Gingrich sees war on terror lasting 50 to 70 more years

Globe Gazette ^ | August 13, 2005 | DAN GEARINO

[A Jovial Cad]

Welcome to FR.

[Inyokern]

How long did it take to defeat Marxism? 1948-1992 or so?

I suppose one could compare the Cold War to the War on Terror, although the Communists did not use the same tactics as the anarchists or the Islamists. The Communists relied mostly on infiltration and subversion rather than bombs.

In fact, after the establishment of the Soviet Union, many American anarchists either went to the Soviet Union or were deported there. They were told by the Soviets to renounce anarchism and toe the Communist line. Those who refused were eventually sent to Siberia or executed.

[George W. Bush]

The possible 2008 Republican presidential candidate also ...

Hard to picture a scenario where the right issues and combination of candidates would give him the nomination. An impossibly long shot.

A lot of disrespect and resentment towards him here at FR. But I'll always remember that he gave us the congressional majority in '94. He had some vision and courage at the right time. But then, he didn't have much to lose and a Congress to gain. I would say that in the second half of the 20th century, only Gingritch had an impact comparable to Reagan's.

It's easy to forget what politics was like when the Dims held Congress year after year.

[iconoclast]

He is also Hannity's most frequent guest on his radio show.

They're a good pair.

They get their heads together and make a rock pile.

[TimPatriot]

Followers of Mohammed and Islam were killing, pillaging and plundering hundreds of years before the Crusades. The Crusades were the reaction by Christian Europe to 400 years of murder in the name of Allah.

[Texas_Conservative2]

We could end the war on terror tomorrow if we were only willing to do what is necessary.

[FastCoyote]

"But since you don't have to be very bright to strap a bomb to yourself and park outside a school, I guess they've found the great equalizer."

9/11 was the absolute worst hit they could deliver, nearly knocked out the center of finance. And we bounced back in 6 months. In other words, they shot teir wad. Iraq is expensive, but we would be spending on fixed military costs anyway. So, all in all, they have no equalizer in IEDs, just irritants.

[trubluolyguy]

50 to 70 years?


I think we could shorten that up a tad...Paging Mr. Fat Man, Mr. Fat Man or his brother Little Boy....Hello?

[trubluolyguy]

"As soon as Iran can NUKE Israel"


I believe that since Iran has spread it's nuke facilities out in about a dozen different places, His chosen people are gonna have to hit the head of the serpent, Tehran. Most likely with a nuke of their own.

Either way, Tehran or Israel...WW3 (as the media will call it) is only a couple of years out.

[troop_defender]

I stood watch over nuclear missile silos 1975-1979 during the height of the Cold War. The Cold War started 2 September 1945, and ended on 26 December 1991 according to the Certificate of Recognition for my participation that I received from the secretary of defense.

Troop Defender

[troop_defender]

I agree it is only a couple of years away. I have been wrong before though as I stood watch over nukes back in the 70's I thought at best we would be able to keep this thing under wraps until the year 2000.

Troop_Defender

[mhking]

Not if Cruella deClinton gets into office -- she'll lose the war in less than eight years.