UPDATE: The New York Times is reporting that the Pentagon has recently concluded "war games" simulations modeling the Iran-Israel crisis, and the results are not pleasant:
DELANEY TRIGGERS DEBATE ON WAR WITH IRAN: Last Friday, Maryland Juice wrote about an alarming press release from 6th Congressional District Democratic candidate John Delaney. In a new position paper, he signaled that when dealing with Iran, he believed that "all options" should be left on the table.
The issue has since come up at a recent Democratic candidates debate, and amazingly, the rest of the candidates (except for Milad Pooran) refuse to reject the idea of preemptive military strikes. My how far the neo-conservative movement has come -- it is truly amazing to me that in the highly educated DC suburbs, Democrats now view foreign policy with a mob mentality.
DEMOCRATS EMBRACE NEOCON "PREEMPTIVE WAR" DOCTRINE: The Baltimore Sun flagged some of the candidates' views on when to apply the novel concept of "preemptive war" (aka attacking someone before they've actually attacked you). Remember that this is a new and controversial addition to America's foreign policy vocabulary, and that the ridiculous idea was brought in by the Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd of chicken-hawks. They started pushing the idea of "preemptive war" during their campaign to brainwash the nation into pursuing a voluntary war with Iraq. Also note that this preemptive doctrine exists so that countries can justify circumventing and undermining the U.N. and diplomacy.
Does anyone remember that this entire debate happened once before? Do ya'll really not see the replication of this process with Iran? Really? Did everyone forget that a large number of us were horrified that the United States was even discussing preemptive war and that we thought America would lose the moral high-ground by attacking first? Apparently, the answer is yes. See the CD6 candidates' statements on voluntary war below:
PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS A NEW IDEA // NOT NORMAL FOR THE US! - I know this kind of warmonger talk sounds normal to many Maryland Juice readers -- even coming from Democrats -- but don't forget that it was precisely this rhetoric and framing of the argument that we witnessed in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Indeed, it was NOT always the case that Democrats believed in preemptive military strikes against other nations -- especially if fueled only by speculation and hypothesis about a foreign nation's motives and assumed capabilities. The terms of the debate have been obviously contaminated with Neo-Conservative rhetoric, and yet here the Democrats go again....
6th Congressional District Democratic Candidates Debate Preemptive War With Iran
New York Times: A classified war simulation held this month to assess the American military’s capabilities to respond to an Israeli attack on Iran forecast that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.
DELANEY TRIGGERS DEBATE ON WAR WITH IRAN: Last Friday, Maryland Juice wrote about an alarming press release from 6th Congressional District Democratic candidate John Delaney. In a new position paper, he signaled that when dealing with Iran, he believed that "all options" should be left on the table.
The issue has since come up at a recent Democratic candidates debate, and amazingly, the rest of the candidates (except for Milad Pooran) refuse to reject the idea of preemptive military strikes. My how far the neo-conservative movement has come -- it is truly amazing to me that in the highly educated DC suburbs, Democrats now view foreign policy with a mob mentality.
DEMOCRATS EMBRACE NEOCON "PREEMPTIVE WAR" DOCTRINE: The Baltimore Sun flagged some of the candidates' views on when to apply the novel concept of "preemptive war" (aka attacking someone before they've actually attacked you). Remember that this is a new and controversial addition to America's foreign policy vocabulary, and that the ridiculous idea was brought in by the Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd of chicken-hawks. They started pushing the idea of "preemptive war" during their campaign to brainwash the nation into pursuing a voluntary war with Iraq. Also note that this preemptive doctrine exists so that countries can justify circumventing and undermining the U.N. and diplomacy.
Does anyone remember that this entire debate happened once before? Do ya'll really not see the replication of this process with Iran? Really? Did everyone forget that a large number of us were horrified that the United States was even discussing preemptive war and that we thought America would lose the moral high-ground by attacking first? Apparently, the answer is yes. See the CD6 candidates' statements on voluntary war below:
BALTIMORE SUN: All of the candidates at the forum, which was organized by several area Democratic clubs, said they support the Obama administration's emphasis on sanctions to deal with Iran. But they differed when pressed to explain when U.S. military intervention would be appropriate.
Garagiola said he would support military strikes if Iran was "on the verge of having nuclear weapons capability." Businessman John Delaney said the decision of whether to involve the U.S. military would depend on the circumstances at the time. "Military options are on the table...but you cannot answer when the line is drawn because you don't know the specific facts."
Milad Pooran, a physician who emigrated from Iran when he was six years old, said he would support military action if Iran struck the U.S. or its allies first. Attorney Ron Little said he would back military action if the Ahmadinejad regime was prepared to use nuclear weapons. Charles Bailey said the military could rely on unmanned drones to take out the country's nuclear facilities.
PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS A NEW IDEA // NOT NORMAL FOR THE US! - I know this kind of warmonger talk sounds normal to many Maryland Juice readers -- even coming from Democrats -- but don't forget that it was precisely this rhetoric and framing of the argument that we witnessed in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Indeed, it was NOT always the case that Democrats believed in preemptive military strikes against other nations -- especially if fueled only by speculation and hypothesis about a foreign nation's motives and assumed capabilities. The terms of the debate have been obviously contaminated with Neo-Conservative rhetoric, and yet here the Democrats go again....
I've decided to make a quick info-graphic about this mess:
No comments:
Post a Comment