News Newt Gingrich declares: This is WWIII

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a recent statement by Newt Gingrich, who claimed that current global tensions signify the early stages of World War III. Participants express skepticism about Gingrich's credibility and question the motivations behind ongoing conflicts. Some highlight the historical context of violence in the Middle East, suggesting that the situation is not unprecedented and may not warrant the alarm Gingrich raises. There is a call for more constructive U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing the need for engagement rather than confrontation with countries like Syria and Iran. The conversation also touches on the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with opinions divided on the effectiveness of military action versus diplomatic solutions. Concerns about the potential for escalation into broader conflict, including nuclear threats from Iran, are voiced, alongside critiques of U.S. leadership and its role in the region's instability. Overall, the thread reflects a mix of frustration with political rhetoric and a desire for a more nuanced understanding of international relations.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,528
This morning on Meet the Press he cited many events of recent months and declared that these are the early stages of WWIII. Quote to be provided when available.

True or not, I hope Bill Clinton is working behind the scenes.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, and he's one of its jubilant proponents. Gingrich, that is.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
. . . he cited many events of recent months and declared that these are the early stages of WWIII.
It is indeed a shame that so many people are invested in assuring conflict in the world. I have to wonder why people consciously choose to hurt other people.

While I have been in fights with my brother and others, and in the heat of combat, tried to hurt the opponent, outside of combat I have never had the desire to hurt another person. Quite the opposite, I have consciously tried to prevent other people from hurting themselves or others. This I learned from my father, and this I was taught as part of religious instruction.

Blessed are the peace makers. :smile:

Peace - Salaam - Shalom.
 
... personally I think that's a huge exagerration... this has been going on forever, why would this time be any different?
 
We live in interesting times
 
To be blunt - why should anyone care what Gingrich thinks? This statement of his is both obviously loony, and irresponsibly fearmongerish. As thus it undermines the significance real and present crisis.
 
Rach3 said:
To be blunt - why should anyone care what Gingrich thinks? .
Well, why should anyone care what GWB jr. thinks?
Answer: Unfortunately, he is in a position where he is unignorable..
 
arildno said:
Well, why should anyone care what GWB jr. thinks?
Answer: Unfortunately, he is in a position where he is unignorable..


Evidence for this: I think as a thinker he doesn't rise above a joke. But I can't resist posting on this thread about him!
 
arildno said:
Well, why should anyone care what GWB jr. thinks?
Answer: Unfortunately, he is in a position where he is unignorable..
GWB maybe, but Newt is not in any position right now, and quite ignorable.
 
  • #10
Never heard of the guy, so I'll just ignore him...
 
  • #11
EL said:
Never heard of the guy, so I'll just ignore him...
Well, there was a time you couldn't ignore Ian Wachtmeister, wasn't it?
 
  • #12
Newt always struck me as one of the guys who can't wait to tear down the Al-Aqsa Mosque so we can get on with the Rapture.
 
  • #13
arildno said:
Well, there was a time you couldn't ignore Ian Wachtmeister, wasn't it?
Haha, that was a sad story in Swedish politics...
So you're telling me Gingrich is US' equivalent to Ian Wachtmeister? What a poor figure he must be then...
 
  • #14
Never heard of either of them... :-p
 
  • #15
J77 said:
Never heard of either of them... :-p
You havn't missed anything...:wink:
 
  • #16
EL said:
Haha, that was a sad story in Swedish politics...
So you're telling me Gingrich is US' equivalent to Ian Wachtmeister? What a poor figure he must be then...
Intellectually at least, if not politically.
 
  • #17
... And now, joining us in Washington, Democratic senator Joe Biden, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Welcome, both.

Mr. Speaker, what are we witnessing in the Middle East?

MR. NEWT GINGRICH: Well, let me, let me offer three observations. First, this is not the fifth day of the war. This is the 58th year of the effort by those who want to destroy Israel. As Ahmadinejad, the head of Iran, says, he wants to defeat the Americans and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. So we should not see this event in isolation. There is an Iran/Iraq/Syria—I mean, an Iran/Syria—was an Iraq before Saddam was replaced—Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas alliance trying to destroy Israel.

Second, the Israelis withdrew from Gaza to create the circumstance of peace. The Israelis withdrew from south Lebanon to create the circumstance of peace. They now have a thousand missiles fired from Gaza, they’ve had hundreds of missiles fired from south Lebanon. You clearly have Iranian involvement, there are at least 400 Iranian guards in south Lebanon. Apparently it was an Iranian missile fired by Iranians which hit an Israeli warship yesterday. The United States should be saying to Syria and Iran, “South Lebanon is going to be cleared out. We are for Israel and the Lebanese government breaking the back of Hezbollah, getting rid of all 10,000 to 13,000 missiles, and we will decisively stop any effort by Syria and Iran to intervene.”

I mean, this is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it’s also a question of what is really a world war. Look what you’ve been covering: North Korea firing missiles. We say there’ll be consequences, there are none. The North Koreans fire seven missiles on our Fourth of July; bombs going off in Mumbai, India; a war in Afghanistan with sanctuaries in Pakistan. As I said a minute ago, the, the Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hezbollah alliance. A war in Iraq funded largely from Saudi Arabia and supplied largely from Syria and Iran. The British home secretary saying that there are 20 terrorist groups with 1200 terrorists in Britain. Seven people in Miami videotaped pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda, and 18 people in Canada being picked up with twice the explosives that were used in Oklahoma City, with an explicit threat to bomb the Canadian parliament, and saying they’d like to behead the Canadian prime minister. And finally, in New York City, reports that in three different countries people were plotting to destroy the tunnels of New York.

I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough, we don’t have the right attitude about this, 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 that 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.

MR. RUSSERT: This is World War III?

MR. GINGRICH: I, 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’d have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III. [continued]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13839698/

The only solice these days comes from hearing both dems and reps slam Bush. Of course the damage is already done.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
What a poor way to start a case for presidency. Though I guess he may not run at all. He did manage to say 'our bureaucracies are not responding fast enough'. Isn't that an oxymoron? And what is the definition of connectivity?

My best estimate is he is paving the way for a new line of Republicans, maybe a more dove-like contingency, to make a run at the whitehouse and the senate.
 
  • #19
Sunday's "Meet the Press" was Best Debate in 10 Years

For those of your who were fortunate enough to see Sunday's "Meet the Press" program hosted by Tim Russert, it was nothing short of a "Presidential Debate" between Senator Joe Biden and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It was a no rhetoric nuts and bolts discussion.

The program echoed recent revellations that Hezbollah is a far more advanced and infiltrated organization than Al Queda. I was never convinced after 911 that Al Queda deserved the terror threat the Bush White House painted of them, and continues to today. But, Hezbollah, as the militant arm of Syria and Iran, this is REAL!

The topic and the mid-East conflict is very serious, and the two politicians debated in substantive form, agreeing on much of the foreign policy challenges facing the world. The key difference was in Gingrich's hawkish statement he would have hit N. Korea first weeks back when they launched a series of missiles. Biden spoke differently that such a U.S. attack would have caused N. Korea to invade the South. Gingrich also charply criticized the Bush White House.

I gave the advantage to Biden on the 30 minute debate, mostly for his more carefully thought out plans. Gingrich was well informed, but seemed willing to take on too many risks and assumptions.

So I ask, "Tis the pen mightier than the sword?"
 
  • #20
i agree, we do live ininteresting times
 
  • #21
and yes it is, you can sign a contract with a lawyer, but if you are killed, the swordman will go away for life.
 
  • #22
should isreal decleare all out war, or cease fire?
 
  • #23
is america the worlds moderator, must we intervene in every small scuffle, or every world war? :confused:
 
  • #24
Plastic Photon said:
My best estimate is he is paving the way for a new line of Republicans, maybe a more dove-like contingency, to make a run at the whitehouse and the senate.
Surely you jest on the "dove-like"? He wants to bust out the phoenix.
 
  • #25
should isreal decleare all out war, or cease fire?
And I bet if Israel declares cease fire, all other parties will stop firing too. :rolleyes:
 
  • #26
I think they would slow down quite a bit; and if Israel fully withdrew from Palestinian land, they would continue to slow down to the point that they would eventually stop.
 
  • #27
kyleb said:
I think they would slow down quite a bit; and if Israel fully withdrew from Palestinian land, they would continue to slow down to the point that they would eventually stop.

So when Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip... did they stop?

Not really. It looks like they just took the opportunity to build up their reserves
 
  • #28
While Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip they contenued to occupy and expand elsewhere.
 
  • #30
McGyver said:
For those of your who were fortunate enough to see Sunday's "Meet the Press" program hosted by Tim Russert, it was nothing short of a "Presidential Debate" between Senator Joe Biden and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It was a no rhetoric nuts and bolts discussion.

MTP is often great. This may have something to do with the fact that it has been running for over 58 years.

Sidebar: I sure hope Russert doesn't let Andrea Mitchell host again.

And Novak is such a lying weasel. Go on and read his transcript. :rolleyes: But that's another thread.
 
  • #32
kyleb said:
And who their right mind honestly believes Syria has the power to pull that off? :rolleyes:
George W. Bush.

Oh, I missed the "right mind" caveat. :biggrin:
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
Well, tell them to "stop doing this sh't" is our foreign policy. :rolleyes:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1767800.cms
As usual, such remarks reflect the real Bush. Anyone who voted for Bush who does not now admit he is an embarrassment to our country is in major denial. And I'd like to know how the religious-right can continue to view Bush as a good, God-fearing man. Because he vetoed stem-cell research? :rolleyes: He is an ignorant jerk, and unfortunately a very powerful one thanks to his supporters. Newt is right about one thing. If there is WWIII, it will be because of BushCo stupidity.
 
  • #35
Well then we're done. It really is that easy.

Let's tell the Iraqis as much and everyone can come home.
 
  • #36
Ivan Seeking said:
Well then we're done. It really is that easy.
What is that easy? Explain your objection to that statement!

Are you saying you do not think Lebanon should make an effort to secure its own territory?
 
Last edited:
  • #37
As I said, tell the Iraqis to stop it and we're done.

The world really is that simple.
 
  • #38
Ivan Seeking said:
As I said, tell the Iraqis to stop it and we're done.

The world really is that simple.

The world may be simple, but apparently not as simple as you are :rolleyes:

We're talking about Hezbollah and Syria, nowhere does Iraq come into play here. Specifically, the discussion was about need to convince Syria and Iran to get Hezbollah to back off, because they're the major contributors to the organization
 
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
As I said, tell the Iraqis to stop it and we're done.

The world really is that simple.
The quote wasn't talking about Iraq. Are you just saying your objection is that it is simplistic? Are you saying it is unreasonable for an unrehearsed conversation with a friend to contain simplistic comments?

Seriously, Ivan, it seems like you just want to be upset about this. I don't see - and you aren't explaining - what is really wrong with it. Not providing a coherent, logical explanation for you opinion makes your opinion seem unreasonable - like it is a thoughtless knee-jerk over nothing.

Yeah, Bush got caught cursing in a conversation that wasn't meant for public consumption and that's embarassing. But so what?
 
Last edited:
  • #40
The point I feel Ivan is making is that our president has a simplistic world view (and lack of sincere interest in it), and I agree, and so do many others, for example:

"Caught on Candid Camera

What Bush's overheard remarks tell us about his views on Mideast diplomacy—and why he should be engaging Syria rather than criticizing it."
-- http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13904410/site/newsweek/

For example, Bush makes the remark that Annan (the UN) should do something about the conflict. But anyone with deeper understanding knows the UN does not have enforcement capabilities. The U.S. and allies like Blair do, and it is Bush who should show leadership in these matters. So Bush's views are not just simplistic but show incompetence.

As for reference to Iraq, once again those with deeper understanding can see that Ivan is applying the same reasoning to Iraq to show how simplistic and stupid it is. This is one major problem with Bush and neocon philosophy in general. The world is complex and cannot be explained in sound bytes even though many fellow Americans can only understand simplicity as well.

In regard to vulgarity, or flipping the bird or what ever inappropriate behavior Bush usually can hide within his secretive administration, sure I swear too. But not in the capacity of my professional life, and I'm not even representing the friggin free world! He and Rumsfeld have no clue about professionalism, diplomacy, etc. and the right time and place for things--which at least Nixon understood. They are embarrassments to our country. It's not that Bush got caught and that it was not intended for public consumption. He was at a G8 meeting with other major leaders of the world representing the United States! Bush is not presidential material and never possessed the proper qualifications for the job, which he proves every day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
SOS2008 said:
As usual, such remarks reflect the real Bush. Anyone who voted for Bush who does not now admit he is an embarrassment to our country is in major denial. And I'd like to know how the religious-right can continue to view Bush as a good, God-fearing man. Because he vetoed stem-cell research? :rolleyes: He is an ignorant jerk, and unfortunately a very powerful one thanks to his supporters. Newt is right about one thing. If there is WWIII, it will be because of BushCo stupidity.
Saying the problems with Israel/Lebanon et al are Bush's fault might be a little strong. I'd agree Iraq and it's affect on the US ability to respond might have made Syria and Iran a little less fearful in how they react to the situation, but the most important factors are Hezbollah and Hamas.

A more accurate perspective is that the situation in Israel and Lebanon is more like it was before 9/11. After 9/11, targeting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and any state governments that supported or protected them was supposed to be the US's main priority in terms of National Security. I don't think Syria would have offered any support or protection to Hezbollah in the first couple years after 9/11 when they were very worried there was a realistic chance they could be invaded the same way Afganistan was invaded. Now they feel more confident in handling things the same way they did before 9/11.
 
  • #42
BobG said:
I don't think Syria would have offered any support or protection to Hezbollah in the first couple years after 9/11 when they were very worried there was a realistic chance they could be invaded the same way Afganistan was invaded. Now they feel more confident in handling things the same way they did before 9/11.
I agree. And while I also agree that Bush is not completely responsible for current conflict in the Mideast (rather in addition to U.S. mistakes in the past, etc.), the more brazen behavior (including N. Korea) is a result of Bush's mistake of invading Iraq, no? Certainly, as I pointed out, it has caused groups like Hezbollah to gain power.

I critisize U.S. foreign policy in general. However, aside from the mistake of invading Iraq, Bush tends to label countries like Iran and Syria as the "axis of evil" or evil-doers thus ignoring them completely instead of engaging them. This is ignorant and even immature. I feel it is fair to hold Bush responsible for deterioration of relations in the world due to his failed policies during his administration. And so do an increasing number of conservatives like Newt and George Will.
 
  • #43
SOS2008, I'm waiting to see how much blame you'll leave for Middle East countries for Middle East conflict. If any.
 
  • #44
I haven't kept up with everything lately, but I do believe this is the start of WWIII. Does anyone else see a nuclear atack on Israel coming? My mind is made up that Iran is just instigating something much bigger. I hope I'm wrong, but there is definitely something brewing.
 
  • #45
russ_watters said:
The quote wasn't talking about Iraq. Are you just saying your objection is that it is simplistic? Are you saying it is unreasonable for an unrehearsed conversation with a friend to contain simplistic comments?

Seriously, Ivan, it seems like you just want to be upset about this. I don't see - and you aren't explaining - what is really wrong with it. Not providing a coherent, logical explanation for you opinion makes your opinion seem unreasonable - like it is a thoughtless knee-jerk over nothing.

Yeah, Bush got caught cursing in a conversation that wasn't meant for public consumption and that's embarassing. But so what?

The last time I checked, you were defending his statement as foreign policy.
 
  • #46
SOS2008 said:
The point I feel Ivan is making is that our president has a simplistic world view (and lack of sincere interest in it), and I agree, and so do many others, for example:

I knew that you could keep up SOS. :biggrin:
 
  • #47
That simplistic world view strikes me more as an insincere interest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
brutus47 said:
I haven't kept up with everything lately, but I do believe this is the start of WWIII. Does anyone else see a nuclear atack on Israel coming? My mind is made up that Iran is just instigating something much bigger. I hope I'm wrong, but there is definitely something brewing.
It's kind of hard to put the current situation into perspective. In terms of the level of violence, it's been worse in the past (1948, 1967, 1973, early 80's, for example).

It does feel different than past Israel-Lebanon-Syria fights, though. There's been a lot of change in the Middle East and that makes things a lot more unpredictable. How the spread of democracy turned out in Lebanon and with the Palestinians make things look more pessimistic, as well. Westerners look at that and wonder why an election failed to change the entire culture.

I don't know about Iran, either. Their president doesn't wield the real power. The quieter ayatollahs behind him really run the country. I don't think Iran could put nukes on a missile this year, anyway. A lot of what the Iranian president says is rhetoric. They can still help heat things up just with rhetoric, money, and weapons.

I'd say chances of the Middle East turning into WWIII are a lot better than they were a few years ago, but still pretty slim.
 
  • #49
BobG said:
How the spread of democracy turned out in Lebanon and with the Palestinians make things look more pessimistic, as well. Westerners look at that and wonder why an election failed to change the entire culture.
Just in America, in Europe their media reports openly on Israel's nearly 40 year occupation and contentious expansion onto Palestinian land which is holding back their culture.

And you are right that Iran could not put nukes on a missile this year, they are many years away from that.
 
  • #50
Mickey said:
SOS2008, I'm waiting to see how much blame you'll leave for Middle East countries for Middle East conflict. If any.
The root of the Israeli-Arab conflict is the creation of Israel as a nation state, which could not have happened without U.S. leadership. Since that time the U.S. has shown biased support for Israel, which has further fueled Arab hatred for both Israel and the U.S. Of course it takes two to fight, but the U.S. should be a leader along with the international community to find a solution that is fair for all. Israel wants it's existence accepted, but this won't happen until both governments are mutually recognized. And if Israel wants a buffer zone, they need to make the zone inside their own border (and such zones usually work best if the area is not developed :rolleyes: ).

In regard to Syria and/or Iran, both countries have been in fear of U.S. invasion. Causing conflict elsewhere that keeps the U.S. stretched thin is a good defensive measure. We say Israel has a right to self defense, so can we blame Syria or Iran for doing the same? Once again, if the U.S. would engage these countries rather than threaten them, this would not be the case.

The UN is valuable for providing a global position, and most of all international peace-keeping efforts. Why not get to work on a permanent solution to the Israeli/Arab conflict? Then terrorist groups like Hezbollah won't have as much a reason to be. Further, if the U.S. did nothing more than help fund education in these areas, who knows what improvement could be seen.
 
Back
Top