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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment