HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books --
Exclusive Interview With Newt Gingrich
"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.), a prospective 2008 presidential candidate, argues that the United States may need to preemptively invade Iran within the next three years to thwart that country’s development of a nuclear weapon if efforts to inspire a democratic revolution there do not succeed."
What a surprise! Imagine the ultra-conservative Newt Gingrich proposing yet another invasion of a sovereign nation in furtherance of the "Bush Doctrine" that promotes pre-emptive strikes without consultation of other nations, the United Nations, the UN Security Council, adherence to our Constitution, and against yet another Islamic nation. If we were going to invade Iran, we should have done so when the revolution occurred in that country and they committed an act of war by taking over the US Embassy and holding US citizens and embassy personnel hostage. We had a legitimate claim and cause for war then. But instead, we chose to support the Hussein regime in Iraq and the Iraq-Iran War.
But now we have another ultra-conservative Republican, with a religious right agenda, with aspirations on being in the White House, is advocating another pre-emptive invasion. How many billions will this cost? How many lives will be lost? How will we be perceived by the rest of the world? Do we have any right to take such action without full support of the international community?
Is Gingrich actually arguing that the current international stance toward Iran is one of appeasement? Hitler inveded other countries and threatened to do the same to others... Europe still had wounds from WWI... and all economies were in major flux. The comparison of Iran to Hitler's rise in Germany, and the appeasement policies of major European governments, is overly broad and dramatic. While Iran poses many international problems, I do not think we will have to worry so much about it striking out in an overt manner. Since Iran has declared itself an enemy of Israel, and the Israelis have a well-practiced intelligence network, the Israelis will blow Iran off the face of the planet before they have a chance to act in an aggressive manner. (Has Newt forgotten that Israel has nuclear capabilities? I am sure that no other Middle-Eastern nation has forgotten this fact.)
"The conversation with Gingrich was the first in a series of interviews the editors of Human Events will be conducting with a number of potential candidates for the ’08 GOP nomination and with a broad spectrum of conservative thinkers about U.S. policy toward Iran."
I suggest you give this interview a read to see what we will be facing in the 2008 election. There won't be many from the ultra-conservative side of the world that will vary on this theme.
"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.), a prospective 2008 presidential candidate, argues that the United States may need to preemptively invade Iran within the next three years to thwart that country’s development of a nuclear weapon if efforts to inspire a democratic revolution there do not succeed."
What a surprise! Imagine the ultra-conservative Newt Gingrich proposing yet another invasion of a sovereign nation in furtherance of the "Bush Doctrine" that promotes pre-emptive strikes without consultation of other nations, the United Nations, the UN Security Council, adherence to our Constitution, and against yet another Islamic nation. If we were going to invade Iran, we should have done so when the revolution occurred in that country and they committed an act of war by taking over the US Embassy and holding US citizens and embassy personnel hostage. We had a legitimate claim and cause for war then. But instead, we chose to support the Hussein regime in Iraq and the Iraq-Iran War.
But now we have another ultra-conservative Republican, with a religious right agenda, with aspirations on being in the White House, is advocating another pre-emptive invasion. How many billions will this cost? How many lives will be lost? How will we be perceived by the rest of the world? Do we have any right to take such action without full support of the international community?
"In an interview with the editors of Human Events, Gingrich likened the way the Bush Administration is handling Iran today to the way British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin handled Nazi Germany in the 1930s."
Is Gingrich actually arguing that the current international stance toward Iran is one of appeasement? Hitler inveded other countries and threatened to do the same to others... Europe still had wounds from WWI... and all economies were in major flux. The comparison of Iran to Hitler's rise in Germany, and the appeasement policies of major European governments, is overly broad and dramatic. While Iran poses many international problems, I do not think we will have to worry so much about it striking out in an overt manner. Since Iran has declared itself an enemy of Israel, and the Israelis have a well-practiced intelligence network, the Israelis will blow Iran off the face of the planet before they have a chance to act in an aggressive manner. (Has Newt forgotten that Israel has nuclear capabilities? I am sure that no other Middle-Eastern nation has forgotten this fact.)
"The conversation with Gingrich was the first in a series of interviews the editors of Human Events will be conducting with a number of potential candidates for the ’08 GOP nomination and with a broad spectrum of conservative thinkers about U.S. policy toward Iran."
I suggest you give this interview a read to see what we will be facing in the 2008 election. There won't be many from the ultra-conservative side of the world that will vary on this theme.
posted by Jim Downey at 12:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home