Sanders tells New York Times he would consider a preemptive strike against Iran or North Korea

[George II]

By Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey
14 February 2020

Bernie Sanders has won the popular vote in both the New Hampshire and Iowa presidential primary contests in considerable part by presenting himself as an opponent of war. Following the criminal assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani last month, Sanders was the most vocal of the Democratic presidential aspirants in criticizing Trump’s action. His poll numbers have risen in tandem with his stepped-up anti-war rhetoric.

He has repeatedly stressed his vote against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, reminding voters in the Iowa presidential debate last month, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”

However, when speaking to the foremost newspaper of the American ruling class, the New York Times, the Sanders campaign adopts a very different tone than that employed by the candidate when addressing the public in campaign stump speeches or TV interviews.

The answers provided by Sanders’ campaign to a foreign policy survey of the Democratic presidential candidates published this month by the Times provide a very different picture of the attitude of the self-styled “democratic socialist” to American imperialism and war. In the course of the survey, the Sanders campaign is at pains to reassure the military/intelligence establishment and the financial elite of the senator’s loyalty to US imperialism and his readiness to deploy its military machine.

Perhaps most significant and chilling is the response to the third question in the Times’ survey.

Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?

Answer: Yes.

A Sanders White House, according to his campaign, would be open to launching a military strike against Iran or nuclear-armed North Korea to prevent (not respond to) not even a threatened missile or nuclear strike against the United States, but a mere weapons test. This is a breathtakingly reckless position no less incendiary than those advanced by the Trump administration.

Sanders would risk a war that could easily involve the major powers and lead to a nuclear Armageddon in order to block a weapons test by countries that have been subjected to devastating US sanctions and diplomatic, economic and military provocations for decades.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/02/14/sand-f14.html

[emmaverybo]

1. That's crazy. Maybe he didn't understand the question.

[rzemanfl]

4. That is not a comforting thought either. n/t

[Rollo]

29. Mini stroke?

[Blue_true]

43. Didn't understand the question.

"Sir, do you want a lunch?" "Oh yeah, give me those damned launch codes".

[emmaverybo]

97. LOL.

[George II]

7. The questions were provided in advance and the answers were submitted in writing. This wasn't....

....an interview.

[catsudon]

64. well

all options should be considered...

[Zolorp]

2. Aren't many of his followers there because of his anti-war stances?

[Cha]

3. Seriously?

[thesquanderer]

12. Biden, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg also said Yes. Warren said no. Klobuchar did not answer. (n/t)

[Cha]

14. Along with BS

[thesquanderer]

17. Of course. I said "also." But you seemed incredulous that BS could say that, so I pointed out...

...that numerous other candidates--including the one you support--agree with his position.

[Cha]

18. BS agrees with JB's position.

[thesquanderer]

22. Right, they agree with each other. So when you said "Seriously?" you didn't mean...

...you thought it was a bad answer (which is what I thought you meant), but rather, you were surprised that Sanders had the same position Biden did?

[Blue_true]

45. Biden is consistent in and out of public.

Sanders says something that he doesn't say in public.

[thesquanderer]

57. This was for public consumption. Here's the link...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/politics/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy.html

The Times asked the same questions of all candidates.

I don't see his answer as inconsistent. There are some people who have interpreted his Iraq war stance to mean he is against all military conflict, but he has never said that, nor does his voting record indicate that. While he's no John Bolton, he's not a pacifist either.

[Blue_true]

62. Only when the Times published it. Close to two months after

the answer was given. What about the anti-war people that voted for Bernie in Iowa and New Hampshire because he says something different on the stump than he does on an unpublished questionnaire?

[thesquanderer]

69. Where do his stump speeches contradict this answer?

He's never said he was anti-war. He was consistently against the Iraq war. He supported going into Afghanistan at the time, and assorted other military actions.

[brush]

101. Warmongers R Us. God!

[oasis]

5. Did you hear that, Tulsi Gabbard? Time to withdraw VP consideration.

[George II]

9. Gabbard declined to respond to the survey.

[Zeus69]

96. Sure she didn't reply

“Present”?

[LeftTurn3623]

8. All options should be on the table

Bernie is far from a hawk

[bluewater]

10. "Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?"

Interesting question.

After sanctions failed?

After diplomacy failed?

After direct talks failed?

Yes. I would consider the option.

What would the alternative be at that point? To just allow nuclear proliferation?
To not even consider a limited strike at a facility?

Honestly, this seems like a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" type of question.

I just have this feeling that Bernie's detractors would be protesting just as much, perhaps more, if he had answered NO.

[Blue_true]

46. The point is this.

Hillary answered the chain set of questions the same way, she was pilloried by Sanders supporters as a warhawk because her answer was the same in and out of public view. Yet her answer, Biden, et are no different from Bernie's.

[thesquanderer]

72. Hillary and Bernie both were consistent in and out of public view.

Both had a long public record of what military actions they supported, or didn't. Neither was a pacifist. Hillary was a bit more hawkish than Bernie.

[Kurt V.]

11. why include missile strike and test in the same question? Something's fishy

[George II]

13. It doesn't say strike, it says: "nuclear or missile test", i.e., nuclear test or missile test.

[Kurt V.]

16. Your right i see. still there is no way in hell sanders would do a preempted strike on missle test.

a nuclear armed missile test? ... You bet . any president would

[Blue_true]

49. So, why did he answer yes? nt

[Kurt V.]

52. this is fake news until i see a link to the Times. the question is so poorly worded professionals

at the NYT didn't ask this.

[thesquanderer]

74. Here's the link

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/politics/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy.html

You'll find all of Bernie's answers as well as everyone else's.

[Sloumeau]

15. Read the question again. It just says "test" and does not say "strike". The word strike...

is used later, as in a "military strike" or "first stike" or "preventative strike" to prevent the test.

[Kurt V.]

19. i see now. okay why include nuclear and ambiguous test in the same question? i question the article

[Celerity]

39. the article is from the Trotskyist communist International Committee of the Fourth International

so there is that

They detest Bernie and all our Democratic candidates.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Fourth_International

The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) is the name of two Trotskyist internationals; one with sections named Socialist Equality Party which publishes the World Socialist Web Site, and another linked to the Workers Revolutionary Party in the UK.

[Kurt V.]

44. so this whole thread is fake news? the question is very poorly worded and isn't consistent

with the Times.

[Celerity]

48. not so much fake news as it is very slanted agitprop

massively loaded framing:

when speaking to the foremost newspaper of the American ruling class, the New York Times

,the Sanders campaign is at pains to reassure the military/intelligence establishment and the financial elite of the senator’s loyalty to US imperialism and his readiness to deploy its military machine.

etc etc

[thesquanderer]

75. The quote is legit. The OP's posted article about it is skewed.

Ironically, Sanders is not sufficiently socialist for them.

[Autumn]

20. A strike against Iran or nuclear-armed North Korea to prevent a threatened missile test or nuclear

strike against the the US? Hell yes. Any Democratic president would defend our country.

[squirecam]

21. North Korea already has nuclear weapons

So what is the point of preventing it ? It’s already happened.

[Autumn]

24. To prevent a nuclear strike, test or otherwise against us from NK or Iran ? I'm good with it.

[squirecam]

26. So we nuke them to prevent a missle test? Even though tens of thousands of South Koreans

Will die due to our unilateral decision?

This is why I’m against the President, ANY president, having such power. Declaring war, which a nuclear strike would be, is solely the matter of Congress to decide.

[bluewater]

37. "So we nuke them" BZZZT. fail. No one said to NUKE them.

Thanks for making that SO VERY OBVIOUS.



Where in the world did that stuff about "So we nuke them" come from?

[squirecam]

40. An attack on North Korea, to stop a test, would be war

North Korea would attack South Korea, including nukes. This leads to nuclear war.

The only way to stop it, would be a pre-emptive nuclear strike to destroy their capability to wage war. So, in reality, unless you want South Korea nuked, you would need to nuke North Korea first, with such a pre-emptive strike that they could not retaliate.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/north-korea-nuclear-threat-1.4065586

[bluewater]

42. Thanks for admitting NO ONE said to NUKE them.

NONE of the candidates said yes to that.

None.

Nice attempt at a strawman argument, but, sorry, that won't fly.

[squirecam]

47. Read what I wrote.

Attacking a North Korean launch site would, as NK states, cause them to respond with nukes.

You cannot guarantee that you know where their sites are. Or how many they have. So unless you are going to attack a missile site, and leave it up to chance whether NK will attack, knowing that they have already said they *would* strike back, would lead to a nuclear strike on South Korea. Which will kill tens to hundreds of thousands. You must strike the whole country in one fell swoop. The only way to quickly eliminate one country’s potential to nuke us, is to nuke them first.

That is the problem. There is no such thing as a limited attack on a country with nukes.

[bluewater]

55. You are still pushing a STRAWMAN argument. That is readily apparent.

NO one answered "yes" to NUKING anyone over a missile or nuclear test.

The candidates were asked if they would CONSIDER a military, NOT A NUCLEAR, strike in case of a nuclear or missile test.

Most answered YES, they would consider it.

NOT yes they would DO it in a heartbeat.

No, just that they would consider the option.

You tried to say that YES answer meant NUCLEAR WAR. You tried to say that again in your last post.




THAT is a STRAWMAN argument, pure and simple.

Iran does not even HAVE nuclear weapons, and that was one of the countries mentioned by name in the question.
And even in the case of North Korea, a President CONSIDERING a military strike, does not mean they will decide to do one.

I think I am done responding to strawman arguments for the night. lol

Enjoy your evening.

[RandySF]

102. Now you sound like Bolton.

[Autumn]

103. No I sound like Bernie and Biden. They were both a yes on that question. nt

[OKNancy]

23. First time in a long time I agree with you. LOL

[MyNameGoesHere]

27. Could other countries then preemptively strike the US

If we do testing?

[squirecam]

33. Or strike us first because they think we would strike them....

It’s a vicious circle. And why such power to declare war, which a nuclear strike certainly is, resides in Congress, not the president.

[left-of-center2012]

25. Y'all keep twisting the question !

It is:

"Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?"

[Kurt V.]

34. what does the question mean to you? bc i find it confusing. a nuclear test and a missile test

are obviously quite different things

[left-of-center2012]

38. Would YOU bomb a country for doing a TEST ?

[Kurt V.]

41. a nuclear test? Pre-emptedly. yes. It's absolute insanity not to.

[squirecam]

50. North Korea has already done a nuclear test. Six in fact.

We are way too late in that department.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

[left-of-center2012]

51. Then I guess we should have bombed ...

Russia
France
the UK
China
Pakistan
India
Israel
South Africa (although they got rid of theirs)

[squirecam]

54. It's shocking how quickly people defend this

When it’s their candidate that allegedly supports the idea.

[Kurt V.]

56. all those countries are either allies or too big to fuck with. not the case with nk and iran

[squirecam]

59. Ah yes

The small dictator that we attack in the name of righteousness, while leaving a strongly worded letter of protest to the others, right?

The US should go to war, but only when it’s easy.....

[Kurt V.]

63. you nailed it. History backs you up.

[squirecam]

66. So that makes it right?

Nt

[Kurt V.]

67. nt goes in the reply title. and no

[mr_lebowski]

58. Yup ... also pretty sure the US did dozens of them ... I guess the world was INSANE not to

pre-emptively attack us for doing a 'nuclear test'.

[at140]

28. That seems contrary to what sanders has been saying

He may not have heard the question properly. Hearing is the 3rd thing which goes in older men.

[squirecam]

30. Thank God for pills and hearing aids then.

[at140]

105. YEAH, especially the blue pills lol

[MyNameGoesHere]

31. So shouldn't other countries have the same right

To attack us for this?
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/us-conducts-test-flight-unarmed-minuteman-missile-68775849

[left-of-center2012]

32. The source of this article, WSWS, is published by ...

The "World Socialist Web Site".

International Committee of the Fourth International

The International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) is the name of two Trotskyist* internationals;
one with sections named ‘Socialist Equality Party’ which publishes the World Socialist Web Site, and another linked to the ‘Workers Revolutionary Party’.

*Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky.
Trotsky identified as an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik–Leninist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Fourth_International

[squirecam]

36. So is this article fake? Disinformation?

1- I’d be glad if so. Makes me sleep easier. However,

2- I’m sad that people agreed with the pre-emptive strike just because they thought their candidate supported it.

[at140]

106. Nailed it...that is exactly what is so infuriuating

people agreeing with their choice candidate even if it is not rational, logical, practical or a winning argument.

[NurseJackie]

35. Calling Susan Sarandon... Susan Sarandon... HELLO? Oh, Susan!

[BlueIdaho]

53. Really?

“Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?

Answer: Yes.”

A MISSILE TEST?

[mr_lebowski]

60. I think I'll wait to see the exact wording of the question from a reliable source before I flip out

myself.

wsws dot com is not exactly a neutral source.

[BlueIdaho]

61. Pretty simple question.

Pretty clear answer.

[mr_lebowski]

87. Assuming that's the right wording, it's a bullshit question to force a 'yes or no' answer to ...

It's like asking "Would you put your dog to sleep if it had incurable rabies, or got sick?"

[BlueIdaho]

90. Pffft.

It’s a situation he will face if he’s lucky enough to be elected. Will N. Korea test missiles? Yes. Will Iran develop their nuclear program? Yes.

[thesquanderer]

85. Here's the link...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/politics/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy.html

The Times asked the same questions of all candidates.

[mr_lebowski]

88. Thanks, not going to use up one of my NYT visits for this ... are you confirming the article

has the exact wording that the NYT says it was? That's all I need to know

[thesquanderer]

89. Here's what it says...

This is only one of about 35 questions they asked on foreign policy.

Q: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?

Sanders's Answer: Yes.

Warren's Answer: No. Using force against a nuclear power or high-risk adversary carries immense risk for broader conflict. Using force when not necessary can be dangerously counterproductive. Again, I will only use force if there is a vital national security interest at risk, a strategy with clear and achievable objectives, and an understanding and acceptance of the long-term costs.

Biden's Answer: Yes. Force must be used judiciously to protect a vital interest of the United States, only when the objective is clear and achievable, with the informed consent of the American people and, where required, the approval of Congress. The nuclear program of North Korea and the nuclear ambitions of Iran pose such a vital interest.

Bloomberg's Answer: Yes.

Buttigieg's Answer: Yes.

Klobuchar's Answer: Ms. Klobuchar did not answer this question.

[mr_lebowski]

91. Thanks! I find it flabbergasting that's literally what was asked, and NOBODY (apparently)

pointed out that there's a huge difference between a nuclear test and a missile test.

Missile tests happen all the time. They're really not a big deal.

[thesquanderer]

92. North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

[mr_lebowski]

93. That is an interesting non-sequitur ... (nt)

[thesquanderer]

94. Not intended as a non-sequitur

You said: "there's a huge difference between a nuclear test and a missile test...Missile tests happen all the time"

You seemed to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that pre-emptive military action to stop a missile test didn't make sense, but such action would be acceptable to stop a nuclear test. I was pointing out that nuclear tests *also* happen with some frequency. Not as often, but often enough to be in what I would consider the same category. IOW, that was six times when I think we probably did the right thing by NOT launching a pre-emptive attack against North Korea.

[mr_lebowski]

95. Fair enough, I don't disagree ...

I also don't think a nuclear test alone rises to that level, nonetheless I'm shocked that anyone answered 'Yes', ... without at least saying 'well, not an ordinary missile test' at a bare minimum.

[brewens]

65. If he answered no he'd be accused of being willing to allow them to have nuclear weapons.

In that last paragraph, how would considering some kind of attack be risking a war?

[squirecam]

68. North Korea already has nuclear weapons

We aren’t stopping that.

[bluewater]

71. But Iran does not. And Iran was mentioned by name in the question.

[moriah]

70. I went to their source material, which has answers from all candidates.

Elizabeth Warren was the only one of our "top 5" to say an outright no. Joe, Bernie, and Pete said yes, Klobuchar didn't answer. (And for those who care what Bloomberg says, he said yes too.)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/politics/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy.html

[bluewater]

73. Remember, the question asked if they would CONSIDER such a military strike.

So, yeah, most answered they would consider one.

[squirecam]

77. Warrens answer was correct.

It should be a hard no. You don’t attack a country over a missile test.

[thesquanderer]

79. The folks here taking Bernie to task over this answer should switch to Warren...

...since she's the only one who gave the "right" answer.

[bluewater]

80. +10000

[RazBerryBeret]

76. the "yes" answer

was a survey? what were the other options?
and it was a "would you consider..." this needs more details.

but I guess it achieves the intended.

[thesquanderer]

82. Here's the link...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/politics/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy.html

The Times asked the same questions of all candidates.

[Kurt V.]

78. George this is fake news. Shame on you . keep em coming. :)

[George II]

84. .

[democrattotheend]

81. This doesn't sound right

Was there any context, or was this a yes/no question with no opportunity to explain?

I guess it's reasonable to say he would "consider" it if he had no opportunity to clarify, because it wouldn't make sense to commit to taking an option off the table prior to being faced with the facts of a particular situation. But even so, that still doesn't sound like Bernie.

Would love some context here.

[thesquanderer]

83. Here's the link...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/politics/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy.html

The Times asked the same questions of all candidates.

[Steelrolled]

86. Yes is the only answer.

It is a "loaded" question. There is no context provided. Sanders would be foolish to answer no.

[Bonobo]

98. Do you understand what the word "consider" means?

It means to pose the question to yourself without dismissing it primo facie.

So “yes” is the only answer.

[George II]

100. The same as it meant when Biden was asked if he would "consider" a republican VP, and then..........

.....got shredded here for that answer.

Yes, that's how it works.

[robbedvoter]

99. Wait, wasn't that the W doctrine?

[Sewa]

104. Yes and if it was a viable option the Cheney-Bush

regime would’ve carried it out.