• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gingrich: ‘This Is, In Fact, World War III’

H

hipsterdufus

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:


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.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/16/newt-world-war/
 
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/

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.
 
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.
 
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.”

I think you said it all.

IMO the greatest danger facing the world today comes from these religiously inspired, state sponsored terrorist groups that seek to develop WMD for use against civilians. They are successing. We’d better take drastic steps to reduce the frequency and severity of these attacks or we are in big trouble. Terrorism has and will remain successfull if we (and the international community) do not do something, NOW. We can not give into their demands on any level.

If we have any chance of winning this war, we’ll have to step out of the box to new ways of thinking, because theres no quick fix or simple solution to this problem. This one will take time. As someone I once heard put it..we fight terrorism with "one hand tied behind our backs."

I think Bush has the right idea (unlike the democrats who would like to bring all the troops home and retreat with our tail between our legs).…….we have to remain a big presence in the middle east.
Because the final war…..IMO, WW3, will be the nuclear, chemical or biological destruction of the planet, or massive areas of it.
We can’t forget the past, particularly 9-11, or we will surely repeat it…we will be condemned to keep reexperiencing events like it (or worse) on a daily basis.


As for Israel...

They should NOT negotiate with terrorists or make any deals. The message they should send…….should be that the ONLY response to acts of terrorism will be to make certain that it never succeeds. They should inflict punishment on them, incapacitating them in all ways possible.
Israel cant panic into making a quick solution. Just maybe if they don’t give into terrorists demands the terrorists will stop using them. but I highly doubt that will happen. We are dealing with animals here who dont care who they mow down including their own families. You cant negotiate with a terrorist.

The whole civilized world has got to work TOGETHER ON THIS ONE, because its a problem that affects all of us. We can’t appease terrorists like in the past. Remember Daniel Pearl who they forced to admit that his parents were Jews then brutally beheaded him?

Remember the attack on that cruise ship the Achilli Lauro (sp) when they murdered that man who was in a wheelchair and threw him overboard because he was Jewish?

Italy screwed that one up for us. Any plans for a rescue were stopped by the Italian government. Why? They wanted to remain close with the PLO and with all the Arab states. The terrorists that were captured they let go. Italy has a reputation for freeing terrorists.



This sad difference between this war against terrorism and other more conventional wars….is the fact that this war sadly may never end and when it does……it might just be the end of life as we all know it.
 
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:

New? That has always been their strategy. Fear is a politician's dance partner.
 
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.

: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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

I think that is flat out absurd.

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.
 
"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."

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



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."

The Democratic party can't come up with any plan.........except withdrawing in defeat. I dotn think the American public wants that.
 
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.

You are a neocon; you hardly qualify to give me a lecture on partisanship. I did listen to what he said and it was total nonsense, he has no way to back that claim up. The republican conservatives has fine tuned political ploy. What's pathtic is people like you don't see that.
 
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.

You are correct about the radicals.

You might be surprised to know I have voted republican before, but they had nothing in common with Newt and his friends. I am not a slave to partisanship; the conservative republicans have taken full control of the republican party and in it's current form, I cannot vote for a rep. on the state or the national level. The stakes are to high.
 
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.

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 don't have the means. And that what I meant when I said Newt was using fear tactics. President Roosevelt was very tough on defense, so you blanket generalization that democrats are not tough on defense is not valid. I would implore you to learn to read between the lines as to what people are saying instead of letting your belief the reps. can keep you safe just because the say so.
 
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.
 
southern_liberal said:
President Roosevelt was very tough on defense, so you blanket generalization that democrats are not tough on defense is not valid.
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.
 
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.

No, it isn't just you. The "talking points" are like rubber stamps around here.

I don't think we can call the current situation WWIII, but if Israel and Iran go head to head we're there imo.
 
southern_liberal said:
I did listen to what he said and it was total nonsense,
How, exactly, was it nonsense?
Be specific.
 
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;
How short sighted of you, not recognizing that what's going on now could very well be the --beginning-- of WW3.

they don't have the means.
They dont need to have the means.
They simply need to have friends (and friends with friends) that want to get involved. And those friends, and friends of friends, DO have the means.

And that what I meant when I said Newt was using fear tactics.
And in doing so, you demostrated your lack of vision and understanding.
Something you do quite well, actually.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I have looked at this particular criticism of Newt Gengrich and it appears to be well-founded.
How?

This is not even close to WW3 and he was irresponsible to suggest such a thing.
Why?
How is he wrong?
Specifically?
 
Goobieman said:
How?


Why?
How is he wrong?
Specifically?
I will plagurize from SouthernDemocrat to answer that.

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.

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?
 
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?

Newt claims this is essentually a world war now, it isnt.

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?

Have you seen the "coalition of the willing", hardly world wide participation.

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?

Iran does not have nukes. Iran probably will not have nukes for at least 10 years. So presently, they do not have that ability. Moreover, they would have to develop the missile technology to do so as well.

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.

Exactly.

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?

The Axis powers could have prevailed. How could one possibly argue that radical Islam could actually result in the fall of western civilization. That is flat out absurd. Even worse case scenario, they get a nuclear bomb and some how, detonate that bomb in a U.S. city, while it could kill a lot of people, and devastate the economy, it certainly would not stand a chance of toppling our government.

This is not a World War and will never be a World War for the simple fact that radical Islam is incapable of starting one.
 
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.

Even after the Clinton era military reductions, we still spent more on defense than the next 18 nations combined. It would be hard to argue that our military has ever been underfunded since the start of the Cold War. I would simply counter your argument by asking do we really want to fund a military that is capable of democratizing the middle east, and can we afford to do so? The military spending of the Reagan era was simply unsustainable by our economy. The vast majority of the worlds powers did not fall do to military defeat, but rather due to economic collapse because of the cost of funding their ever growing military expenditures.
 
Back
Top Bottom