Gingrich sees Iran threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany


jjw1965
#1
WASHINGTON – The threat posed to the national security of the United States by Iran was likened only to the one posed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s, by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who suggested Tehran could be planning for a pre-emptive nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack on America that would turn a third or more of the country "back to a 19th century level of development." --
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#2
First of all,

to achieve the EMP that Newt is talking about, would require detonating a fusion device about 300 miles above the center of the U.S.. Most know that Iran currently does not have the capability to either build the weapon, or get the thing to the optimum position and altitude. This is just more stupid fear-mongering.
 
Jay
#3
Why the centre of the US?
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#4
this Newt G. don't sound too "normal' or balanced. ....
 
Reverend Blair
#5
Newt is a small, lizard-like creature who feeds on fear.
 
pastafarian
#6
Who's got the largest nuclear arsenal in the world?

Who's the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against other human beings?

Which country, in violation of international law, just attacked a sovereign nation that posed it no threat?


Quote:

In mid-2004, according to national security analyst William Arkin, Rumsfeld approved a top-secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" that directed the military to be prepared to attack potential adversaries, notably Iran and North Korea, that are developing WMD.
"Global strike," according to a classified January 2003 presidential directive obtained by Arkin, is defined as including nuclear, as well as conventional, strikes "in support of theater and national objectives."
The new document is the first to spell out various contingencies in which a preemptive nuclear strike might be used...

It's not Iran I'd be worried about .
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#7
I like a lot of Newt Gringrich's points, but not this one about Iran.

Iran is a country full of disagreement with itself, but all of them are united by their language, Farsi, which makes them separate and different from their Shi-ite brothers in Iraq, and this country despite its internal disagreement are all united nationally in believing that their country is ENTITLED to join the adults who own nuclear weapons.

Now here's the problem, should we and can we stop this nation's manifest destiny, it's desire to join the big boys, it's right as a nation to have this phallic manhood ?

Will it be right to be passive?

I don't know anymore.

All I do know is one more nation is coming to the party.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#8
Jay wrote:
Quote:

Why the centre of the US?

Well, Newt talked about turning a third or more of the country back to a nineteenth century level of developement. In order to do that, it would require probably a megaton sized device detonated well outside the atmosphere over the approximate center of the country. If Iran had the ability to deliver this kind of an attack, it would be rough on the population. Ordinary phones would be knocked out, cell phones would be history. Computers would die. Newer cars would stop running because their computer's micro circuits would fry. No TV, Most forms of communication would be gone until it was replaced. The damage would be greatest directly under the detonation and lessor, the farther away from the center. All buildings would still be standing and physical damage would be limited. I would guessthe worst thing might be civil disorder and looting.
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#9
Let's get back on track here.

Can the world or rather should the world stop Iran's eventual mission?

What error will we wreak if we do nothing?

What error will we cause if we do something?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#10
Gee, I thought I was on track

talking about what Newt had to say, but, have it your way. I think the best plan for the U.S. is to mind their own business. I'm sorry to say, the threat of terrible reprisal should forstall any nuclear attack on the U.S. by anyone. Sorry to say, because the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal is what makes it possible for them to play the bully in most of the world.
 
Canucklehead
Avatar
#11
The way the U.S. is yapping like a chihuahua about this that and the other form of attack it's going to be no surprise if many outside the U.S. write an attack off as merely manifest destiny once it finally does happen.
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#12
So you don't see danger expanding as one more nation joins the big society of the Phallus ?
 
Reverend Blair
#13
The US opposes any suggestion that they might disarm, Jim. The Bush White House has withdrawn, unilaterally, from longstanding treaties and has spoken openly about a first strike capability and using mini-nukes.

Why should Iran not want to join blow 'em up club?
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#14
Then don't stand in their way, Rev, let Iran join the big member society.
 
Nascar_James
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

this Newt G. don't sound too "normal' or balanced. ....

Well, we'll see how normal he sounds if he becomes the next President of the United States in 3 years.
 
Reverend Blair
#16
Quote:

Then don't stand in their way, Rev, let Iran join the big member society.

I'd rather see the US and other existing nuclear powers begin to disarm. The reality is that the US has to go first though.

That would be a true demonstration of leadership, however, so I doubt the Bush regime is up to it.
 
no1important
#17
America wants to be the only country with nukes, so they can use it as intimidation towards other countries, so they can get them to do as the Bush crime family wants them to do. Not to mention taking resources. Classic bully syndrome. If America was only country with Nukes, they would be 1000 times the bully they are now.

I think most countries that want nukes do so as a deterrent to America. Bush and his war mongering and "war on terror" have made these countries more determined.

I predict the "war on terror" will last as long as the "war on drugs" an unwinnable "war" that will last for generations upon generations. Hopefully next president has common sense and can calm things down a bit.
 
Jay
Avatar
#18
--


"But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as “the mother of all evils”. In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all “children of the same mother: the British Empire.” As for France and Germany, they are “countries in terminal decline”, according to Abbasi.

“Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover,” he told his audience."
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
Avatar
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Gee, I thought I was on track

talking about what Newt had to say, but, have it your way. I think the best plan for the U.S. is to mind their own business. I'm sorry to say, the threat of terrible reprisal should forstall any nuclear attack on the U.S. by anyone. Sorry to say, because the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal is what makes it possible for them to play the bully in most of the world.

Ya was and in complete agreement : Most constructive plan of action is for the US TO MIND ITS OWN ****ING BUSINESS and stop trying to take over the world. ....by a perpetual war. (perpetual war is what the US has started......as under a perpetual war they can grant themselves even more power )

savage warmongers/murderers , in suits. Nothing civilized about what the US is doing or saying now. It has regressed in time....into another era. Time warp comes to mind.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
Avatar
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

this Newt G. don't sound too "normal' or balanced. ....

Well, we'll see how normal he sounds if he becomes the next President of the United States in 3 years.


so you plan to replace one sleazeball/warmonger with another. ???

Oh joy!!. (NOT)
 
Nascar_James
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

this Newt G. don't sound too "normal' or balanced. ....

Well, we'll see how normal he sounds if he becomes the next President of the United States in 3 years.


so you plan to replace one sleazeball/warmonger with another. ???

Oh joy!!. (NOT)

Sleazeball? I'll have you know that Newt Gingrich is a former house speaker and has an extensive background in US politics. He is surely qualified to serve as President. He has expressed interest in the job. If he does nominate his candidacy for the Republican party 2008 elections, he's got a pretty good chance of being the Republican front runner.
 
pastafarian
#22
Boy nascar, you sure can pick 'em. Newtie may be many things but "honourable" ain't even close to making the list, pal.

Here's a guy who, while cheating on the woman he would serve with divorce papers while she was bedridden in hospital with MS, was clambering for the moral high ground in the witch-hunt against Bill Clinton. The thrice-married hypocrite has been quoted as saying that homosexual marriages would demean the institution of marriage. As well:

Quote:

Gingrich was the author of an infamous secret memo to GOP leaders in 1995 titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control", which one of America's foremost linguists called an outline of a strategy to frame the word "liberal" as "something akin to traitor" in the media. This was in line with his once-described goal of "reshaping the entire nation through the news media" (New York Times,12/14/94).

This is a contemptible little man and thus, a worthy successor to the current President.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
Avatar
#23
Quote:

Quote:
Gingrich was the author of an infamous secret memo to GOP leaders in 1995 titled "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control", which one of America's foremost linguists called an outline of a strategy to frame the word "liberal" as "something akin to traitor" in the media. This was in line with his once-described goal of "reshaping the entire nation through the news media" (New York Times,12/14/94).


so HE Is the one who influenced the usage of wording and "language." and how certain slants,inference can be created to imply certain meanings. ??? Have read some articles on this.....and it is part of the whole neocon methodology. .....and how they have been able to convince ordinarily "normal" thinking people into a conditioned "group mentality" They have tortured the english language for their own gains.

That just reduced him from sleazeball to sleazoid. .......
 
Reverend Blair
#24
Whaddya expect from a guy who was named after a lizard, Pastafarian?
 
Summer
#25
Actually, an amphibian. But in any case, it's quite an insult to the little critters.

Gingrich obviously read Orwell's "1984" as a blueprint for what to do to create his own wet dream of the U.S. of the 21st century....
 
Jay
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

--


"But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as “the mother of all evils”. In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all “children of the same mother: the British Empire.” As for France and Germany, they are “countries in terminal decline”, according to Abbasi.

“Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover,” he told his audience."

No comment on this?
 
Reverend Blair
#27
Since it's off-topic and fear-mongering, we've been ignoring it, Jay.
 
Reverend Blair
#28
Quote:

Gingrich obviously read Orwell's "1984" as a blueprint for what to do to create his own wet dream of the U.S. of the 21st century.

Gingrich is a good example of what is wrong with the Republican Party. He's entrenched in a past that never existed, hypocritical, and has no regard for his fellow human beings.
 
Jay
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Since it's off-topic and fear-mongering, we've been ignoring it, Jay.

It is neither of those two things.
 
Reverend Blair
#30
Don't like the conversation Jay?
 
no new posts