Third Party & Independents Archives

Greens Say No To 'Bipartisan War Machine'

Obama and McCain represent two sides of the Bipartisan War Machine. Not much controversy about Mccain’s intentions to remain in Iraq perhaps for 100 years, or take out Iran’s leadership. But, most Americans are not aware of Obama’s commitment to war in defense of Israel made recently in his speech before AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is America’s pro-Israel Lobby group).

In that speech Obama said: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything." The speech confirmed Sen. Obama's earlier claim that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."

As the Green Party reports,

"Barack Obama's language implies that, instead of repudiating the neo-con doctrine of 'preemptive' invasion, he may be ready to endorse a US attack on Iran for the same reason the Bush White House is making such threats," said Candace Caveny, Michigan Green Party candidate for Congress (10th District).

Green leaders, preparing for the party's National Convention in Chicago July 10-13 (http://www.greenparty2008.org), are urging antiwar voters to vote Green on Election Day 2008 in light of Sen. Obama's positions on Iran and Israel and his vague and contradictory promise to end the Iraq occupation while keeping US military personnel and contractors in Iraq and surrounding nations. Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift are seeking the Green Party's presidential nomination.

"The deceptions now being used to justify an attack on Iran recall the fraudulent claims of WMDs and a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy that got us into the current war. The rest of the world -- especially Middle Eastern nations -- understands that the real goals are US domination in the region, control over the Middle East oil spigot, and aid for Israel's strategic military objectives," said Rodger Jennings, Green candidate for US Congress in Illinois' 12th District (http://www.rodgerjennings.org).

"Americans should be concerned that, despite his emphasis on diplomacy, Barack Obama's Iran posture shows that he might be as ready as George W. Bush to initiate World War III. We cannot leave the future of the world to two powerful US political parties, both of which endorse military aggression in the name of preemption," added Mr. Jennings.

Greens said that even if the current threats from President Bush, Sen. Obama, and Republican presidential candidate John McCain are just hawkish bluster to convince Iran to abandon uranium enrichment, the effect will be encouragement for Iran and other countries in the region to gain nuclear weapons as a deterrence against an attack by the US or Israel.

"The only resolution to growing Middle and Near East tensions is multilateral nuclear disarmament, combined with a complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and pressure on Israel to observe human rights and UN directives to end the occupation of Palestinian territories," said Jason Wallace, Green candidate for Illinois (11th District) (http://www.electwallace.us). "Unfortunately, Barack Obama's speech before AIPAC signals that his administration would make no such demands on Israel, and he has shown disregard for international law and for UN Security Council resolutions stating that the acquisition of territory by force is illegitimate.


Posted by Jeff Wyans at June 14, 2008 2:53 PM
Comments
Comment #255563

Jeff, and what if Iran DOES build nuclear weapons and threatens to take out Israel or block the oil ships in retaliation to US peacekeeping efforts? Do Greens then still hold that Obama’s position would be errant?

Greens need to get a grip on reality. There are very, very nasty and crippling scenarios that can arise from the likes of Ahmadinejad acquiring nuclear warheads on short range missiles capable of targeting nearly all of Europe. Is NATO to bury its head like an ostrich?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 14, 2008 3:10 PM
Comment #255566

Jeff, Greens may or may not want to take note of the following from USA Today:

A survey of 24 nations taken by the Pew Global Attitudes Project finds high levels of interest in the U.S. presidential election and broad optimism that American foreign policy “will change for the better” after the inauguration of a new president next year.

In all but three nations, those polled express more faith in Obama than in McCain to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

The 3 nations excepted are the U.S., Jordan, and Pakistan. Curious, is it not? I bet Republicans had not a clue they had so much in common with Jordan and Pakistani people. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 14, 2008 3:21 PM
Comment #255567

When negotiating it would be pretty stupid to take the only real leverage you have off the table. Just today, Iran refused to accept economic incentives to stop creating nuclear material.

Posted by: Max at June 14, 2008 3:22 PM
Comment #255569

Max, Iran has the same right as any nation to produce nuclear electricity. It’s all the rage amongst Republicans here in the U.S. Why deny Iran nuclear energy while telling the world it could save us from global climate change? A bit hypocritical, don’t you think?

America let this genie out of the bottle, now America has to live with it. And no, America cannot continue to produce nuclear power and weapons and deny other countries the same right, not forever anyway.

The Greens have a valid point about America working by example to get rid of the world’s nuclear weapon stockpiles. But, then we got Bushed!

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 14, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #255614

David

We have specifically said that Iran has the right to produce nuclear energy. That is a red herring the Iranians have brought up. The Russians have even offered to process fuel for them. Many countries operate nuclear facilities w/o producing weapons. Iran refuses to be among them.

Re nuclear weapons, we HAVE a program called megaton to megawatt

“In March 2008 USEC announced that the Megatons to Megawatts program had reached a new milestone. (www.USEC.com) 325 metric tons of Russian HEU material, equivalent to 13,000 nuclear warheads. has been eliminated. 325 tonnes of Russian nuclear warhead material has been diluted and converted to low enriched fuel for nuclear power plants. This fuel is purchased by USEC for use in many of America’s 103 commercial nuclear power plants to produce electricity. Approximately 20 % of America’s electricity is generated by nuclear energy. Nuclear warheads that were once aimed at American cities are now providing one tenth of America’s electricity.”

I guess we got “bushed” in March of 2008.

Posted by: Jack at June 15, 2008 2:19 AM
Comment #255618

Jack said in true Bush fashion: “Many countries operate nuclear facilities w/o producing weapons. Iran refuses to be among them.”

First, Iran has no nuclear weapons. Our own government has said this. Second, have we not created a self-fulfilling prophecy in Iran? We have deemed them part and parcel of the Axis of Evil long before they even acquired the plants for creating nuclear fuel.

I am well aware of the extremist nature of Ahmadinejad. But, Ahmadinejad does not CONTROL Iran, solely. It is the height of folly to consider preemptive military action before preemptive diplomacy and horse trading. We did it with N. Korea. Why not with Iran. Oh, yes, that’s right, Iran controls oil, N. Korea doesn’t.

My, Jack, you make it sound like all the nuclear stuff in the world is safe and accounted for and working in our interests. Then why are we worried about Iran? The world is afloat with nuclear raw materials and wastes that can be used for lethal purposes, as one Russian found out a year ago.

What the report DOESN’T say, and dares not say, is how many 10’s of thousands nuclear warheads worth of HEU is still floating about outside responsible party’s control.

And Bush said the Surge in Iraq has been a huge success too! Somehow credulity continues to be stretched when this administration speaks of anything anymore.

The Supreme Court doesn’t believe this Administration. Much of the GOP leadership no longer believes this administration. The Congress sure as hell doesn’t. And nearly 3/4 of the American people don’t believe it either. Must make you one of the 25% minority, Jack. Believe away! Freedom to believe is a wonderful thing, even if one believes in half truths and falsehoods.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 4:41 AM
Comment #255628

David

You do not have to believe the Bush administration to understand that if the Iranians work within international agreements they CAN have nuclear energy and nobody is stopping them from doing that. Finland is building a big reactor right now. There are no worries or complaints.

I have never advocated attacking Iran and have written on many occassions that I think it would be a bad idea.

I agree with Obama and Bush that we cannot just take the option off the table, however. So, again, you don’t have to believe Bush on this. You can just believe Obama and come up with the same result.

Posted by: Jack at June 15, 2008 7:46 AM
Comment #255642

David,

I have to agree with Jack (gulp!).

Iran wants more than the ability to create electricity, and has stated over and over again they feel Israel should be wiped off the map. There is no such thing as a “right” to create nuclear weapons, though I think there may be a moral imperative to stop them from possibly using nuclear weapons by any means.

Posted by: Max at June 15, 2008 11:47 AM
Comment #255658

Jack said: “You do not have to believe the Bush administration to understand that if the Iranians work within international agreements they CAN have nuclear energy and nobody is stopping them from doing that.”

That’s like China telling the U.S. it can have as much credit as it wants and needs provided it acknowledges Tibet and Taiwan is theirs, and Oh Yeah, the U.S. keeps its damn submarines 750 miles from any Chinese Territories. It is in the U.S.’s best interests and survival to do what the Chinese tells the U.S. to do.

That is your line of logic. If it wouldn’t work on us, Why in heaven’s name would you and Bush delude yourselves into thinking it would work on the Iranians. Reduce their perceived NEED for Nuclear Weapon defense, and you reduce their motivation to absorb consequences to acquire them, Jack. That is Obama’s reasoning.

Obviously way over McCain’s head, this man who still struggles to condemn his comrades who broke under POW pressure while having broke himself. See the NTTimes coverage of his Naval War College Final Paper compared to his book in 1999. The man has some real psychological dissonance, Jack. But, hey, intelligent people have been known to follow psychologically conflicted leaders all the way to their deaths.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 1:05 PM
Comment #255659

Max, no one denies Iran wants nuclear deterrent capacity at the very least. That is not the issue. The issue is that their want for this has been made a perceived necessity for them, by the likes of Bush and McCain and Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons.

It’s like The world saying China and Russia can keep their nuclear weapons but the U.S. can’t be trusted with them and must disarm. What would our reaction be?

Max said: “though I think there may be a moral imperative to stop them from possibly using nuclear weapons by any means.”

Which means the use of nuclear weapons by Israel and or the U.S. Do you not see the self-fulfilling prophecy in this line of reasoning. It leads to M.A.D., mutually assured destruction. We have been down this road before, Max. How do you think we ended up so tolerant of the Chinese hacking our U.S. Congress’ computers and stealing government and corporate secrets, and setting up auto manufacturing 10 miles from our border, without so much as a public “naughty, naughty China”.

Bush and those who think like McCain and Bush leave countries like Iran and China no choice but get MAD capacity, due to our intolerance for their regional affairs. JF Kennedy got a taste of what it feels like with the Cuban Missile Crisis. When the shoe is on the other foot, the U.S. acts no differently than Iran is now. Racing for MAD and the potential defensive capacity nuclear weapons can provide against those who condemn Iran’s regional affairs and threaten it as a consequence by calling them Axis of Evil with the direct implication that like all evil, they must be fought and destroyed.

Iraq was a perfect example of what we will do against those we deem Axis of Evil, with or without WMD. Iranians surely think if they are to be treated as Iraq, best to have nuclear capability to insure they don’t take their destruction lying down.

This is how horribly and terribly Bush et. al. have mangled and mishandled foreign policy. They have created the self-fulfilling prophecy that the governments of Iran, Iraq, and Korea must be destroyed, as you say, by any means necessary. There may yet be a way out of and through this self=fulfilling prophecy if Obama is elected. It will only be perpetuated if McCain is elected.

That’s the bottom line for American voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #255660

Max,

Iran has reason to be xenophobic. The current regime in Iran is a result of Western interference. Put yourself in a Persian’s shoes. Would you want a nuclear weapon given the problems created by the Shah and the US backed Sadam?

The US has a leader that clearly threatens missile strikes and invasion of Iran.

Israel continues to occupy Palestine. Forgetting for a moment that Israel was a western creation, and has been continually hostile and agressive towards it’s Muslim neighbors. Israel continues to build settlements in Palestine and destroy economic opportunity for Palestinians. Inspite of their rhetoric as defending themselves, they continue to take away land from Palestenians, using US money to finance it. Israel has nuclear weapons, but does not comply with international standards.

If one looks rationaly at the middle east, the paradigm changes.

Obama is pandering. The Greens correctly call him on it. While this attack may be unfair, it has merit. They then go one step too far and call for unilateral disarmament. This is why, Obama the panderer is likely to win, while the Greens haven’t a chance.

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 15, 2008 1:15 PM
Comment #255664

David

I am not sure what you are advocating. Iran can have nuclear power – it will get lots of help to develop it – if it complies with international agreements. It is Iran against the international community, not against the Bush administration or even the United States in general. I do not sympathize with the Iranian desire to develop nuclear weapons. Evidently we disagree.

You seem to want to make this a Bush problem and then a McCain problem and absolve the Iranians of all responsibility. It is the INTERNATIONAL community v Iran. The U.S. has not even been in the lead on this one. It was largely a European venture.

David and googlumpugus

Re nuclear proliferation, I see no value in being “fair”. Because some countries have nuclear weapons doesn’t mean we have to allow anybody who wants them to get themI am partisan on this matter. I am on the American and in this case the international community side.

Yes, I can understand why the Iranians would want a bomb. I can understand why the N. Koreans want one too. I bet Robert Mugabe would be happier with a bomb. I would like my own personal bomb. I am sure I would get a lot more respect if I was a nuclear power. If we go down this misguide “fairness” route, why not give nukes to everybody? It just goes against any reasonable idea.

We and the international community should try to stop the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. Nobody is stopping them from developing peaceful nuclear power. In fact, if they would stay in compliance to the international agreements their country signed, they would already have it.

BTW the Iranians and their sympathizers have been saying that the U.S. was about to attack Iran for almost thirty years now. Talk about crying wolf.

Posted by: Jack at June 15, 2008 1:43 PM
Comment #255681


Some people seem to have the impression that the Bush Administrations plan for military operations in Iran deal primarily with strikes against potential sites involved in the Iranian nuclear weapons program. While this is true, the plan is much more involved than that.

The plan also involves massive air strikes on Iranian military installations, the infrastructure, possible strikes on large urban and suburban areas, and massive air support for an invasion and occupation of the Iranian southern oil fields. They know that if they are going to attack Iran, they can’t pitter-patter around, they have to devastate the place to insure that there is a minimum of potential for retaliation.

Because of the Iranian’s retaliatory capabilities, we won’t see the Administration using Israel as a surrogate unless it is wanting the Iranians to retaliate against our troops in Iraq as an excuse for the invasion.

Many hawks are urging the President to use this plan and strike before he is replaced. If he did this, the Democrats might consider impeaching him in January.

Posted by: jlw at June 15, 2008 2:36 PM
Comment #255682

Jack said: “I do not sympathize with the Iranian desire to develop nuclear weapons. Evidently we disagree.”

That was a cheap shot. I don’t sympathize with Iran seeking Nuclear weapons either. But, threatening their destruction as an Axis of Evil - Bush, and refusing to talk with them about options - McCain, only intensifies their perceived need to acquire Nuclear Weapons and the sooner the better.

Why is this blind spot in your position so resistant to seeing the light?

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #255683

Jack said: “I would like my own personal bomb.”

Well, that speaks volumes. You and I have NOTHING in common on this topic. I want total and complete disarmament of all nuclear weapons BY EVERYONE. We will just have to live on opposite polar ends on this topic. You believing personal individual nuclear bombs is something to wish for, and me wanting to exercise every power and diplomacy to rid the world of nuclear weapons entirely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 3:06 PM
Comment #255686

Jack said: “Talk about crying wolf.”

I think Jeff Wyans has covered the fact that such threats have indeed NOT been crying wolf, but actual ultimatum language leveled at Iran by Bush and McCain with the addition of refusal to sit down and discuss options with the Iranians directly.

World poll says the majority believe Obama will be a safer President for the world than McCain. Appears, you GOP’ers still aren’t able to sell your case to the people of the world. As if there was any question as to why considering what comes out of Bush’s and McCain’s mouths regarding elective and preemptory use of our military power to assuage fears and what if scenarios that make such men act out of fear instead of courage.

This is one clear case where courage is defined as doing the right thing despite one’s personal fears. Bush and McCain have no courage on this issue, their every thought on the matter is cowered and distorted by their fears. Obama’s insistence upon opening discussions with the Iranians with the hope and prospect of finding an option that deters them from developing nuclear weapons voluntarily out of a sense of feeling more secure is a courageous pursuit, all the more so for how daunting the challenge after the Bush Administration’s mangling of the entire Middle East situation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #255687

jlw, hell with impeachment, haul his ass before the Hague for crimes against humanity if he UNNECESSARILY invades Iran on the fear that years from now, they may develop a nuclear weapon and inter-continental ballistic missile to launch it at Wa. D.C.

There is time for discussion, diplomacy, and negotiation to attempt to avert a military conflict with Iran. To refuse those options is a crime against humanity if such refusal results in the deaths of 100’s of thousands or millions of innocent people who never desired a military conflict in the first place.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 15, 2008 3:23 PM
Comment #255713

David

If you are against nuclear weapons, why do you want to let the Iranians get one?

The world communinity is against the Iranians for breaking the rules. They could have nuclear power, but they refuse to abide by their agreements.

You insist on blaming Bush and now McCain for the Iranians being agressive. You keep on talking about an invasion that has not taken place. You are blaming Bush for something he did not do and McCain for something he has not been in a position to to and ignoring the Obama position, which is essentially the same.

It is the international community v Iran, BTW. The U.S. has acted as part of the international community, almost exactly as you advocated.

Posted by: Jack at June 16, 2008 2:01 AM
Comment #255723

Jeff,

The Jewish / Israeli lobby in this country is so strong that no President can get elected without it. Remember that fundamentalist Christians think that the Jews are the chosen people and need to be there for the glorious apocalypse they all love and want. There are a lot legitimate Jewish / Israeli security concerns, but there is also a lot of emotional, psychological, and religious baggage attached. Obama is the lessor of evils by orders of magnitude. The Greens may bring the very thing they fear most - a militarist proto-fascist McCain machine.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 16, 2008 10:31 AM
Comment #255737

Jack asked: “If you are against nuclear weapons, why do you want to let the Iranians get one?”

Why do you assume that everyone seeking to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by other means than war, is for Iran having nuclear weapons? Your position is untenable, and illogical, Jack. And your assumption revealed by your question says it all.

People who are opposed to the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear weapons are ALSO opposed to Iran acquiring them. What you fail to comprehend, is that people opposed to nuclear weapons are also opposed to war as the mainstay for difference resolution. Such people will oppose McCain for this very reason.

Obama made clear as a bell that Iran will not be permitted to become a nuclear threat against Israel. UNLIKE McCain, Obama will seek all other viable options to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat than war. McCain knows only one way to approach the situation, the escalation of threat and intimidation toward war.

The difference could not be clearer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2008 11:57 AM
Comment #255811

David

Obama made clear as a bell that Iran will not be permitted to become a nuclear threat against Israel. UNLIKE McCain, Obama will seek all other viable options to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat than war. McCain knows only one way to approach the situation, the escalation of threat and intimidation toward war.

I hope those who are in question about the type of change Obama represents read this. It quite simply answers that concern. His administration would be one of recognition, diplomacy, and negotiation first. The direct opposite of current foreign policy methods. Our current policy is based solely on strong arm policy of a militaristic nature. As you said it serves little purpose in the perpetuation of solution. It serves primarily to perpetuate an inescapable defensive reaction from those we are opposing.

Posted by: RickIL at June 17, 2008 9:14 AM
Comment #255837

My hope too, RickIL.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 17, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #256578

It’s nice to see Obama actually talking like he has a pair. Coddling murderous, deranged dictators who yearn for the bloody, destructive return of the Mahdi should not be a top priority. Being willing to deny such a rogue regime a nuclear weapon no matter what the cost and difficulty should be.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at June 24, 2008 2:59 AM
Post a comment