Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is a Vote for Romney a Vote for War?
Do you remember that time during the 2000 presidential campaign, when George W. Bush made clear to the American people that if he became the next President of the United States, he would take the country to war with Iraq -- a war that would kill 4,484 Americans, "wound" 22,490, give hundreds of thousands of Americans head injuries and post-traumatic stress, not to mention killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
You don't remember that? Me neither.
Shouldn't the fact that the Iraq war was a consequence of George W. Bush becoming president, although that consequence was not apparent in 2000, inform how we judge the likely consequences of Mitt Romney becoming president?
No one can say that a war with Iran would be a certain consequence of Mitt Romney becoming president. Some of Romney's war-mongering could be campaign bluster. President Bush engaged in a lot of saber-rattling towards Iran, but he never attacked Iran. Maybe a President Romney would be the same.
Who wants to roll the dice?
Here are some things we know about Mitt Romney. He has promised a more confrontational military policy towards Iran. His advisers include people who have been cheerleaders for war with Iran, and were cheerleaders for the Iraq war. He has pledged to increase the military budget. His advisers include people directly affiliated with military contractors who stand to profit if there were a new war and the military budget were increased. Furthermore, he opposes withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan, and he opposes the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, although the Iraq withdrawal is supported by eight in ten Americans, including the majority of Republicans.
Here's another thing we know about Romney: he is a "chickenhawk", someone who loves war so much that he never served when he had the opportunity to do so, but wants to send other people's children off to die and be maimed.
No one can say that a war with Iran would be a certain consequence of Mitt Romney becoming president. But, knowing what we know now about the consequences of the 2000 election, about Romney's own statements, and about his advisers, is it not reasonable to infer that if Mitt Romney became the next President of the United States, the probability of war with Iran would significantly increase?
If that is true, would that not be reason enough to take whatever reasonable actions are within our power to stop Mitt Romney from becoming President?
Should there not be a Super Pac explicitly devoted to educating Americans about the danger that Mitt Romney becoming President will lead to more war? Shouldn't such a Super Pac be formed now? Why wait until September to start educating and mobilizing Americans against this? Might that not be too late? Why wait to defend the city until the barbarians are at the city gates? Shouldn't we try to stop the barbarians from reaching the city gates?
Aren't there a lot of Americans who don't want another war? Wouldn't some of them contribute money to such a Super Pac?
Wouldn't such a Super Pac make compelling 30 second TV ads attacking Romney for his war advocacy? Wouldn't those ads get a lot of press coverage?
Wouldn't those ads, and the attendant press coverage, have the additional benefits of educating a lot of Americans about the danger of a new war, and fortifying them against it?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
42 Comments so far
Show AllAs if there is a difference between any of the republicans (and I include the libertarians as such) or the democrats.
The question is,
Why is Robert Naiman acting as if Romney is unique?
It's pretty amazing that someone with 2 masters degrees from a top school can be so utterly naive.
"Why wait to defend the city until the barbarians are at the city gates? Shouldn't we try to stop the barbarians from reaching the city gates?"
The barbarians have already gone through the gates; they inhabit Congress, the White House, CIA, State Department, and corporate media. The US might well invade Iran any day now; as far as I can see it is as likely to happen under Obama as it is under Romney. You ask a lot of questions. Shouldn't one of them be, Has Obama showed any restraint in this area? Has Obama given any assurances he will not attack Iran, or support Israel in doing so? Iran has been living under the threat of possible attack since 2003. Pols from both parties repeatedly make belligerent rhetoric against Iran. To try to pin that threat onto only ONE man at this point seems to me a fatuous logic.
Agreed. Obama is a Charlie McCarthy puppet perched atop Edgar "MIC" Bergen's knee. He will do their bidding, and is as likely to go to war as Romney or the rest of them. Obama is not a lesser of two evils.
Why not ask "Is a Vote for Obama a Vote for War?" Let us paraphrase Robert Naiman:
"No one can say that a war with Iran would be a certain consequence of Barack Obama remaining president. But, knowing what we know now about the consequences of the 2008 election, about Obama's own statements, and about his advisers, is it not reasonable to infer that if Barack Obama remained the President of the United States, the probability of war with Iran would significantly increase?"
"If that is true, would that not be reason enough to take whatever reasonable actions are within our power to stop Barack Obama from remaining President?"
In fact, between economic sanctions and covert action, the United States is already at war with Iran... Let me repeat that: THE U.S. IS ALREADY AT WAR WITH IRAN...
Correct, but the war cannot come out of the closet until December 2012 -- regardless of who wins the election.
I wouldn't be too sure. As has been stated, war with Iran is currently underway. Israel is both the catalyst and the controlling agent. If that nation decides it's in its best interest to escalate the confrontation before the U.S. elections of 2012, then that's the way Obama is apt to play it. .
Right on, arkay -- If Naiman truly thinks that "No one can say that a war with Iran would be a certain consequence of Mitt Romney becoming president", and if he does not favor such a war, I would advise him to vote for Romney, rather than "roll the dice" with Obama, under whose second term I have the greatest of fears of war with Iran, and others.
Who wants to roll the dice?
Here are some things we know about Barack Obama. He has led a confrontational policy towards Iran. His advisers include people who have been cheerleaders for war with Iran, and were cheerleaders for the Iraq war. He has expanded the US War on Terror in Pakistan and Yemen and has promised to start basing US Marines in Australia. He also involved the US in the Libyan war without a proper Congressional Declaration of War. Furthermore, he has expanded the US war in Afghanistan and has backtracked on his withdrawal dates, and he opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq which was forced by the Bush signed Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, although the Iraq withdrawal is supported by eight in ten Americans, including the majority of Republicans.
Here's another thing we know about Obama: he is a "chickenhawk", someone who loves war so much that he never served when he had the opportunity to do so, but wants to send other people's children off to die and be maimed.
Summary: Come on Robert Naiman, with Obama's hawkish war policies, scare-mongering us with an imaginary Mitt Romney threat (as real as it may be), isn't very convincing.
The drums are beating louder and louder ...
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran
But why pick on Romney? We need someone who is overtly anti-war.
- We need someone who is overtly anti-war. -
And so I once again suggest that we draft and support Barbara Lee (D-CA). She is the only one to vote against war, to actively be 'overtly anti-war' for the last 10 years. She is the leader of the Democratic Progressive Caucus (correct me if I'm mistaken).
And now, in the spirit of the author:
Everybody has noticed that there haven't been any Democratic debates? Is everybody okay with having Obama being the Democratic nominee, therefore leaving us with no anti-war candidate except the faux-Paul?
Instead of waiting for someone who will promise you the 'anti-war' you desire, why not support someone who has repeatedly delivered?
Why is she not a Progressive hero in this country? What MORE does she need to do, just to get your attention?
"locust"
She remains within a corporate-owned party and is complicit because of that.
If she and the other so-called progressive democrats had integrity, they would NOT be democrats.
You can bet she will be going to the Bank of America Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina and that she will fall in line to support the liar-in-chief when told to do so.
____________________________________
Yes, ALL politicians in Washington are tainted by simple virtue of being a member of the duopoly (and this includes the few "independents", who often caucus with one major party or the other).
"Barbara Lee (D-CA). She is the only one to vote against war, to actively be 'overtly anti-war' for the last 10 years. She is the leader of the Democratic Progressive Caucus" . . . and could easily -- easily -- get 2 votes -- including Locust's.
"Foreign Affairs" is published by the 2/10th of 1%'s Council on Foreign Relations. (Warning: Reading articles by the CRF may inject virus into your brain. Use progressive virus protection and proceed with caution.) They are beating the drum for a strike vs all out war. Realistically, the days of a surgical hit and run are over. All is just talk anyway to drive the price of plutocratic oil interests. The real endgame is to sanction Iranian oil. By taking Iran's oil off the world market the price of the remaining oil goes up. (And you have the added bonus of cutting Iran's revenue.) There is currently an oversupply of oil on world markets.
Oil is a dirty business and has always been about monopoly. Control the whole supply and then keep supply below demand to drive price. War and talk of war is about the money.
Romney will lead US to war with Iran and Obama won't? O/R have the same associates and are the same financial interests. Obama/Romney = No Change. Only Israel wants to strike Iran but, even they do not want a war. Israel wants a nice neat hit and run for cover and those days are over. O/R interests want the threat of war with Iran to be ever present to drive the price of oil. There is a glut of oil on the world market and removing Iran's supply would drive price. The big picture is that the plutocracy does not want all out war with Iran. Too costly, and this time the plutocracy itself will get the bill.
All this talk of Iran closings the Straight is a creation of western media. I scoured the FARS News Agency site (http://english.farsnews.com/farsnews.php) and found no talk of closing the Straight in the 33 most recent stories. Scheduled war games are taking place. Iran has invited their neighbors in the area to join. Iran: "Commander: Navy's war games Carry "Message of Peace" to Region". The result of western media saber rattling - a reported a 2% spike in oil prices - 2% is not material by definition. All talk to drive oil futures and the price per barrel.
The run-up to war? Or, the run-up of the price of crude? There is no ideology, only the money. Romney/Obama are the same interests.
So vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, get Romney out of the running, and let the election be about two anti-war candidates (Paul and Rocky) versus pro-war Obama.
Thank you, Lefttown. I, too, am a one-issue voter. The issue is the US military empire. It has got to go if the USA is to restore its economy and its civil rights and if the world is to restore its climate.
Re: "I too am a one issue voter." There are several issues that are huge as we all know. But we can only tackle them one at a time. I say, let's go after the perpetual war machine first; then we can work to unravel any new damage a new conservative appointee might do on the Supreme Court.
The proverb of the fox and the pumpkin is germane here. His seed filled hand is trapped inside the pumpkin and he refuses to let any of the go in order to flee the hunter who approaches.
I agree. Only war matters. We can't educate our kids because we spend all of our money murdering Muslim children. We can't provide medical care to our people because we spend all our money murdering Muslim children. We can't clean up the environment, because we spend all of our money murdering Muslim children.
No one should vote for Obama, Romney, or any other American war monger. Only baby killers vote for such monsters. Unfortunately, most Americans believe they have a God given right to kill brown skinned people. Even African Americans believe this deep down in their souls. So killing Muslims doesn't count for most Americans, just like swatting flies.
Tomcarberry,
That's unfair, insulting, degrading, mean-spirited! I'm referring to your comments, and it's also discriminatory. Sure, we have problems with our electorate system, meaning some positions are appointed, and others running for elections. But, until other people step up to the plate, we have what we have. Yes, I am talking about your comments that are only focused on Americans. The way you sound, it is only Americans, or most, that kill. And then, you make it sound if it's only Muslims, and/or brown skinned people, that they kill. So, tomcarberry, what do you suggest, that people sit out the elections this time around too? As some did in the 2010 elections? How 'out your comments say something to the effect of any killing by any person, regardless of what country they are from, and it wouldn't sound so targeting of all Americans!
Yes! All other important issues are intertwined with war. If war is not being waged, civil rights and economic issues will rise to the fore, we can regain our sanity, and at last focus on all the corruption and wrongdoing in Washington and elsewhere. We will be more likely to hold the president and our representatives to account. War and banker lobbyists will have less money to buy influence.
We must stop Empire before we can right the other wrongs.
Thanks Naiman, As long as we keep Romney from being President everything will be OK. We can all go to the polls and vote for that Man of Peace, Obama.
To write a piece like this you must have blinders on, like a race horse that must be kept from seeing what's on either side of him.
A vote for Romney or Obama is a vote for war because both candidates and both parties have practically declared war on Iran already and Obama has expanded the drone wars into so many countries it is hard to keep up with them all. The foreign policy teams of both the democratic and republican parties are dominated by people who care more about the security of Israel than they do about that of the United States. The people wanting peace represent only a tiny faction within each corrupt party.
An attack on Iran would drive the price of oil to $200 – $300 a barrel which would send our economy into a deep depression. Do you think our dear leaders are that insane? I truly hope not.
Your naivete is almost sweet. Read 'Shock Doctrine', or 'Overthrow', please.
Grperdue,
Yes! I believe they are, especially when they have christianity on their sleeves but don't even care about the poor in this country, and welcome executing prisoners in this country - for instance, the state of Texas. Google, "US Imperialism and Oil Politics: Africa, Middle East, Asia."
And I agree with the writer of this article. There is a Mormon Prophecy that 'America would be a Mormon Kingdom of Zion.' There is a film called, "A Mormon President." Romney allegedly said that W. Cleon Skousen was his mentor. The Mormons helped W. into the whitehouse. And in 2007, Romney, allegedly said that 'Muslims are not welcome in his cabinet.'
In addition, you asked do we 'think our dear leaders are that insane?' Yes, I do. Given that they have conducted (not just in this country, but throughout the world) Eugenics, which is a reproductive sterlization program. It is now being alleged that GAVI, the Gates Foundation is using forced vaccinations in African nations and elsewhere the HPV and Flu (swine) that is alleged to be the new type sterilizations, as well as some type of Polio vaccinations or infections. And when you look at what is happening here, it appears that babies born with austism is on the uptick. Seizures, cancers on the uptick (which reminds me, I saw articles that the new GMO foods with pesticides and including the water supply is supposed to target us next). And now, something that was usually pretty rare - Siamese twins (twin babies joined together) is starting to come back.
Gosh Mr. Naiman how one-sided and superficial of you. Your man Obama, also committed war crimes and treason remember. But folks like you Maher, Nichols, and the rest of the Duopoly system apologists ignore that.
Now are you really that uninformed? Did you recall that Goldman Sachs (the Vampire Squid) backed Obama? Have you read any Matt Taibbi, Glen Greenwald, Prof. Michael Hudson, Max Keiser, Chris Hedges...?
The banksters are backing Obama as well as Romney. The two are virtually identcal aside from the phony rhetoric and lies. Please look behind the curtain and do some analysis, not a one sided hit piece that misses the larger point and omits context.
I can only assume that you are not that uninformed, but rather an apologist for D/R status quo. Very disappointing and disturbing.
With all due respect, please read "Superimperialism" by Michael Hudson, and
Democracy Inc. by Sheldon Wolin, then read the last few years worth of Taibbi articles and Pepe Escobar articles and get back to us with an intellectually honest article. Also, I suggest watching the Adam Curtis documentary "The Trap" (2007 BBC2) which has been censored in the USA and PBS, but widely available online. Thank you.
I got "Debunking Economics" by Prof. Steve Keen for a gift recently. I recommend it highly.
Nicely stated. Nice to see you posting again too. I am almost tempted to import OS latest post off the Nichols thread here, but, like everything the Obama apologists offer it would only fall on deaf ears and closed minds.
Robert Naiman, as I read it here many citizens are calling you out for your half baked ideas! How about you respond in this comments section; either defend your view in light of the criticisms offered herein, or begin to amend your point of view.
Are you reading any of this.
"Are you reading any of this."
I doubt it. It's a drive-by post courtesy of CD.
However, responding to Robert might convince CD to quit with the LOTE crap.
Probably not, but we can try.
Earth to Robert. There are just as many Dems fanning the flames of war as there are Democrats. As a matter of fact, Obama has been declaring and escalating covert wars for the last three years.
What do we hear from you? Scare stories about a potential Repub nominee. No mention of what the Dems are doing RIGHT NOW, AS YOU TYPE YOUR TRIPE. Pardon me for yelling, but blatant hypocrisy does upset me.
Please, show some intellectual honesty and admit to the evils on both sides. I could then at least take your writing seriously even if I ultimately disagree with your conclusions.
Earth to Robert, indeed. A vote for Obama is an ironclad guarantee of more war for Israel. The only thing in Mitt's favor is that he lacks an Orwellian ig-Nobel Prize from the Mintistry of Peace.
Is everybody into a war mode and the President and Israel always take a hit.
Is this site just a billboard or a forum for real thought.
The Crusades, 2012
_________________________________
This article is too clueless and/or pathetically partisan to be published.
Sunk to a new low on this one, CD.
I'm posting before reading what others have written. The article leaves me with a repugnant feeling in knowing that the name Obama could have been substituted for Romney in 90% of the sentences Naiman offers up, and the text would remain equally valid. SAD times for the U.S.A that its warrior ethos has produced nothing but frauds auditioning for the "job" that always demands the will to kill yet more.
May other nations bond together, or a Universal force rise up to deter the MIC machine before it touches another land to wound another innocent soul.
Why is CD filling space with jaundiced tripe like this. One would expect to find this piece over at Huffington Post where it would get traction from the children of the lesser evil god they worshop.
"Why is CD filling space with jaundiced tripe like this."
CD is faithfully beating the drums of LOTE.
It is only going to get worse.
Why can't we have some presidential candidates who will work for peace? Why should the United States citizenry have to put up with the Uber-rich (& Junker-like Dogs) and their constant quest for more and more of the world's goods through war industries, big oil, Wall Street, and money-grubbers of all kinds. Let's make an effort to promote world-wide peace - - and begin it here and now!
Dumbest article I've read on CD in weeks, and that's saying something. The reaction to Obama by "liberals"/Democrats should put to rest any notion that they are somehow more evolved than their "conservative"/Republican counterparts.
This goes way beyond cognitive dissonance. I hesitate even to use the word "tribalism", as "primitive" tribes were far, far more evolved than the ship of fools that make up much of the populace under late stage capitalism. ESPECIALLY the "intellectual" class; most "average" people (of which I count myself one) are at least able to understand that it doesn't make much difference whether you elect an "R" or a "D". If anything, real "liberals" should be praying for an "R" victory. Obama has enervated the peace movement more than any other figure in recent memory.
The only thing more terrifying to the parasites than peace is mass mobilization. According to the Pentagon Papers, General Westmoreland was denied his request for an additional 300,000 troops in Vietnam due to fears of civil unrest at home.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils you may just get both.