Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
Showing Original Post only (View all)Sanders tells New York Times he would consider a preemptive strike against Iran or North Korea [View all]
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 Trumps 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 senators 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.
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 senators 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
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
106 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders tells New York Times he would consider a preemptive strike against Iran or North Korea [View all]
George II
Feb 2020
OP
The questions were provided in advance and the answers were submitted in writing. This wasn't....
George II
Feb 2020
#7
Biden, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg also said Yes. Warren said no. Klobuchar did not answer. (n/t)
thesquanderer
Feb 2020
#12
Of course. I said "also." But you seemed incredulous that BS could say that, so I pointed out...
thesquanderer
Feb 2020
#17
Right, they agree with each other. So when you said "Seriously?" you didn't mean...
thesquanderer
Feb 2020
#22
"Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?"
bluewater
Feb 2020
#10
It doesn't say strike, it says: "nuclear or missile test", i.e., nuclear test or missile test.
George II
Feb 2020
#13
Your right i see. still there is no way in hell sanders would do a preempted strike on missle test.
Kurt V.
Feb 2020
#16
this is fake news until i see a link to the Times. the question is so poorly worded professionals
Kurt V.
Feb 2020
#52
Read the question again. It just says "test" and does not say "strike". The word strike...
Sloumeau
Feb 2020
#15
i see now. okay why include nuclear and ambiguous test in the same question? i question the article
Kurt V.
Feb 2020
#19
the article is from the Trotskyist communist International Committee of the Fourth International
Celerity
Feb 2020
#39
so this whole thread is fake news? the question is very poorly worded and isn't consistent
Kurt V.
Feb 2020
#44
A strike against Iran or nuclear-armed North Korea to prevent a threatened missile test or nuclear
Autumn
Feb 2020
#20
To prevent a nuclear strike, test or otherwise against us from NK or Iran ? I'm good with it.
Autumn
Feb 2020
#24
So we nuke them to prevent a missle test? Even though tens of thousands of South Koreans
squirecam
Feb 2020
#26
what does the question mean to you? bc i find it confusing. a nuclear test and a missile test
Kurt V.
Feb 2020
#34
all those countries are either allies or too big to fuck with. not the case with nk and iran
Kurt V.
Feb 2020
#56
Yup ... also pretty sure the US did dozens of them ... I guess the world was INSANE not to
mr_lebowski
Feb 2020
#58
I think I'll wait to see the exact wording of the question from a reliable source before I flip out
mr_lebowski
Feb 2020
#60
Assuming that's the right wording, it's a bullshit question to force a 'yes or no' answer to ...
mr_lebowski
Feb 2020
#87
Thanks, not going to use up one of my NYT visits for this ... are you confirming the article
mr_lebowski
Feb 2020
#88
Thanks! I find it flabbergasting that's literally what was asked, and NOBODY (apparently)
mr_lebowski
Feb 2020
#91
If he answered no he'd be accused of being willing to allow them to have nuclear weapons.
brewens
Feb 2020
#65
The folks here taking Bernie to task over this answer should switch to Warren...
thesquanderer
Feb 2020
#79