H
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/16/newt-world-war/GINGRICH: We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War and, frankly, our bureaucracy’s not responding fast enough and we don’t have the right attitude. And this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel and, frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon, and the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force — not as a political force in the parliament — but as a military force in south Lebanon.
RUSSERT: This is World War III?
GINGRICH: I believe if you take all the countries I just listed that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you have to say to yourself: this is, in fact, World War III.
hipsterdufus said:So Newt says we're in WWIII? Hmmm, I sense a new GOP Mid-Term strategy brewing here: claim we're in WWIII and on the "Strong Republicans" can save you from destruction. :roll:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/16/newt-world-war/
Paul said,” I believe we are in the making of WW3? Is there any evidence to prove that we are not? Alliances are forming, and the Europeans are showing appeasement because they are afraid to go to war with anyone. The world and some Americans are getting too soft and letting things go. We need to continue to take the fight to our enemies before this is a terrible world war. These extremists who commit terror have hated us for generations. Anyone who will blow themselves up and kill innocent women and children, and thinks their god is asking them to do so, is dangerous. These extremists need to be dealt with, sooner rather than later. Later they will have more missile capabilities, and possibly nukes. If we just sit around and wait, like before 911, it will just make it that much harder to defeat them after they attack us again. They are not going to grow to like us no matter what we do. They never have and never will. It is too bad that these radicals give all Muslims a bad name.”
hipsterdufus said:I sense a new GOP Mid-Term strategy brewing here: claim we're in WWIII and on the "Strong Republicans" can save you from destruction. :roll:
southern_liberal said:I was watching the interview when Gingrich mentioned WW III. The first thing came to mind was here goes more Republican fearmongering. It's sad they stoop so low to scare people into voting for them. I agree with the poster. The republicans are going to turn what's going on in the Middle East as an example why the republicans need to stay in power because they are best able to protect us. I hope people don't fall for it the way they did in 2002 and 2004.
southern_liberal said:I was watching the interview when Gingrich mentioned WW III. The first thing came to mind was here goes more Republican fearmongering. It's sad they stoop so low to scare people into voting for them. I agree with the poster. The republicans are going to turn what's going on in the Middle East as an example why the republicans need to stay in power because they are best able to protect us. I hope people don't fall for it the way they did in 2002 and 2004.
GINGRICH: We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War and, frankly, our bureaucracy’s not responding fast enough and we don’t have the right attitude. And this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel and, frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon, and the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force — not as a political force in the parliament — but as a military force in south Lebanon.
RUSSERT: This is World War III?
GINGRICH: I believe if you take all the countries I just listed that you’ve been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you have to say to yourself: this is, in fact, World War III.
"The first thing came to mind was here goes more Republican fearmongering. It's sad they stoop so low to scare people into voting for them. I agree with the poster. The republicans are going to turn what's going on in the Middle East as an example why the republicans need to stay in power because they are best able to protect us. I hope people don't fall for it the way they did in 2002 and 2004."
Democrats fear soft image on defense, terrorism.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service
Byline: Dick Polman
He said, "With America fighting an open-ended war against terrorists and rogue nations, prominent Democrats are increasingly concerned that their party may be doomed in the next presidential election.
The problem, they say, is that huge numbers of Americans dismiss the Democrats as national security wimps. And that's a bad image in wartime."
Goobieman said::roll:
Why don't you set your partisanship aside and actually consider what he said?
That you immediately discount his position and see it as possibly just a political ploy to get votes borders closely on pathetic.
GySgt said:Why do you always choose to shackle yourself to partisan slavery? I guarantee you that Islam's Radicals don't care who your politician is. They attacked us under Democratic sponsership and Republican sponsership. It was the Republican sponsership that finally fought back. Whatever the next sponsership is, Radical Islam will still remained determined.
doughgirl said:Fear? So we have absoltuely nothing to fear?
Like we caused this conflict to happen at this particular time just so Republicans can hold their seats?
Man oh man.........spoken like a true Democrat.
Obviously you have no clue as to the conflicts and dangers of the present world situation.
And Democrats dont ever hijack "hot-button" topics and make them their own, and for their own advantage?
The problem with your party is the fact that you are and have always been weak on defense. We need the party who is strong in that area. The Republican party might have a lot of negatives going for them right now in other areas but defense isnt one of them.
Last election Bush won with a 3.5-million-vote margin...and it showed that the Democrats were the party out of touch with the country on social issues,the governments role and ESPECIALLY the war against terrorism.
Read this from a Democrat viewpoint...Dick Polman a Democratic Political Analyst
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/dick_polman/14842936.htm
The Democratic party can't come up with any plan.........except withdrawing in defeat. I dotn think the American public wants that.
I'm sure he meant today's democrats. And who else can we refer to but Clinton, who directed a huge military down-sizing that today has left us with fewer troops to handle problems like Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree that today's democrats aren't pro-military enough.southern_liberal said:President Roosevelt was very tough on defense, so you blanket generalization that democrats are not tough on defense is not valid.
Binary_Digit said:Almost seems like another new tactic emerging from the Right is to take any criticism of a politician who happens to be conservative and call it "partisan," but maybe it's just me.
How, exactly, was it nonsense?southern_liberal said:I did listen to what he said and it was total nonsense,
How short sighted of you, not recognizing that what's going on now could very well be the --beginning-- of WW3.southern_liberal said:No, we have plenty to fear. But WW III? come on. That was a fear tactic. Hezbollah couldn't start the next world war if they wanted to;
They dont need to have the means.they don't have the means.
And in doing so, you demostrated your lack of vision and understanding.And that what I meant when I said Newt was using fear tactics.
Binary_Digit said:Almost seems like another new tactic emerging from the Right is to take any criticism of a politician who happens to be conservative and call it "partisan," but maybe it's just me.
I have looked at this particular criticism of Newt Gengrich and it appears to be well-founded. This is not even close to WW3 and he was irresponsible to suggest such a thing. Now when people are assuming that his motives are partisan, I think they're actually giving him some credit, because he can't possibly be stupid enough to actually believe what he said. But maybe they would be wrong about that.Goobieman said:If you actually LOOK at the criticisms, you cannot arrive at any other conclusion. They ignore what he actually said and simply dismiss it as a policital ploy to scare people into voting for them.
That IS partisan.
How?Binary_Digit said:I have looked at this particular criticism of Newt Gengrich and it appears to be well-founded.
Why?This is not even close to WW3 and he was irresponsible to suggest such a thing.
I will plagurize from SouthernDemocrat to answer that.Goobieman said:How?
Why?
How is he wrong?
Specifically?
SouthernDemocrat said:First off, lets compare this to World War 1. The following is a map of the world showing all the participants in World War 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WWI.png
As you will notice, the vast majority of the nations of the world at the time are listed.
Total military dead at the end of World War I: Approximately 9 million.
Many of the participating nation's of World War I had the naval ability to attack any nation on earth. The final outcome of World War I had the Central Powers prevailed would have completely redrawn maps around the world.
Now, lets compare this to World War II. Once again a majority of the world's nations at the time participated in the war.
Total military dead at the end of World War II: Approximately 25 million.
Total civilian dead at the end of World War II: Approximately 39 million.
Had the Axis Powers prevailed, it would have only meant the end of civilization as we know it.
There is simply no comparing the middle east conflict, or the war on terrorism, or both together with either of the two World Wars. There is not a single Middle Eastern nation that could possibly pose a significant military threat to any industrialized nation on earth. Moreover, they don't even have the logistical means to do so. While terrorism can be an economic threat to industrialized nations, it would be absurd to claim that Islamic terrorist pose the same threat to the United States that the Soviets or Nazis did.
Simply put, it is just an absurd and alarmist comparison that Gingrich made.
Binary_Digit said:I will plagurize from SouthernDemocrat to answer that.
Goobieman said:Its unfortunate I did not see this earlier.
What you and he fails to understand is that WWI and WW2 started out small, just as this war is.
You're arguing that because this isnt a world-wide war NOW that Newt is wrong. How short-sighted. How, exactly, do you know that this won't expand into a global conflict? Why can't it? Why isnt this the BEGINNING of WW3?
Now, lets compare this to World War II. Once again a majority of the world's nations at the time participated in the war.
And why won't/can't that be the case in the present situation?
There is not a single Middle Eastern nation that could possibly pose a significant military threat to any industrialized nation on earth
Iran lobbing nukes into Europe doesnt pose a threat to any indistrialized nation on earth?
Many of the participating nation's of World War I had the naval ability to attack any nation on earth
According to this criticism, there cannot be a WW3 regardless of the particpants, because there's only ONE navy that can do this.
However, consider this:
Had the Axis Powers prevailed, it would have only meant the end of civilization as we know it.
If the islamo-fascists win WW3, what do you suppose will happen to civilization as we know it?
Binary_Digit said:I'm sure he meant today's democrats. And who else can we refer to but Clinton, who directed a huge military down-sizing that today has left us with fewer troops to handle problems like Iraq and Afghanistan. I agree that today's democrats aren't pro-military enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?