jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (39 posts)

Newt Gingrich thinks US foreign intervention has been a mistake

  1. innersmiff profile image71
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    I know, I know: is Newt Gingrich even relevant anymore? But many are thinking the fact that Gingrich is being forced into a non-interventionist position to hope to stay relevant shows something: the tide is turning, and people are starting to get sick of war. This is good news!

    I think there are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, having Obama in the oval office for 5 years has forced the right to put their critical thinking caps on when it comes to government: they've called him a Socialist, and Obamacare is bad, and all that jazz, but in their eagerness to criticise, they have also found things to get appropriately annoyed about in foreign policy too. There was Benghazi, but then there are also the drone strikes that are difficult to ignore.

    Second, the rise of Ron and Rand Paul has made non-interventionism cool amongst the right again. The GOP higher-ups have to pay attention to the amount of attention the Pauls have got, and have to change policy accordingly.

    Third, young people hate war, and are beginning to outnumber of the old war-hawks with memories of the Second World War as the basis.

    What do you reckon? Good or bad news? Why is this happening?

    1. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Newt Gingrich? the model of the "Monday morning Quarterback??
      The Second World War was the last major conflict that this country was involved in that had any legitimacy in my eyes. Anythng since then has been just to line the pockets of defense contractors. I would not trust the GOP to keep the peace because much of their constituency consists of these same defense contractors.
      Believe me, you do not have to go back as far as those elderly people who were conscious in the 1940's to find many of us who are weary of war without end.

      1. innersmiff profile image71
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't expect the GOP to do a huge turnaround, precisely because of their involvement in the Military Industrial Complex, only to slightly alter their position. It will be like their 'support' of the free-market, even though their policies do nothing of the sort.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You know something, Innersmiff, in regards to your comment, I could not have said it better myself!

    2. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Howdy Innersmiff. Mr. Gingrich has been a loose cannon for America and a disaster for the Republican Party. Americans should never forget…

      "When the House Republicans, under Gingrich's leadership, forced a three-week government shutdown in the fall of 1995, it was generally viewed as a disaster for his party. He, not President Bill Clinton, got all the blame. And his little adventure almost cost the Republicans control of the House in the 1996 elections." {1}

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8271336_f248.jpg{2}
      New York Daily News Headline- "CRY BABY Newt's Tantrum: He closed down the government because Clinton made him sit at back of plane.

      The speaker admitted to reporters in 1995 that his personal pique with the president helped prompt the partial shutdown of the federal government. "The alleged 'snub,' the Georgia Republican told reporters, was 'part of why you ended up with us sending down a tougher continuing resolution' - the stopgap spending bill that Clinton vetoed [last] Monday, leading to the shutdown." {2}
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50518.html
      {2} http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. … ug=2152925

      1. innersmiff profile image71
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was not aware of this incident, but I have heard other stories of Newt's strange behaviour. Not sure what this has to do with my point, but cool!

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Innersmiff. I think it has a lot to do with the point in the Opening Post in which you ask, "is Newt Gingrich even relevant anymore?"

          Mr. Gingrich is not a political force in the USA. His opinions about US foreign intervention are not likely to be taken seriously by even his own party.

          Following his historic "Contract with America" he reigned briefly as the king of Capital Hill while serving as the Speaker of the House. He fell from grace after his three-week government shutdown debacle in 1995 and he was ultimately pressured to resign by his own party.

          "The poor showing by Republicans in the 1998 Congressional election and pressure from Republican colleagues caused Gingrich's resignation from the speakership on November 6, 1998 and then the House on January 3, 1999." {1}

          His run for president in 2012 was shut down six months before the election.

          My point is no one in Washington will likely care about Mr. Gingrich's opinion about foreign intervention. Currently, Republicans are threatening to shut down the government once again rather than to fund Obamacare. Their position is stirring unpleasant GOP memories about what this tactic cost them in 1995 under Newt Gingrich's leadership. {2}
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
          {2} http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/h … 94870.html

          1. innersmiff profile image71
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My following point was not that the GOP would follow Newt Gingrich, but that he is following the trend in an attempt to stay relevant. I don't think it will work myself, I am simply postulating as to his motivation for doing so. Does he see non-interventionism as the future majority viewpoint/

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Gingrich is a clever, unprincipled, opportunistic chameleon.

    3. profile image81
      Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      To be fair, George Bush, prior to 9-11, campaigned on a platform of nonintervention.  That was his intent.  Then, 9-11 changed it all.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think anyone criticized going into Afghanistan, but how does 9/11 justify Iraq?

      2. innersmiff profile image71
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Everyone campaigns on a platform of non-intervention, just as everyone campaigns on a platform of government transparency, lowering taxes, rolling back bureaucracy . . . and then 'circumstances change'. It's the same lie.

        1. bn9900 profile image82
          bn9900posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ok the GOP loves war, but as an individual, do you honestly believe that GWB wanted 9/11 to happen? He was doing a normal person activity of reading to children when the planes hit the twin towers, do you honestly believe he or any other GOPer wanted 3000+ people to die?

          1. innersmiff profile image71
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No. Have I suggested that?

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Non-interventionism or isolationism??  I'm inclined to agree with non-interventionism, but IMO Rand Paul goes too far toward isolationism which won't work in today's inter-connected, interdependent world.

  2. innersmiff profile image71
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    I kind of hope that a Republican gets in next time so the left can be anti-war again. Lefties: I promise I won't rub it in your face that you were all for these wars when Obama was in office . . . much.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Which lefties were in favour of war?

      1. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Those who supported Obama's participation in overthrowing Gaddafi and those who refuse to speak out now that Obama is funding the radical rebels in Syria.

        For starters.....

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why should you think lefties would support a right winger?

        2. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Libya? The war that was lead by the French and eventually overseen by NATO?

          1. innersmiff profile image71
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The US provided military assistance, as well as weapons and funding for the rebels.

          2. HowardBThiname profile image90
            HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I rest my case. Both Cody and John are good examples of liberals turning a blind eye to war if a liberal leader is involved.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
              Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Or, someone who is willing to call out the facts as they are. The United States was as involved in that war as a kicker is in a football game.

              1. profile image81
                Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The kicker still gets a ring, and he's still part of the team.  Should we have been part of the team?

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Obama voted against invading Iraq.

          1. profile image81
            Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Didn't Congress vote for military action against Iraq in October of 2002 and attack in March of 2003?  Wasn't Obama elected as a senator in 2004, and didn't he subsequently take office in January of 2005?  How did he vote no when he wasn't a senator?

            The POTUS supported the war in Afghanistan.

            "In 2007, Senator Obama gave a major address and outlined his views on the war in Afghanistan. In that speech he contrasted the war there with the war in Iraq, noting that he supported the war in afghanistan from the start and opposed the war in Iraq."

            http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profil … ghanistan/

          2. profile image0
            Mklow1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That is a blatant falsehood. Either you are being intentionally dishonest or you are completely misinformed, like most liberals. I will be interested to hear your version of this distorted truth, because I know you won't admit you are wrong. Liberals will never admit they are wrong.

            Now, Ms. Hillary Clinton on the other hand...

            "Oct. 11. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) casts vote to authorize use of military force in Iraq if President Bush determines that "diplomatic means" fail to remove the "national security threat" against the United States. See authorization resolution here. In Oct. 10 floor speech, Clinton described the Senate vote as Saddam Hussein's "last chance -- disarm or be disarmed." She said her vote is not "a vote for any new doctrine of preemption."

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I misspoke. Obama was not in the U.S. Senate when the vote to invade Iraq was taken. He was in the Illinois Senate where he spoke out strongly in opposition to the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton along with many Democrats, supported the invasion. Later, Obama's position evolved to be in support of staying in Iraq in order to finish the job.

              1. profile image0
                Mklow1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I tip my hat to you sir!

              2. profile image81
                Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's fair.  I can respect that.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Which lefties are these?  I am a leftie with many leftie friends and family and I don't know a single one who is "all for these wars."

      1. innersmiff profile image71
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Here's the way I break it down, and this is completely non-scientific, just an observation of the left in the media and the American lefties I associate with:

        1. 40% of the left support Obama, no matter what he does, including Libya, Syria, continued occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and the drone strikes.

        2. 30% of the left largely support Obama, but have issues with some or all of the above.

        3. 30% of the left don't support Obama.

        Which category are you?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What do you mean by "support"?  I have huge issues with much of what is being done during this administration.

          1. innersmiff profile image71
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As in, you would vote for him again if there was an election tomorrow.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I would if it were a choice between Mittens and Obama, sure.  But if it were between, say, Russ Feingold, and Obama I wouldn't.

    3. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol
      good response


      It's been my observation that the Left pretends to be totally against war.
      But they don't mind instigating it under the guise of "civil rights" activism.
      That's one reason all those foreign Nations are in such uproar and fighting within their own Countries.   Chalk one ....no......several......up to Obama's nosy nose.

  3. profile image59
    TheWizardofWhimsyposted 4 years ago

    Newt's only relevance, at this point in time, is the fact that he was yet another self-serving politician who let his hubris (and personal animus for the opposition) determine his vote to shut down the government.  And guess what?--In the words of that immortal sage, Yogi Berra: "It's deja vu all over again."

    http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Z/N/4/Gingrich-Tattoo.jpg

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's a good one!

  4. maxoxam41 profile image75
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Can it be related with the so-called Al-Qaeda alert ? Meaning given that people are fed up with our foreign belligerent policy, to boost our "patriotic" feeling by inflicting a good terrorist attack on our soil, our government will get what they want that is to say our support in an extending crusade against the middle east!
    Furthermore given that the Iraq-Iran-Syria gas pipeline beginning is approaching, 2016 is the inauguration, isn't it a good motive to intervene?

 
working