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.