Barak O-Bomb-a? Democrats Target Iran

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

Barak O-Bomb-a? Democrats Target Iran

Postby Captain_Solo » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:40 pm

Democrats Target Iran

Barak O-Bomb-a?

By SHARON SMITH

John Kerry's antiwar supporters have repeatedly warned that a military attack on Iran is imminent if George Bush is reelected. But Democrats are rattling their sabers at the same target.

On September 24, Barack Obama--the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, and a shoo-in favorite--suggested "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary. "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse," he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

A U.S. strike on Iran could well open up a new war front. When the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a recent series of war games involving an attack on Iran, an Air Force source told Newsweek, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."

Why would Obama, whose staunch opposition to the Iraq war made him a hero among Democratic Party liberals, consider attacking Iran? Obama--a keynote speaker at the Democratic Party Convention--has a bright future in the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is a war party.

Obama opposes immediate withdrawal from Iraq. His positions are entirely consistent with the Democratic Party's platform, which explicitly puts Iran on notice: "[A] nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies...With John Kerry as commander-in-chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake."

During the first presidential debate, Kerry appeared eager to stress his willingness to "go it alone" when asked his opinion about "pre-emptive war." "The president always has the right and always has had the right for pre-emptive strike," declared Kerry, adding, "That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War."

This comment will have shocked those who recall the decades-long standoff between the U.S. and former USSR quite differently--as a period when a "first strike" by either side could easily have led to "mutual assured destruction." "Pre-emptive war" is the centerpiece of the Bush Doctrine, announced to the world after September 11.

To be sure, Kerry made no fewer than 27 allusions to allies, the United Nations, summits and treaties during the debate--and continued to insist that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But when asked, "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?" Kerry's answer was "No." Kerry proceeded to outline his strategy for winning, by "beginning to not back off of Falluja and other places and send the wrong message to terrorists...You've got to show you're serious."

This strategy, right-wing New York Times columnist William Safire eagerly pointed out, "requires us to inflict and accept higher casualties." This also happens to be the strategy Bush is now pursuing in Iraq.

Kerry promises to begin replacing U.S. troops with Iraqi forces next summer, with a complete U.S. pullout by the end of his first term. This strategy, known as "Vietnamization" in 1968, was the campaign slogan of Richard Nixon--denounced by the antiwar movement, John Kerry among them, when it proved to be a colossal failure.

Kerry's argument that the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" is a sleight of hand. This is not an antiwar statement. On the contrary, it is an argument that the Iraq war was a distraction from the "real" war on terrorism--in Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere.

Kerry's strategy is a recipe for more war--by crushing the resistance in Iraq and taking aim at other targets in the years ahead, a strategy not very different from Bush's. As Safire gloated after the debate, ""His abandoned antiwar supporters...shut their eyes to Kerry's hard-line, right-wing, unilateral, pre-election policy epiphany." The debate is not between pro-war Republicans and antiwar Democrats, but over which war in which place at which time will better advance the global aims of U.S. imperialism.

Sharon Smith writes for the Socialist Worker.

http://www.counterpunch.com/smith10132004.html
User avatar
Captain_Solo
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:06 pm

Postby patriot » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:41 pm

I just found another reason not to vote for him.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby Captain_Solo » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:45 pm

patriot wrote:I just found another reason not to vote for him.


Is it just me or does Kerry just seem like Bush-lite?
User avatar
Captain_Solo
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:06 pm

Uhh

Postby SRR » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:49 pm

...which war in which place at which time will better advance the global aims of U.S. imperialism.


Hasn't this been central US foreign policy since 1776?
"May these times be the stone that sharpens our steel." - السيد الحصاد
User avatar
SRR
Hippie Dangerous
 
Posts: 4398
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:07 pm

Re: Uhh

Postby Jackson » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:53 pm

at this point.. as strong as the U.S. is.. it can not invade Iran successfully. if you think some left over insurgents giving us a hard time in iraq is bad... wait till you get stuck with the ISLAMIC republic of iran.
Jackson
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 3:53 pm

Postby patriot » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:55 pm

Jackson, there's a difference between conquest and occupation. If we wanted to destroy Iran we could level their country in weeks, occupation, however, is a different story.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby Prodigal Son » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:55 pm

Conquest implies occupation. Genocide implies destroying everything and then leaving.
User avatar
Prodigal Son
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:40 pm

Postby Buzzsaw » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:11 pm

I think old Barack's plan is just launching a few tactical strikes to take out their nuclear fuel processing plants and/or other nuclear weapons facilities.

It always struck me as a little strange that a country that sits on a good chunk of the world's petroleum reserves would need to find an alternative source of "energy."

Maybe Barack is bucking for a position on the Senate foreign relations committee. Or he wants to show he's not a typical leftist pussy. Or maybe he wants to see how many irresponsible things he can say and still get elected, given his big cushion.
Buzzsaw
Gynecology Enthusiast
 
Posts: 5312
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:53 pm
Location: Lavaca

Postby patriot » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:12 pm

Conquest implies occupation. Genocide implies destroying everything and then leaving.


Conquest doesn't necessarily imply occupation, because if you turn a country into a parking lot there isn't really anything for you to occupy.

And genocide has nothing to do with destroying "things", it's about the deliberate and systematic extermination of a specific national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

If America were to destroy Iran and its people it wouldn't be considered genocide unless we did it to rid the world of the untermenschen.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm


Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron