Glenn: Prepare for war unlike any we have seen in our lifetime

May 18, 2015

WRITER

While discussing the GOP field on radio Monday, Glenn realized he needs to get the candidates to discuss their war strategy as there may be conflict coming unlike anything people have ever seen. Why?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment

GLENN: Now let's go to the audio -- do you have Rand Paul or -- here's Rand Paul being asked about ISIS and Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

VOICE: You're sort of implying you disagree with that. Do you believe the world would be a better place if Saddam Hussein were still the strong man in Iraq?

RAND PAUL: I don't think that's exactly how I would put it, but I would say I think we are more at risk for attack from people who are training, organizing and fighting in Iraq than we were before, so for example, ISIS is a more of an aberration than even Hussein was, so you have this radical brand of jihad, radical brand of Islam that is now strong and growing stronger because of the failed state that Iraq is. You have the same thing going on in Libya. So this is a valid debate. We'll have to have this debate, not only in the Republican primary, but in the general, as to whether or not it's a good idea. Is intervention always a good idea or sometimes does it lead to unintended consequences?

GLENN: Usually. Usually it leads to unintended consequences.

PAT: Where would you be on that? How would you answer that we? It's difficult.

GLENN: Give me the question.

PAT: Is Iraq better or worse off without Saddam Hussein? I mean, it's worse now, I think, than it was under Saddam Hussein when he was alive, but would it even be worse, if he were still alive? I don't know.

GLENN: There's no way to answer that, but if I had to go back with everything that we know now --

PAT: Would you go in now?

GLENN: No. I would not.

STU: This is the great point of libertarianism and we should consider it more as conservatives and --

GLENN: Are you becoming a conservetarian?

STU: I have read The Conservetarian Manifesto. It's a great book and it goes over those particular arguments well. But as far as this war goes, it is not -- say you believe George Bush was great and you think he did a great job prosecuting the war. When you start these giant government efforts, you can't eliminate the idea that somebody else, like Barak Obama, comes in to screw it up. Let's -- even if you believe, if you are a piper partisan and believe Bush was great, when you start these things, you still have to allow for that, the same way that dumb Progressives say, well, we should just let the president do whatever he wants. Immigration, just let him do it. We say wait until the next guy gets in. You aren't going to like that opinion anymore. Same with war. If you had the perfect guy prosecuting this war, whoever you think that person is, maybe it would have turned out better, but it seems like something always changes that you don't know is coming, then it winds up being worse every time. It is a tough thing to predict. And at the moment -- with the information we had at the time with Iraq, it felt like the right decision. But more and more, as I am growing, as someone who thinks about the world -- I think I am growing, as I grow, you start to consider these things, there's a lot of stuff you don't know.

GLENN: You're becoming Donald Rumsfeld.

STU: There's no knowns and no unknowns. And unknown knowns and unknown unknowns. It is a lot of times this is what happens. Even with the right information, would this be better; we don't know. It is so impossible, because you may have someone else that comes in, a different general, a different piece of information slides in. At the end, you wind up with this, where we kind of, as conservatives agreed it was a good case to go in. And Saddam was dangerous and we don't know. It is possible that Saddam may have done something even worse than what ISIS is doing. We don't know, but it is so impossible to manage, you wonder in the best course of action isn't to just lay back a little bit.

PAT: No. I know that's a bet I have coarse of action.

GLENN: So now tell me what you do with ISIS. Do you lay back a bit?

PAT: No. Well, yeah, because I don't have any confidence in this administration to do it right. George Bush didn't do it right, these guys certainly aren't going to.

STU: Absent of Ted Cruz, and everybody Ted Cruz --

GLENN: I haven't talked to Ted in depth, on what would you war strategy be?

STU: We should do that next time.

GLENN: I don't know where he stands on that.

STU: Even if you think he's the perfect guy, we think he will do it right. Four years later he might not have the job. It is still going on, everybody if you pull all the troops -- there's always going something going on.

PAT: Bush could have taken care of -- come on. In four years, certainly. Eight years, he could have taken care of Iraq, to the point where it was subdued. I mean --

STU: He kind -- he did, kind of. All right sort of didn't. A lot of messing around.

GLENN: The middle part, before the surge, there was a screwup. Then he started the surge, and it got good. I mean -- walked with actual shock and awe, it would have been better.

PAT: Put the hammer down and get out.

STU: Isn't this the communist argument all the time? If Stalin would have just done this. They never do this. The right thing never occurs.

GLENN: I'm kind of with --

PAT: We used to. It's been a long time.

GLENN: Up until Tragedy and Hope.

STU: A lot of that happened before there were these sort of restrictions. Again, we can say we want them to go in and act like World War II, but the -- we have one bomb that flies offer target by six inches and it's like the biggest story in the world forever. People who were naked in a prison was the dominated the news for six months. I mean, how do you --

PAT: But they were in a pyramid.

STU: And a dog was barking nearby. How can you prosecute a war in the a way we'd say would be a winnable way. And when you can't do it that way --

GLENN: I don't think naked pyramids are winning a war.

PAT: No.

STU: I'm not -- when you have a thing --

PAT: Goes nuts, just because you saw men in a naked pyramid and a dog barked near them, you can't prosecute a war like that.

STU: We talk about World War II, where they did shock and awe certainly in World War II. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians died. It was not at pretty picture. And obviously, war is hell, but is there any way that America, with the backbone they ever today, with the 99 percenters with Occupy Wall Street as part of this country, with all that, they are going to accept a war effort like that? And you'd better freaking be right on that one.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You are saying if everything changes. Maybe that's true.

GLENN: Except a couple of variable changes. Economic collapse and terrorist attacks here on our own soil, where they go into a school and just kill a bunch of our children, yeah. We'll bomb the snot out of them. We'll bomb the snot out of them, if you had a Republican. If we had President Obama, I think we'd just go on some apology tour, but if we had an economic collapse, where people were frightened, really, truly frightened, and then on top of it, you had a really bad terrorist attack, I think we would.

STU: We had a really bad terrorist attack. 3,000 people died to start this. In Afghanistan, there was still some of that. It wasn't as --

GLENN: You didn't have it -- remember, we were still in good times. We still were -- we are not in fear of losing our country yet. Once you -- most people are not. Most people are not. When you have a real, true fear of losing everything, losing your homeland, and that happens when people are invading -- it is going to be different this next time. It's not going to be 19 guys who got onto a passport and just came over here. Now it will be home-grown. They will be in multiple cities, so you won't know. Did you see what ISIS came out and said? That ISIS, their number one goal now is to hit America and kill the president.

I cannot imagine --

STU: Yeah, that would change perspective.

GLENN: That would change perspectives entirely. Unfortunately, it would change perspectives here in the United States. We got the Patriot Act the last time. Can you even imagine what the Department of Homeland Security would be if they, God forbid, hurt the president?

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: And 90% of the population --

GLENN: Everybody would be screening for it.

STU: Yeah. To go back to what you talked about a mill times, this is why you have to have your principles and know what they are, before that tough moment goes into effect, because you need to be able to rely on them and not make decisions based on emotion.

GLENN: Not enough of us knew the constitution, and we were -- we believed that we would never lose our security. We believed we would never lose our privacy, we would never lose our country. So we were like okay, well, I'm going to trade some of my freedoms, because they're going to give it back. They won't take this. They won't do that. We know now, at least a portion of us, unfortunately, the vast majority still doesn't get it.

I don't know what it's going to take, but you change a few variables and we will -- and I would suggest that you prepare for all-out war, war unlike we have ever seen in our lifetime, because that's what I believe is coming, unfortunately. I'm hoping that there's a way to put this genie back in the bottle, but I don't see it.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep