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." More...
Gingrich sees Iran threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany
- Thread starter jjw1965
- Start date
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.
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.
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?
It's not Iran I'd be worried about
.
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?
It's not Iran I'd be worried about
.
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.
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.
Jay wrote:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
RE: Gingrich sees Iran th
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.
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.
RE: Gingrich sees Iran th
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?
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?
Ocean Breeze said:
Well, we'll see how normal he sounds if he becomes the next President of the United States in 3 years.
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.
RE: Gingrich sees Iran th
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.
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.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=71339&d=8&m=10&y=2005
"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."
"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."
#juan said:
Ya was :wink: and in complete agreement : Most constructive plan of action is for the US TO MIND ITS OWN FECKING 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.
Nascar_James said:
so you plan to replace one sleazeball/warmonger with another. ???
Oh joy!!. (NOT)