[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Newt Gingrich said what we all fear: "We are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war." World War III? Risking peace Newt Gingrich said what we all fear: "We are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war." The former Speaker of the House and possible Republican candidate for president explained on NBC's "Meet the Press" what he described as the theaters of this war, North Korea's test missile, terrorist bombs in India, continued war in Afghanistan and the threats against Israel from the alliance of Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah. Gingrich warned of a Puget Sound calamity. "You know, before the show, we were talking about Seattle and the extraordinary port facility there. Can we risk losing San Francisco or Seattle? Can we risk -- I mean, people don't -- if nuclear weapons and biological weapons didn't exist, we would not be having this conversation," he said. "But people have got to come to a core grip here. When, when the Hart-Rudman Commission reported in 2001, it said, in March, 'The greatest threat to the United States is a weapon of mass destruction going off in an American city, probably from terrorists.' " We don't agree with all of Gingrich's assessment, but we worry that this, indeed, could be the beginning of wider conflicts. But is it too late? Has it already begun? We hope not -- and the United States should use every available resource to make this a false prophecy. Voices in the region say the first mission ought to be to support and build the strength of the legitimate government of Lebanon. (Unfortunately, Israel's military option is more likely to topple this new democracy.) That government lacks the military strength to stop Hezbollah. But that government (which has asked for a cease-fire) does have popular support. Lebanon's Daily Star put it this way: "What has been missing is a consensus with sufficient strength and appeal to forge a genuinely Lebanese identity. Hezbollah has always been the missing catalyst." Can Hezbollah (or any terrorist organization) be defeated on a military field by a foreign power? We doubt that proposition; the best hope is a strong, effective local government. Consider that Israel attacked Lebanon more than 20 years ago, pledging to rid the world of Hezbollah -- and failed. Yet less than a year into Lebanon's democratic experiment, Israel has already run out of patience, giving up on a credible alternative. Indeed, what investments have the world's democracies been making to build Lebanon's political and military infrastructure? And what about the conflict in Gaza? There could have been more global diplomatic efforts designed to force Hamas into the political process, instead of cutting off their money and any hope of legitimacy. Those who see this conflict as the final battle -- Gingrich included -- seem to underestimate the risks of failure (a situation not unlike before the Iraq war). There is another path. The president should immediately appoint an experienced diplomat with the full authority of the United States to start a fresh dialogue. We cannot afford another war -- especially one of global proportions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: TLBSHOW (#0)
I listened to Drudge on the radio briefly tonight and he played Gringrich's remarks again and again. Just remember, Gingrich is a neo-con, therefore he creates his own reality. IOW, he's propagandizing.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|