs. A job may be a job, but an increase in part-time jobs relative to full-time jobs is not necessarily "good news" for the economy as a whole. Realistically, people need to work two or three of those part-time jobs to help make ends meet. This is in addition to doing away with a lot of things that they could enjoy if they had one full-time job.

Second, you ignore the fact that jobs were also lost during that period.

Third, you ignore the fact that given the United States' growing working age population, we're going to need a lot more than 200,000 new jobs each month. We're going to need more than 200,000 new full-time jobs that is. Not part-time. 

Richard Brunt:   unemployment is below 6%,

Unemployment doesn't mean the amount of people that are currently not working versus those who are working. It just means the number of people, looking for jobs, who have not found it. Anybody that has stopped looking for work is no longer considered "unemployed."

Another group of people, not considered as "unemployed", are people who have decided to no longer participate in the workforce. 

In 2014, and continuing into 2015, the United States saw one of its lowest percentages of labor force participation rates.

So, combine those people who decide to no longer participate in the labor force, people who stop looking for jobs, and people who have to do a part-time job because they cannot find full-time job, and all of a sudden you no longer have a rosy picture about our labor situation.

A Republican/conservative economic policy may take longer to hold. But, when it does kick in, it provides better numbers in terms of job and economic growth. 

Richard Brunt: U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

On OECD's website, one of the tables list GDP from 2009 through a projected rate at 2016. For 2014, the U.S. tied with Canada, and both fell behind the United Kingdom.

Here's some ranking from the World Factbook:

The United States had a 2.40 GDP growth rate in 2014. We ranked 130. The United Kingdom, also a member of the OECD, had a 3.20 GDP growth rate in 2014. They ranked at 97. Hungary is also in the group of countries. At 2.80 GDP growth rate, they ranked at 116. 

Do I need to go through the list, of OECD countries, and match it to the World Factbook 2014 GDP growth ranking to find additional countries that ranked above the United States in GDP growth?

Richard Brunt: The dollar is at its strongest levels in years,

This has little to do with President Obama's, and the Democrats', destructive economic policies, and a lot to do with people's confidence in the global market. In this case, the dollar. There is a supply and demand process when it comes to investing in currency. This is driven on a global scale. 

Richard Brunt: the stock market is near record highs,

That's like bragging about the record number of churches and bars a town has compared to before.

As the US population grows, as more people participate in its markets, the US economy would get bigger. This will contribute to the stock market getting higher. It is performing better now than it did during the Clinton years. That's expected.

As time progresses, our stock market generally grows. This will happen regardless of who is president, which party this president comes from, what kind of policies are in place, etc.

There are other factors in play that's causing our stock market to go up.

Richard Brunt: gasoline prices are falling,

This has a lot to do with supply and demand, despite President Obama's, and the Democrats', destructive economic policies. 

Because of fracking and other technologies, our energy companies are able to extract energy sources that can compete with foreign oil. Without these additional technologies, OPEC would be in position to sucker us economically, forcing us to pay more at the gas pump.

They could no longer do that. Thanks to American dedication and ingenuity, we managed contribute to OPEC's decision to let the markets dictate price.

This is one of the reasons to why we are paying lower at the gas pump. There are other reasons as well.

Richard Brunt: there's no inflation,

Actually, inflation in the United States rose .8% during 2014. Also, many employed personnel saw their paychecks increase each year due to inflation adjustment. If there is no inflation, this would not have happened.

Richard Brunt: interest rates are the lowest in 30 years,

These rates are being kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve and its counterparts throughout the industrial world. President Obama is not the one that made these interest rates low. Low interest rates does not necessarily signal a "good economy."

One of the reasons for keeping these interest rates low is a lack of trust in how the economy would handle higher interest rates. 

Richard Brunt: U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing,

See my explanations above regarding fracking and other alternative fuel sources. Despite President Obama's, and the Democrats', restrictive and destructive economic policies, our energy producers are forging ahead with increasing energy supply.

With our leveraging our technologies to increase our oil and other supplies, we are decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. This is not because of president Obama's policies, but despite them.

Richard Brunt: the deficit is rapidly declining,

First, deficits and surpluses deal more with how much the government spends relative to what it collects. If the government spends more money than what it collects, we have a deficit. If the government collects more than what it spends, we'd have surpluses. 

Here's one variable that contributed to the deficit picture. The US government spiked its spending relative to tax revenue. Once the spending stabilized at the new rate, a new baseline was established. A decrease relative to the baseline shows a decrease in deficit.

Then we have the economic expansion, despite progressive destructive economic policies, leading to more money being collected by the federal government.

This doesn't change the fact that our debt still remains. It grew substantially under President Obama.

Second, the improving economy can result in people paying more taxes, as higher earnings put them in higher tax brackets. This will increase the amount of money that the government collects. This makes more money available to the government relative to what it spends.

Richard Brunt:  and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money.

See explanation above regarding corporate wealth. The rich and super rich, the wealthy, happen to be also those that own and run corporations. What the corporations above did, with regards to production, adjustments in operation, setbacks/cutbacks in nonproductive operations, and other activities, helped improve a company's bottom line. This ended up benefiting the wealthy.

Richard Brunt: America is leading the world once again and respected internationally -- in sharp contrast to the Bush years.

Not really. Under President Obama's leadership, the United States has taken a "lead from behind" approach to foreign policy. This is spliced with a lot of indecisiveness. He has also taken other actions that has frustrated our efforts to fight against the enemy.

For example, the actions regarding Libya and the Arab Spring. A lot of the problems, stemming from the Arab Spring, can be attributed to lack of leadership from the United States under Obama.

Our failure to capitalize on the Arab Spring in Syria, when it started, blew the opportunity for us to prop up and support the good guys over there.

Obama's failure, or rather refusal, to work with the Iraqis and the US military... to forge an agreement to allow the US military to remain in Iraq after 2011... contributed greatly to ISIS's success in Iraq and Syria.

Obama's lack of leadership encouraged our adversaries, emboldened our enemies, and left our allies with worries.

We do not have the respect that you claim we have throughout the world. We are a laughing stock. The Chinese have been pushing hard against our allies, because they know that there's no leadership, nor political will, to respond properly. 

Our enemies are on the advance. They interpret our policies and actions, under Obama, as weakness. They are boldly trying to reach into the United States.

Under President Bush, we had real leadership both within the U.S. and throughout the world. We had a real strategy. We led the world. Don't mistake people's emotional rants and feelings as respect or lack of it. We were respected and feared under President Bush.

Now? We're neither respected nor feared. If earning respect around the world required taking the wrong courses of action, I could care less for that respect. 

If anything, we have started to decline as a superpower. This is one of the things that you could thank President Obama for.

Richard Brunt: Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq

It was President Bush's White House, and Iraqi leadership, that hammered out the conditions that would ultimately lead to troop withdrawal from Iraq. It was predicated on conditions happening on the ground.

The deal, made during President Bush's term, called for combat troops to leave by the summer of 2010. It called for the remainder of the US military to leave by December 31, 2011. 

That agreement left chances for talks for a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) open. It also left the door open for the US military to remain behind after December 31, 2011, to provide further training to the Iraqi military.

Although the Iraqis proved "difficult" in the initial stages of this negotiation, they ultimately warmed to our terms. President Barack Obama deliberately made it impossible, by moving the goal posts, to come up with that agreement.

Had he been cooperative, and made it easier for the US military to get that agreement, the Iraqi military would've repelled ISIS at the Iraqi/Syrian border.

Bottom line, the agreement to pull U.S. forces out was already made before President Obama became president. The decision was made before him, and it was based on the fact that our plans were going ahead full speed in Iraq. 

We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory.

It was up to President Obama and his team to leverage the conditions on the ground to preserve our victory in Iraq. He dropped the ball on that.

Richard Brunt: and killed Osama bin Laden.

No, President Obama did not kill Osama bin Laden. The Navy SEALS did. Had Hillary been president, or McCain, both would've ordered that raid that killed Osama bin Laden. 

Richard Brunt: So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of?

Wrong, the Republicans did not get us into the mess that you talk about. President Obama, as Senator Obama, contributed to the problem.

The financial crisis of late 2008 was a result of decades of the government interfering with the free market. Mainly, the government's move to force banks to approve loans for people that normally would not be good candidates to receive a loan.

The government forced the free market economy's decision for decades.

In the early 2000s, President Bush warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their potential impact on the economy. His White House warned about the financial consequences of not reigning those two government-sponsored organizations in.

Later that decade, Republican senators tried to push for change. Guess who fought tooth and nail on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? You guessed it, the party that President Obama belongs to.

It was the Democrats that refused to do anything that would've prevented the financial crisis of 2008. That was President Obama's party, he was a senator before he was a president. Together with his party, he did not do anything to prevent this crisis. Their refusal to take action against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed to the financial crisis.

However, any claims stating that President Bush, and his Republicans, "caused" the financial crisis is based on ignorance and on susceptibility to propaganda. Both tried to do something about it, the Democrats refused to cooperate.

Richard Brunt: This defies reason.

Your own reasoning defies reasoning. You comment on the decision of the American Electorate during the midterms of 2014. You did so without first understanding American history, American philosophy, the American mindset, the concepts of a free market economy, microeconomics, macroeconomics, American civics, etc.

Richard Brunt:When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?

You guys can have him, in fact, can you take him sooner? 

Sunday, June 07, 2015

Gery Carson, Strong Future International (SFI) Founder, Corporate Headquarters Photo Deception

On Gery Carson's Strong Future International (SFI) webpage, you see a photograph of a nice one-story brick building. The photo caption indicates that it's SFI's "corporate headquarters."

From Gery Carson's Strong Future International (SFI) webpage. It's listed as the corporate headquarters for SFI

Strong Future International tries to give an impression that they are doing very well. They are doing "so well" that they have a nice, brick building with plenty of surrounding space. Not only did Gery Carson have plenty of space inside, but he had plenty of space surrounding his corporate headquarters building.

You have grass on one side and a large parking lot on the other side. The photo gives an impression of a multi staffed operation.

However, a Google search of 8251 Northwoods Drive, Lincoln, NE 68505, SFI corporate address, shows something different. Google maps showed two buildings, side-by-side, that look similar to the one shown on Gery Carson's Strong Future International website.

Google Maps marks the address obtained from Gery Carson's Strong Future International (SFI) Webpage. The building is part of Northwoods Plaza, which has a collection of buildings containing suites for businesses to rent. 

In the same area, three additional buildings stand on the opposite side of the parking lot. A roundabout separates these rows of buildings.

The three buildings on the other side are larger versions of the one listed for SFI's address. This looks similar to a shopping district. In fact, a real estate listing on loopnet.com lists this as "Northwoods Plaza."

Loopnet.com listed one of the bigger buildings, in Northwoods Plaza, as being up for sale for well over $1 million. In the description, the building is described as having a high-quality tenant base.

In other words, multiple tenants occupy different suites in those buildings.

LoopNet, loopnet.com photo for 8251 Northwoods Drive, Lincoln, NE 68505 at Northwoods Plaza. Suite 200, SFI Corporate Headquarters' location, is just one of the suites in that building. 

SFI's address had a Suite 200 listed. Loopnet.com had a listing for the building, but not up for sale. 8251 is the number listed on the building. Strong Future International listed a Suite 200 as their address. It's obvious that the building in SFI's photo isn't entirely Strong Future International's.

Instead, Gery Carson's SFI is renting one of the suites inside of building 8251. Even if the window, to SFI's suite, is visible in the SFI photo, it's not detailed or identified. Strong Future International leaves that information out. Most viewers will think that the entire building is SFI's corporate headquarters.

That's not true.

So, if Strong Future International had any business ethics in them, they would not try to claim an entire building as their headquarters. Instead, they would've posted a picture featuring Suite 200 as their corporate headquarters.

Strong Future International (SFI) website photo for Gery Carson, the founder. This photo appears dated, and doesn't look much different from the one used on SFI's website last decade. 

If Gery Carson's Strong Future International is being deceptive about its headquarters, what else is it being deceptive about?

Strong Future International (SFI) website insinuating that the whole building is their headquarters.

Saturday, June 06, 2015

Glenn Beck is Wrong, the Liberals Were not Right About Iraq

Glenn Beck: Now, in spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said: We shouldn't get involved. We shouldn't nation-build. And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free.

First, most of those who have been to Iraq, over the long run, disagree with that notion. I've combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman. I disagree with that notion as well.

Second, liberals argued in favor of slavery up to the end of the Civil War, should we have listened to them? Liberals said that we should conclude the Civil War and negotiate with the Confederacy. Should we have listened to them? Liberals argued in favor of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and other oppressive laws. Should we have listened to them?

Historically, liberals have advanced the wrong argument. Starting in the middle of the 20th century, they have argued as "useful idiots" for our enemies and adversaries.

Advance to the 21st century.

When the liberals argued against the Iraq war, they were doing so because they disagreed with George Bush. Every justification that the liberals came up with, against the Iraq war, was wrong. The Iraqis wanted freedom. Reconstruction went a long way to improving their lot.

Glenn Beck: I thought that was insulting at the time.

Yes, it was insulting at the time. However, what's more insulting than that is a "conservative" throwing his hands up and waving the white flag when the going gets tough. To rub salt into the wounds? That same "conservative" suggests that both sides should come together under that white banner.

Do you honest to God believe that we will come together with the other side? This given that they have been wrong for decades? You think we would come together with them simply because of your opinion about them being "right" and that we should move forward?

I'm sorry, I will stick to the facts. You were right before. You are wrong now. Your attitude, and your claiming that the liberals were "right" about the Iraq war, makes you precisely what our founding fathers had in mind when they coined the term "Summer Soldier" and "Sunshine Patriot."

Glenn Beck: Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn't force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right.

Liberals were wrong. There's an excellent chance that the majority of the liberals, that claimed that the Iraqis did not want freedom, did not deploy to Iraq.

I have news for you guys. The Iraqis wanted freedom. I saw that in their eyes. I saw it in their actions. 

It's so easy for you guys, sitting within the comfort of US civilization, to look over at Iraq and say, "They did not want freedom." 

The US military was not able to continue on with maintenance training with the right amount of troops. There was a lack of will in Washington D.C. to support this military request. This resulted in the deterioration of the Iraqi force. You can't use that as an explanation as to why you think that the Iraqis "did not want" freedom.

You could blame that on the failure of leadership in both Washington D.C. and Baghdad. You can't look at the results of that failure and say, "The Iraqis did not want freedom."

If the Iraqis did not want freedom, they would not have fled many of the cities and towns. They were getting away from the Sharia Law that you insinuate they preferred. They are fleeing from radical Islamic law. They are fleeing to safe areas where they would not be exposed to radical Sharia Law. 

Being protected from those realities, due to being within the comfort zone within US civilization, blinds liberals that you agree with to that reality.

Glenn Beck: We shouldn't have.

Wrong Glenn Beck, we should have. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. However, as with anything else in the world, an effort like that requires decades of involvement. Granted, the military portion could end, but that does not mean the supports and other areas could not continue.

Washington D.C. failed to secure the straight cut victory that we achieved in Iraq. Don't turn around and say, "We should not have gone in."

To me, that makes you, or any other conservative that believes the same thing, nothing more than summer or sunshine conservatives. 

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck Is Wrong, Liberals Opposed the Iraq War for Political Reasons

Glenn Beck: Now, if you believed those things, let me say: You were right. If you were just using it for political purposes, well, we don't have anything in common, But if you really believe those things, I would like to have a conversation with you now to find out exactly how you came to terms with that -- especially being a progressive.

It does not matter if they were doing so for political purposes, or for what they felt were "valid reasons." They were wrong.

I've been debating these liberals, who have opposed the Iraq war, since early last decade. The vast majority of them did so for the wrong reasons. They disagreed with the war simply because George Bush was the one that pushed for it.

The vast majority of those that argued for the reasons you mention here did so through ignorance. They did so via being ignorant about asymmetrical warfare and about history.

I found that many liberals, who argued against "nation building" applauded our attempts to nation build in Somalia back in the 1990s. It's amazing what a different president, from another political party, would do with regards to people's perceptions.

These liberals, that opposed the Iraq war, repeated the same talking points that liberal talking heads talked about. These liberals didn't bother researching the facts before coming to their conclusions.

Glenn Beck: If you know the history of the progressive movement, it was Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that started imposing democracy in South America.

Do not confuse the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century with the progressive movement of the late 20th Century and early 21st Century.

We were going through a period of rapid industrial development during that earlier progressive movement. This brought about some negative side effects, which included government corruption at all levels. Or, rather, intensified government corruption.

"Progressive" in this sense was "progress" in terms of cleaning up this corruption and fighting against "big boss" exploitation of the "little guy." This also included addressing industrial and other developments, like using the "scientific method" in industry and other areas.

Progressiveness, as used by the liberals/Democrats, has another meaning. In this case, it means progressing towards quasi-socialism and away from free-market capitalism. This kind of "progressivism" counters some of the things of the turn of the 20th Century progressivism.

For example, the old progressivism argues in favor of using facts to improve an operational condition. The new progressivism relies heavily on emotion and feeling. It relies heavily on assumptions.

We are talking about two different kinds of "progressivism." 

Latin America has made strides in improvement when it comes to being democratic.

Glenn Beck: The reason why South America is just loaded with communists is because we put a lot of them in. That's the progressive ideal.

Wrong. We did not put the communists in place in South America. The US government made repetitive attempts to get anti-Communist governments in place. In areas where there were already there, they made efforts to try to keep them there.

It was the Soviet Union, and its allies... Specifically Cuba... That planted the seeds for communist governments in Latin America.

People accused the United States of "setting up puppet governments" in Latin America. Yet, many of them are clueless of the fact that the Soviet Union and Cuba set up puppet governments in Central and South America... These happened to be the communist governments.

We had to erode and undermine those communist governments. This is not the same thing as what the "progressives" pushed for at the turn of the 20th century. 

Glenn Beck: But I agree with you: You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else. It doesn't work. They don't understand it or even really want it. They may be too immersed in their own belief of Sharia Law to embrace liberty or at least at this time. If people vote for Sharia Law, they vote for Sharia Law. We tried. What can we do?

I don't know which elections you're talking about, but the Iraq that I combat deployed to was nothing like what you describe.

When I was there, the Iraqis very much wanted freedom. I lost count of how many times Iraqis came up to us to shake our hands, or to give us friendly honks from their vehicles. It was like walking around in New York City shortly after 9/11 while wearing a military uniform.

It was the Iraqis that pushed a lot of information campaigns to get other Iraqis out to vote. They were turning out in large numbers. If they did not want freedom, they would not have done this.

While I was there, their democracy was nothing like the radical Islamic law that the terrorists wanted to push.

You forget the Sunni awakening with the Sunnis throwing off radical Islamic law. They did not want that. They wanted freedom. They knew that by taking control of their future and by fighting off the terrorists, that we would have an easier time making democracy a reality in the area.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck is Wrong, we Must be Willing to Sacrifice More Lives for our Future

Glenn Beck: We have lost thousands of American lives.

We lost thousands of lives during the Civil War. Perhaps we should've quit, as many liberals/Democrats in the North wanted us to do. We certainly would've saved a lot of lives that way. We lost thousands of lives during World War II. Perhaps we should've decided to quit and not fight Germany or Japan in order to spare us from losing more lives.

"But wait", you might say, "those were different, we secured our victory." Not quite. The transition from the end of those wars was not smooth either. 

In fact, I remember reading an article, written in 1946, that was titled, "America Loses the Peace in Europe." From reading that article, you'd think that we would fail in securing our victory. When are we going to pull our troops out of Europe? We're still there, long after World War II, like what should've happened with Iraq. 

We're dealing with an ideology that believes that the whole world should be under radical Islamic law. They will not stop in the Middle East. They intend to export this radical Islamic law and require us to convert to it.

Too many here in the United States think that this would be "un-achievable." In reality, if we give up the will to fight, it's very possible.

I'm sorry, I choose that we keep fighting, even if we lose thousands more... if that means that America's daughters are not raped/violated and sold into slavery or forced into marriage with thugs...

* If that means that America's sons are not beheaded for refusing to convert to Islam... If that means that Americans do not see members of their families tortured and murdered in front of their eyes... 

* If that means that American communities don't see hundreds, or even thousands, of their fellow countrymen piled into mass graves... 

* If that means that American law, culture, freedom, etc., remain supreme on US soil...

This may seem "far-fetched" to most people living in the US. Unfortunately, this becomes an ultimate reality if we decide to not fight anymore. 

Our enemies cast a vote in this ongoing war. This war will only have one outcome. One outcome is we succeed and prevail in this war, no matter how long it takes. The other outcome is that radical elements succeed in converting America and other parts of the world into Islamic caliphates. 

The newly converted areas will suffer an ongoing holocaust.

If we give up, as implied in Glenn Beck's speech, we are abdicating this war to the terrorists. That's not acceptable. No real conservative would advocate that we quit when the enemy intends to keep fighting.

In this war, we cannot assume that the enemy will not pursue his new momentum. The enemy casts a vote in this war and will act on it. 

Glenn Beck: We have lost thousands of lives on the Iraqi side and tens of thousands have been wounded. We have spent $2 trillion -- say that again -- $2 trillion, and upwards of 200,000 Iraqi citizens, aid workers, insurgents have been killed. That's the conservative number. Liberals will tell you it's almost 1 million people.

And a lot of that was a result of terrorist attacks against the Iraqis. They were not just attacking Americans, they attacked Iraqis.

However, you suggest that if we had not gone in at all, we would not have lost all those lives.

That is part of the realities of war. You can lose people. That happened during the American Revolution. Perhaps we should not have fought that war in order to prevent us from losing the civilian lives that were lost during that war.

I mean, if we did not fight that war, Americans would not have any need to become refugees fleeing to the Spanish Empire to escape the war.

As with any war, you don't argue for cutting and running when you lose lives. Even a single loss of life is tragic. But, as we have done successive generations throughout history, people were willing to their lose lives in order to throw off tyranny and secure freedom.

The Liberals/progressives advance the 1 million figure when it comes loss of lives. That was based on a faulty survey. Those that did the survey were extremely liberal as to what constituted a casualty.

The methodology of that survey would not have passed muster with a basic survey class. With the way they identified "loss of life", you're bound to have inflated numbers. Official counts were still lower.

There's an equivalent saying to, "Let's pull out of there before we lose any more lives." It's called "Living on your knees rather than fighting and dying on your feet." That is the future we face if we do what Glenn Beck suggests we do. 

The reality is that many Iraqis were praying for the bombing runs to begin. Many were seriously contemplating suicide if the bombings didn't begin. They would've rather that they get killed during those bombing runs, in the hands of the allies, then to continue living under Saddam's oppressive rule.

Then we have the mass graves that were filled during Saddam's reign. That would've continued. 

Even in the more recent events, with ISIS taking over large parts of Iraq and Syria. Many were committing suicide or praying for the allies to bomb them to death. They preferred death, by our hands, to the reality they faced under ISIS's Sharia Law. 

These people were choosing death over loss of freedom. These people enjoyed democracy, then lost it in the hands of ISIS. They wanted death instead of what ISIS, and their radical Islamic law, offered.

Not exactly what you claim they wanted. That's a far cry from preferring Sharia Law instead of freedom.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck is wrong, Washington D.C. Faltered, ISIS Flourished

Glenn Beck: I don't know what the number is, but after all of that, hundreds of thousands of lives, $2 trillion, the best minds in the world trying to do it, it's about to fall apart. Terrorists of the most radical kind -- maybe the most radical we have witnessed since Nazis -- are now poised to overrun the capitol city. All of our effort, all our sacrifices, all of it is gone.

And so, to respond to that, you raise the white flag, both hands up, and demand that we all pull out and go home?

It's falling apart due to failure to capitalize on the straight cut victory that we handed over at the end of 2011. This is a repeat of Vietnam. Back then, the United States military defeated the Vietnamese in the battlefield. They handed a victory over to Washington D.C.

What did Washington D.C. do? They pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory and gave us a loss in the Vietnam War. 

Do you honest to God think that those lives that we lost, prior to ISIS, would be thankful if you... and others like you... Throw up their hands and raise the white flag?

That kind of defeatist attitude risks us taking a course of action that would result in their lives being lost in vain.

You simply do not give up. Your opinion about the left being "right", quotation marks used strongly, amounts to you suggesting just that.

Instead of complaining over what happened, how about putting efforts into figuring out better ways to defeat this new enemy? The United States military can easily defeat ISIS. There has to be a will, among the American Electorate and political leadership, to defeat ISIS. 

When the majority of the American public agrees with you... when it comes to thinking that the liberals were right... is when we know that the will of the United States to win the fight is over. When that point happens, we will know that it will be a matter time before we're dealing with intensely persistent radical terrorism on American soil.

Again, we fight, regardless of the setbacks on our part, or the momentum on the enemy's part. We don't simply put our hands up and say, "We should not have gone in, the left was 'right.'"

That makes you no different than the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot... All in favor of the war effort in the beginning. But, when the going gets tough, they try to slither back into society.

Glenn Beck: And yet, this is something I think that we can come together with, on the right and the left.

If you would've talked about that embassy by itself, as a stand-alone topic, without spending a lot of time waving the white flag, both sides could come together on the issue on that specific embassy.

However; abdicating the facts, and elevating an ignorant assumption... that liberals advanced about the Iraq war... to the same level as the factual narrative... will not bring either side together.

Do you honest to God believe, that by telling the people, that we have proven wrong over and over again since 2003, that they are "right," and suggesting that those of us with the facts are "wrong," that we would willingly come together with the left?

They are wrong. They were wrong during the Iraq war. They were wrong about the Vietnam War. In fact, they have been wrong since the 19th Century.

Those of us on the right, the conservatives, will not abandon the facts in order to come together with the side of the argument that does not know what it's talking about.

Glenn Beck: And it's this -- I have more of a chance of hacking off my loyal listeners and audience by saying this, but so be it:

You did not do anything remotely close to having a "revelation" that the other side was "right." You took the easy way out. The speech you made was you throwing your hands up in frustration and advocating that we give up.

You did nothing to see this from a strategic standpoint. This is war. The Iraq War was a part of that war. Yet you do not see this from a strategic outlook. Instead, you're pontificating to an audience as if you are sitting in an armchair, on the porch during the summer night, talking about how something should have happened.

We were right for going into Iraq. We did, in fact, argue that pulling out of Iraq, before the Iraqis were truly able to sustain what we trained them, would result in the enemy being able to create itself a new base of operation.

Where is your "revelation" to that fact? 

In fact, George Bush warned about it. What he warned, what those of us on the right argued, ended up happening. We advanced an "if then" statement. The "if" was the desire of the left/liberals. The "then" was the consequences the conservatives said would happen if the liberals got what they wanted.

ISIS is that "then" of the "if then" statements we made against the desires that the liberals wanted.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck Is Wrong, He Does Not Speak for the Military

Glenn Beck: Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more.

I'm sorry Glenn Beck, but I'm in one of the professions that you're speaking for. You neither speak for any of my comrade-at-arms nor for me.

The reality is that we have to do whatever it takes to defeat that threat. If we have to send more ground troops to neutralize the threat, so be it. I'd rather that we lose lives over there than to suffer a holocaust level of life lost over here.

Any argument that we no longer engage the Middle East is an argument for appeasement... And in favor for ultimate defeat on US soil.

I'm sorry, but the cold hard reality is that the problems over there will not disappear if we disengage. It would only follow us here. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."

And yes, we have to keep fighting this, even if it takes decades, or centuries. Our enemies have certainly been at work for approximately a millennia and some centuries. They do not intend to quit. Their fight with us is but a drop in the bucket.

Abdicating this war, and our responsibilities in it, invites their ultimate victory here. Just look at the landscape right now within the city. Just imagine seeing mosques were churches once stood. Picture all the women walking in the streets as being fully clothed in burqas.

That's just the beginning of the imagination that would become reality. The transition would be bloody and horrific. That's the future you're inviting when you say "no more."

Glenn Beck: The people of Iraq have got to work this out themselves.

Unfortunately, they do not have the time to work it out themselves. The stability and protection they need to be able to do this are simply not there.

It's easy for you to tell the Iraqis that they need to work things out for themselves. You live in relative stability and comfort within Western Civilization. You're not witnessing hundreds of people getting beheaded, maimed, raped, enslaved, kidnapped, etc.

ISIS is propagating the most savage form of psychological warfare to gain control of the populations that they're overrunning. It's working in those areas. Unfortunately for your suggestion, this works against them just sitting there and working things out for themselves.

Just look at what happened in 1930s Germany. It took outside intervention to reverse that.

In that part of the Middle East, people will congregate towards the groups that shows strength. It doesn't matter if this strength is a benefit to the world or not. If the bad guys are the ones showing strength and momentum, they're going to gain a bunch of people.

Violence of action/force, through brute strength, is what the enemy over there understands. If they are consistently subjected to it, they would bend. If the only way to do that is to reintroduce US military forces, so be it. Should that happen, we should not make the same mistakes we made at the end of 2011.

Glenn Beck: Our days of being the world's policemen, our days of interventionists is over.

That's not how the real world works. If the United States were to disappear overnight, another country will step in and do exactly what we're doing.

The cold hard reality is that every nation on the planet is doing some form of intervention beyond its borders. This could be economic, political, or military. What the United States is doing on a global scale, other countries are doing on a continental and regional scale.

What if the United States were to "stop" and do what Glenn Beck wanted it to do? In reality, another country will step in and do exactly what we're doing right now.

This is happening now, this has happened in the past, and this will happen long into the future. We're doomed to this cycle by the major fact that we are human beings. It's our nature to pursue our individual and collective interests.

Maybe we should have rejected the idea of being the world's "policemen" in the 1940s. After all, it was the perceived notion that the US was going to jump into the war that contributed to the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor. Taking such action required us to be the world's "policemen".

Perhaps if there was no argument, in the United States, to break isolation, the Japanese would not have seen us as a threat? By logical extension, they would not have attacked us in Pearl Harbor?

We remain engaged in the world now for similar reasons for engaging it during the 1940s.

It was our interventions that played a role in preventing World War III from happening. Also, our collective consumer habits have contributed to the United States doing what it does overseas.

In order to have a stable economy back in the United States and elsewhere, we have to secure the trade routes, and areas where resources are extracted. We have to contribute to stability and security to allow economies to thrive.

Maybe we should just come back and not be the world's "policemen". I hope you can enjoy just a fraction of what the economy could provide today. We would be lucky to get that if we were to take your suggestion.

Perhaps you might say that we don't need to be strategically engaged throughout the world to have secure trading routes. 

Ask our forefathers how that worked out. Hint, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute." Oh yeah, what was one of our complaints that got us into the war of 1812? Something about harassing American shipping, and pressing American sailors into British service? 

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck is Wrong, More Lives Will be Lost if we Wait for the Enemy to Come Here

Glenn Beck: If we are directly attacked, so be it. But this must end now.

I'm sorry, what you're arguing here is that we should live on our knees rather than fight and die on our feet. I will not be willing to sacrifice the United States, its people or its future, for the convenience of "stopping now."

The price you pay, for "ending it now" overseas will be doing away with what America was envisioned by our founders. The horrors and atrocities being committed in the Middle East will find a way to America if we give up the will to fight.

That's what you're asking us to do. That's not acceptable. 

Glenn Beck: Can't we come together on that? Are we not all a people that can come together on that?

Never. I will not give up the facts, and what the facts say we should do. Not so that we could come together with a bunch of people that are clueless about what's going on... and who don't know what they're talking about.

I refuse to join others if living on one's knees is what we should be doing together. I refuse to do that. I'm sorry, I will not quit when the going gets tough. I will keep going.

Glenn Beck: Wedon't want our sacrifice to be a waste.

I'm sorry, but if we do what you are imploring us to do here, our sacrifices would've been wasted. The lives lost would have been in vain. That sacrifice is part of the reason we have to keep going until we achieve our ultimate objective in this war.

Glenn Beck: Let me ask you this question: What good will one more life do? To waste one more life, what good will it do, to waste another dollar, let alone another trillion?

We must be willing to sacrifice more than just one, over the next few years, decades, or even centuries. That's what we have to do if that's what it will take to prevent us from suffering the holocaust that they're suffering in the Middle East.

Understand that if we do what you want us to do, to pull back and not to get involved, the enemy will cast its vote. They will not sit by and mind their own business over there. They will finish up their objective over there and then work their way towards our direction.

What you're demanding that we do is nothing more than demanding that we kick the problem down the road. You're trying to get us to embrace a solution that amounts to "hoping that we get eaten last."

So yes, we have to be willing to sacrifice as much lives as possible. To do otherwise is to invite the holocaust, happening in Iraq and Syria, to happen on US soil. Throwing the towel over there will virtually guarantee that Americans ends up suffering that holocaust in the future.

The loss of lives in this scenario would rapidly eclipse the loss of service member lives over there.

Glenn Beck: And conservatives, is there one that believes this President will prosecute a new war in Iraq properly?

We have to do something. Doing the bombing runs that we are doing over there is a lot better than what you are proposing.

Had the President given the military what it needed in Iraq at the end of 2011, for 2012 and beyond, you would not be here waving the white flag of surrender. However, since he did do that, we have to do something.

The bombing runs are a good start. We need to do something more substantial if the troops already on the ground recommend it.

Glenn Beck: When the biggest hawk of them all, the Darth Vader of the entire galactic empire, Dick Cheney and George Bush didn't prosecute it right? No.

When I combat deployed to Iraq, it was blatantly obvious that the United States and its allies won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory.

We can look back and criticize what President Bush and Dick Cheney and the others did to prosecute the Iraq war. There are plenty of examples, in our past history, where we did not prosecute wars properly either.

In fact, we came dangerously close, during the American Revolution, to losing. There were a lot of blunders in that war. Then, as now, there were a lot of times when what was planned ended up changing drastically. Patriots made several mistakes during that war.

Advance to the American Civil War. Again, I can point to examples where mistakes were made. Lots of lives lost to the American Revolution and the American Civil War because of these "blunders."

Today, we have the convenience of looking back in time and seeing how they could have done things better. That is not always a convenience that we have when dealing with situations that are happening "right now."

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck Is Wrong, we Must Fight Perpetually if we are to Win

Glenn Beck: In the end, the result will be the same. Another group of radicals will pop up again. It is like a never-ending game of whack amole over there. The only way to prevent Baghdad from being overrun eventually is stay there and continue to fight this militarily in perpetuity. Are you willing to do that?

And that is how they know they will defeat the West, by fighting in perpetuity. They know that the West has a microwave mentality. The West wants solutions, and closure, "right now." They note that the West will buckle when it comes to things that drag out into infinity.

It's an Asiatic philosophy, the idea that you go on in infinity. The only way we can fight against that is by fighting this militarily, politically, economically, etc., in perpetuity. THAT's the only way that we are going to defeat these guys.

Outlasting the opposition when it comes to patience is one of the things they use to achieve victory. You're giving them the impact indicator that they want by suggesting that we just go home with our tails tucked between our legs.

So yes, I'll be willing to fight them indefinitely. That's a better option than seeing the holocaust happening here on US soil. Because, if we do pull out and disengage, we will be suffering the holocaust on US soil. It won't be a matter of "if," but a matter of "when."

It wouldn't stop there. Just look at the justice system in many of the Muslim countries. 

Look at what people are being punished for, how they're being punished, and imagine that happening on US soil for centuries. Would you put future American generations' lives through this to end current loss of life?

This has been a process that has been going on since Islam started to spread in areas that were formally Christian. Again, their fight against the United States is nothing but a drop in the bucket. They'll keep fighting until they achieve their ultimate goal... Global Islamic law.

They will try to achieve that even if it means working over the next few centuries to do so. They've "only" been doing this since the beginning of the "dark ages."

So yes, even if another group of radicals come up, we'd still choose to fight them. To do otherwise would be like telling our police to lay down their weapons and to stand down their departments because "another group of criminals will pop up and break the law."

Just as the police will continue to chase and detain criminals, America's warriors should fight our mortal enemies indefinitely. The fate of our civilization, and our quality of life, hangs in the balance.

Glenn Beck: Don't even start with me on your oil an gas. Guess we should have thought about that earlier. Maybe if we use our own oil and gas, we wouldn't have to worry about this.

If this was about "oil and gas", we would have invaded Venezuela instead. The United States gets most of its oil from the Western Hemisphere. We get it mainly from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Venezuela.

This makes sense considering that it is more economically efficient to have our oil come to us via pipelines than by ships.

The Iraq war was not about oil. It never was. It was more about changing a philosophy via a structural, political, and economic change to the environment in the Middle East. 

The Japanese used to see it as an honor to take out a lot of the enemy via suicide. Where are those Japanese now and what's there percentage of the population as compared to before?

Likewise, democracies will take time to develop. Keep in mind that we kept US troops in Germany, South Korea, and Japan decades after the respective wars were fought there. Why do anything different with Iraq and Afghanistan?

Once these democracies are in full force, and the free market is allowed to do its thing, the environment would produce people that would be more interested in earning money and prospering than in blowing themselves up.

While we are on the topic, if you want to have true energy independence, let the free market do its job. Get the US government out of its way. No invasion of another country needed.

Glenn Beck: Liberals, you were against it in the first place.

The liberals were wrong then, they're wrong now. They've been wrong throughout history. 

Glenn Beck: How could you be in favor of more intervention now? How could you possibly be for that after everything you have said about how it's going to fall apart in the end was right? Everything I said that we could hold it together was wrong. We need to pull out and end the long nightmarish involvement in this mess. We need to do the same in Afghanistan, once and for all

Easy, because the alternative to this "intervention" is a kind of intervention that we would see within our borders. Don't think that this is the kind of "intervention" that we would easily be able to deal with.

This "intervention" would act like a "cancer." Just look in the many areas of this country where progressives/liberals were able to set policies for decades. It's in these areas where we will see our first radical Islamic enclaves... What will later end up becoming "no go zones."

It's from these areas were most recruits for ISIS in America will come from. If not ISIS, some other radical terrorist group. This would just be the beginning. Take a look at Europe to see what's going to be our future when it comes to dealing with radical Islam.

The left/liberals said that everything was going to fall apart not because of any real knowledge or understanding of history or current events. They said that it would fall apart simply because they disagreed with the man that was pushing for it. They did so to repeat liberal mantra from liberal talking heads.

The conservatives also warned that the situation will fall apart too. It was predicated on the liberals getting what they wanted. What did the liberal/left want? They wanted us to be out of Iraq regardless of how ready the Iraqis were for us to pull out.

With no residual force remaining behind to preserve our victory, this fall was bound to happen. We conservatives consistently argued that "if" the liberals get their way, "then" things would fall apart and it would just be the beginning.

What we predicted ended up happening. The "if" in this case was the liberals getting their way with regards to the ultimate troop pullout of Iraq. The "then" that the conservatives predicted would happen in this situation is what's going on right now in Iraq.

When are we going to hear you say, with frustration, that we conservatives were right all along? Because that's what's really happening. The conservatives have consistently argued from the facts. They have consistently argued from the context of current events as well as history.

The situation in the Middle East right now resulted from the liberals getting their way. Here you are telling them that they were "right" all along. How about holding them accountable for demanding their way, in the form of a near-complete troop pullout of Iraq?

Whether you like it or not, this is a global war. This was called the "Global War and Terrorism." You keep forgetting in your rants that the enemy has a vote. You assumed that the enemies is going to stay over there and mind his own business.

The reality is that the enemy that the US-led coalition is fighting over there have a vision. That vision includes the United States and the rest of the free world under the flag of radical Islam.

The demands to pull out "right now" is essentially an abdication of our part. It's ceding to the enemy. That's just begging for a holocaust. A holocaust is happening in Iraq and Syria, this holocaust would come to America if it accepts your suggestion.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Glenn Beck is Wrong, We'd Still Have Those Problems without the Space Race

Glenn Beck: I remember back in the 1970s, we were going to the moon and liberals at that time would say, 'We have bigger problems here on earth that need to be taken care of.' How much more is that argument correctly applied to today's situation?

First, the liberals were wrong for saying that back then. A lot of the technological spinoffs that happened from the space race ended up benefiting our civilization. We take many of the spinoffs for granted. The liberals use some of those spinoffs to rant their ignorance and misguidance.

Perhaps the Europeans should've taken care of their problems in Europe before ever thinking about finding that western passage to the Asian Indies. The Europeans should've thought about eliminating hunger, poverty, and other problems before ever thinking about sending maritime explorations overseas.

These Europeans had "bigger" problems.

Heck, maybe all seafaring countries should have thought about that first. Where would we be today if they thought that way?

The reality is if we did not engage in maritime or space exploration, we'd still have the problems that liberals complain about.

Second, that has no application to the Iraq war or any other war that we fought in modern history. The liberals were wrong about the Iraq War when it occurred, they are wrong about it now. The liberals have been consistently wrong about geostrategic, geopolitical, and geo-economic issues throughout history.

The liberals were wrong when it came to space exploration. They're wrong when it comes to war. They have yet to prove otherwise.

Glenn Beck: Finally, there are some things we can agree on. Finally, there are some things we can come together on and clean up our own house.

Sorry, you do not speak for the rest of the Republicans or conservatives. You only speak for yourself. You, also ready to throw in the towel, have put yourself in a situation where you could finally agree with the liberals.

These liberals/progressives have all been about throwing in the towel when the going gets tough. They have been all about "giving up" or "surrendering" in order to "stop" the conflict. It's no surprise that when you got into that mindset, you came up with this screed that I'm addressing.

Glenn Beck: But if we do to the liberals what they did to us and George W. Bush and make it just about politics, we will be divided more. This cannot become about the President. It cannot become act the Democrats.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to do for them what they refused to do for us... Especially when they refuse to accept what the facts tell him.

We're dealing with a bunch of people who do not care about the facts. All these people want is for you to agree with them, regardless of how outlandish their story is. They will trash people who represent your vote. However, they will expect you to respect people that got their vote.

Even if we were to treat them the way we wanted them to treat us and those that we voted for, they will not reciprocate.

The liberals have made it just about politics. Their disagreement with the Iraq war, and their demands for us to pull back, was all about politics. 

Their disagreement with the Iraq war, and their predicting gloom, and they're getting it, is more about their hatred against George Bush than it was about knowledge or awareness.

The liberals/Democrats need to know what they're talking about. This is a prerequisite if they hope that those of us that embrace the facts could meet them halfway.

Glenn Beck: This has to become about the principles because in the principles we all agree.

I'm sorry, but the "principles" that you embrace are consistent with those that liberals embrace.

Those are the principles of surrender. Throughout your rant, you call us to do something. You think you're calling us to come together with the liberals. What you're actually doing is calling for us to surrender the fight to the enemy. 

Bringing our troops home, when the enemy still intends the fight, amounts to surrender. It's failure. These are not the principles that I agree with. "Giving up" when the going gets tough may be a "principal" that the liberals/progressives embrace.

It won't be one that I embrace.

Glenn Beck: Enough is enough. Bring them home, period.

When the enemy is willing to continue to fight, and has every intention to outlast our fight, it's never enough. No, we should not come home until our job is done. Or, rather, the military should not stop its operations until the enemy is truly defeated.

It doesn't matter if it takes another decade, another century, or another millennium. We have to sacrifice all if we have to, because the alternative is far worse than what we could imagine.

Having lived most your adult life in Western civilization, enjoying the best of what it offers relative to others, you don't see the gravity of what you are asking us to do.

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Friday, June 05, 2015

Laura Ingraham Wrong About Iraq and WMD

Knowing what I know now, I'd still authorize the invasion of Iraq had I been President George Bush.

Laura Ingraham hammers Jeb Bush on his response to an interview question. The question involved a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario, Jeb Bush was in the same point in time as his brother was in the months leading to the Iraq invasion.

Laura Ingraham's response to his response assumed that the anti-WMD propaganda, of the left, was "true": 

Originally stated by Laura Ingraham:
When he's asked a simple question, good on Megan Kelly by the way, what was the question? Knowing what we know now, not if you are in the same exact circumstances your brother would you have authorized this war, no no no, knowing what we know now, mainly that there were no WMDs, we got bad intelligence, if you had known all those things, would you have, he said, "Yes, I still authorize the war. That, in my mind, reveals, it's a sneak peek as to what Jeb is going to face come general election should he win the nomination. Megan gave him a little taste of that, it's going to go way beyond would you authorize the war in Iraq?

During the run-up to the Iraq war, President George Bush advanced more than one argument as to why we needed to go into Iraq. His explanations were consistent with his initial speeches after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mainly, that this war was not like any other war before. This war was one where you were going to have both visible and invisible parts to the public. This was a multidimensional war. 

The war in Afghanistan was the opening salvo, but not the final campaign in this currently ongoing Global War on Terror.

Or, as I'd like to call it, "Our reaction to the terrorist war to exterminate Western Civilization and to establish global Islamic law."

George Bush explained multiple reasons to why we had to engage this war. This war includes the Iraq war. This greater war was going to involve a financial, economic, political, etc., as well as military leg. One main theme involved "freedom." In the case of Iraq, it included, "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

There's a reason to why it was called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Because of the successful media perpetrated propaganda campaign, the majority of the public thinks that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Perhaps Laura Ingraham could tell those soldiers, attacked by chemical agent laced IEDs in Iraq, that there were "no" WMD in Iraq.

Laura Ingraham, I dare you to tell those soldiers, who were attacked by sarin, mustard, and blister agent laced improvised explosive devices in Iraq... that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

From the beginning of the invasion and throughout our involvement in Iraq... That's the time frames for US military units and coalition members discovering chemical agents in Iraq. Chemical agents are one part of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hence, WMD were in Iraq.

If the mainstream media did its job, and emphasized these discoveries as much as they did the propaganda that there were "no" WMD, this would've been common knowledge.

As part of basic military training/basic combat training, new service members learn about Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of the things that they learn is that WMD comes in one of three main forms. 

We have biological warfare agents, chemical warfare agents, and nuclear warfare agents. All three constitute WMD.

Sarin, mustard, and blister agents are examples of chemical agents, hence "weapons of mass destruction." In other words, WMD were found in Iraq post invasion. Whether or not these were made prior to 1991 is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they were found post invasion, justifying one of President George Bush's arguments for going into Iraq.

But, that wasn't his only argument for invading Iraq.

In order to successfully combat terrorism, we have to take them on in different arenas. President George Bush consistently talked about these different arenas.

Going into Iraq was a logical next step in the War on Terror. From an asymmetrical warfare standpoint, this was an act of brilliance. Take a look at the map of the Middle East.

With Afghanistan on one side, and Iraq on the other side, Iran would have a hard time trying to maintain their status quo. The pressure, from economic and democratic change within the flanking countries, would make it harder to suppress the desires of the Iranian people.

Here's another angle on what's going on in the Middle East. With Israel, and a democratic Iraq, to the north of Saudi Arabia; and Lebanon, a democratic Iraq, Israel, and Turkey flanking Syria, we create similar situations for Syria... In the long term... That we created with Iran.

The invasion of Iraq created a checkerboard pattern of countries, in the Middle East, in different forms of democracy.

Herein lies the bigger element of President George Bush's ultimate plan for the Middle East. With countries in different stages of economic and democratic development, we could apply the other elements of asymmetrical warfare more.

The biggest one, offered by economic development, creates a situation to where we have something like Japan, South Korea, Germany etc., in the heart of the Middle East. From there, it's a matter time before the people in the other countries want the same thing.

Hence, the demonstrations that took place in the Middle East. A part of the Iraq invasion plan was a projected democratic "ripple effect." It was supposed to kick in and bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.

We saw that in the form of the "Arab Spring". It was up to Washington D.C. to leverage the Arab Spring. They were supposed to help bring about, and catalyze, positive economic and democratic change in the Middle East.

This included finding groups, within these countries, to support. Washington D.C. fell short of what it needed to do.

Now, people would point to ISIS, and what's going on in Iraq and Syria today. People would say, "We should not have gone into Iraq." That's a wrongheaded way to look at things.

This isn't like a project at home, where you try to construct something and it fell apart. Then you respond by saying, "I should not have built that." The fate of the United States does not hinge on your construction. However, it hinges on whether we succeed in the Middle East or not.

We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory, it was up to Washington D.C. to carry it through.

The cold hard fact is that the American-led coalition won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. The Iraqi military demonstrated competency. For the most part, the population supported this military. Within the Iraqi ranks, there was general respect up and down the chain.

The Iraqi military and security force showed competency. They tended to give the terrorists a bad day. 

The US military, toward the end of the Iraq involvement, saw a need to keep a residual force behind. All that was needed was a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). At first, the Iraqis did not want to have a situation to where US military was outside Iraqi law. However; they turned more toward giving us a SOFA on favorable terms for the US military.

The initial resistance was simply a negotiation ploy. It was a way to see if we would give them more of what they wanted before negotiations progressed. They were willing to push the envelope until they couldn't push it anymore. 

When they couldn't, they ultimately agreed to favorable terms.

Unfortunately, there was no will in the White House to get the military what it needed. In this case, to build up the Iraqi military and its capability to keep Iraq secure.

Consequently, what the US military helped create from March 2003 through December 2011 deteriorated rapidly. This allowed for ISIS to make rapid advances into Iraq. This is a feat that would not have happened had the US military received the support it needed post OIF.

So yes, Laura Ingraham, knowing what I know now, I still would've ordered the invasion. If I were president in the months leading up to the Iraq war, I would've given the same order that George Bush ultimately gave.

Fickleness in Washington D.C. should never be the cause for us losing the will to fight. The enemy has a vote. The ones that the West is fighting now has every intention of establishing radical Islamic law in the United States and elsewhere. 

They brag about it. This is what they're thinking about when they brag about placing the flag of Islam on top of the White House.

Anybody that says that we should not have invaded Iraq becomes a voluntary mouthpiece for the enemy. In this case, for ISIS. By attacking the justifications for going into Iraq, one contributes to the erosion of the will to fight. This works in our enemies' favors.

The question is not whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. That was the right decision. History will see it that way. That's a non-argument.

What should be looked at is the White House's failure to take the military's advise to heart in order to secure the victory. Based on that, ways to more effectively combat our enemies in the Middle East should receive the heaviest attention. People need to quit "next day" quarter backing.