Home | About | Donate

How Likely Are the GOP Presidential Candidates Top 10 to Drag Us Into War?


#1

How Likely Are the GOP Presidential Candidates Top 10 to Drag Us Into War?

Juan Cole

Fox Cable News announced its pick for the 10 Republican presidential candidates it will allow in its Thursday debate. These are candidates who are getting at least 3% support in a basket of opinion polls, including one commissioned by Fox itself. CNN will follow a similar procedure for the debate it will televise in September.


#2

Common Dreams...FTFY...
How Likely is Hilary Clinton to Drag Us Into War?


#3

OMG! Does the photo accompanying this article NOT say it all? The same white boy faces speaking for all of this nation. Just disgusting and despicable this late in humanity's "game."

When Einstein wisely related that no problem could be solved from the LEVEL of thinking that generated it, he might have added that if the same demographic ALWAYS gets to determine humanity's collective course (and I say Humanity since the U.S. political establishment plays an enormous role in the geo-political and economic direction of most of the world), nothing CAN change.

This is the issue that opens the door to the forum's unimaginative closet racists and misogynists who rush in to remind readers of the record of odious figures like Obama, Eric Holder, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Susan Rice, etc. In this way, they play down the glaring lack of diversity and argue FOR the status quo... as if the matter of such disparate power is only based on capitalism.

By focusing on the token minorities that Power allows into its halls, and ignoring the obvious fact that such individuals would not be permitted into any positions of influence were they not deferential (and that means obedient) towards the existing status quo and its Old Powers...they attempt to make race and gender nonstarters. As friggin if!

A few days ago Amy Goodman interviewed two female New York playwrights who'd just won a Tony award and one mentioned that there has always been a 20% threshold. What she meant is that women writers--and those whose works tally into the various Award Ceremonies--never top 20%. In other words, 80% of plays are done by men. This grants to the "male perspective" a dominant control over culture. And once again, just about every movie these days turns females into objects--often ones that are raped, murdered, used, or abused.

Most corporations are headed by white men.
'
The Vatican is all male and it influences over one billion Catholics.

Most banks are headed by white males.

The U.S. hasn't even passed an Equal Rights amendment!

This continued concentration of power, financial assets, political influence and military control in mostly white male hands explains why our Earth is subjected to an anti-life paradigm that's based on domination through force, financial forms of coercion, resource demolition/control/commodification, and cruel long-established hierarchies. THIS is not the model that a balanced (in terms of equal input from both genders and all ethnic and racial groups) society would generate.

That white males still insist on running things when THEY have run this planet to the cusp of extinction is criminal and repugnant.

Might as well return to the General Washington model: Let any fool who WANTS war to be right there on the front lines. That will cure their martial macho.... real fast.


#4

Another, "Oh, those evil Republicans" article, suggesting, of course, that the Democrats are less war-like. Anyone who still believes that has been in a coma for the last seven years. "... Drag Us into a war?" Don't you mean "another war?"

Let us not forget that Hillary Clinton is on record for having criticized Obama for not being more decisive in dealing with ISIS, that she was behind the war in Libya and then there's her voting record as a senator. Yup, she's a real peace candidate.

Bernie Sanders is no peace candidate, but he's the closest thing the Democrats have at this point. Hilary, though, is every bit the hawkish war monger as her Republican counterparts.


#5

Based on the framing of the article in the headline, I would add this question. At what point since President Obama entered office has the U.S. NOT been at war? This guy has been an unmitigated disaster.

Obama escalated the Afghanistan war with an additional 30,000 troops. He agitated NATO for regime change in Libya based on lies, and destroyed that secular government. He is doing the same in Syria, and in the process betraying the Kurds who were effectively attacking IS in Iraq. He is striking deals with Turkey to act as the Amercan proxy in the war to topple Assad.

Obama supported regime change and neo-Nazis and the disastrous coup in the Ukraine. He supports the worst of the Middle East dictators in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Now comes the argument that we need to support a Democrat because the Republicans are the war mongers and profiteers. Oh really?

A good argument can be made for dropping any support for these two War Parties. I'm supporting Jill Stein and the Green Party from this point forward, until the Demopublicans and Republicrats are history.


#6

I note that the author left out the Megathatcher - the biggest Neocon Republican warmonger of any of the viable candidates.

Ain't tribalism wonderful?


#7

Exactly right -- and now for the democrats . . .

Sanders is the least likely to drag us into another war but he may well do so unless he is willing to stand up to the Deep State neocons and the CIA.


#8

Good point. And for that matter, how likely is Bernie Sanders to drag the U.S. into another war?


#10

Dr. Jill Stein has no chance because of democratic apologists like Juan Cole!


#12

In this way, [the forum's unimaginative closet racists and misogynists] play down the glaring lack of diversity and argue FOR the status quo... .

There is no point in not being blunt with you... but I honestly do not seek to be rude. Nonetheless. I have to say that it's impossible to have a discourse with someone who pre-empts one's every thought by telling all and sundry what one thinks. That is the pitch within your post. And you're plain wrong. I for one don't think capitalism provides a full understanding of all our problems.

The LAST thing I would argue for is the status quo. Personally, I think politics is absolutely rotten to the core. Unfixable rotten. NOT primarily because of the people involved. They are just the proof of the principle. The paradigm of seeking power to boss others is inherently socially destructive in my humble opinion. Power corrupts - and being disparate is the chicken and egg of how that works. Everything else - again my opinion only - is incidental... including so-called capitalism. It would not matter what race or sex politicians were - the result would be the same. Of course this shower are 100% white males for reasons that, if discussed might only invite another argument. Everyone tends to hide in cultural corners and many white males are clearly in one that is full of ego-bloated cowards and bullies. No argument!

Please understand - regardless of whether or not you agree - that it is possible for a white male to view the sickness of this world in a manner that is not primarily racist and sexist. Or is it an absolute rule that every white male must blame white males - or admit to being a born liar and hypocrite? If you cannot open up your ideas a bit from those you state, then go look in the mirror and realise that YOU certainly are a racist and sexist.

On a more positive note... imagine a world in which no one sought power and no one accepted subjugation. Now explain how all the shit in our face would be possible in that world.

What do you think is going to come from your hatred against white males rants? That those creeps in the GOP will magically disappear? As far as I am concerned, by continuing to focus on politics in any form whatsover, it is actually your position that is supportive of the status quo. Personally, I'd have none of them even wipe dog shit off my shoe! Does that make sense?


#13

Unfortunately, the past 7 years have almost killed any kind of peace movement except for the most dedicated people like Code Pink. Obama's continuous low grade wars (and low level U.S. casualties) have rendered most of the populace indifferent to wars waged in their names. Now, a more aggressive president, either Hillary or one of the Republicans, is ready to step up the pace of killing. As long as there is no price to be paid by the average family, in either increased taxes or a military draft, there is little or no obstacles to new wars. The increased reliance on drones and mercenaries complete the process of masking the real costs of war, while a compliant media cooperates by blacking out any images or videos of the "foreigners" who are selected to die.

I agree that Sanders is probably the least inclined to war of any of the current major party contenders, but even he is hardly a peace candidate like Dennis Kucinich. Sanders has supported Obama's military policies fairly consistently, and has never been willing to take a stand against Israeli attacks on Palestinians. The Green Party is the only choice for those opposed to the bipartisan consensus on perpetual war.


#14

Hopefully, the electorate is beginning to learn from the succession of Trojan Horse "Hope and Change" presidents. In Bosnia / Serbia, "NAFTA Bill" Clinton laid the foundation for successive "humanitarian wars." Obama has done a heckova job continuing this surprisingly robust Democratic Tradition. I hope that Juan Cole doesn't have that much influence.

Hard core Democratic Party true believers will never vote Third Party or Green. The Greens will have to organize a completely different and new voter base from the millions of independents and disgruntled anti-war leftists and Democrats who have already said good-bye to the Big Tent Two Party Fraud.


#15

Obviously Juan Cole is demonizing the Republicans (rightfully so!) but ignoring the war crimes of the other corporate party, the Democrats. This is fine if Bernie Sanders is chosen as the next Democrat candidate for President, but who is to say that Sanders will be able to tame corporate influence in the U.S? As for the wonderful Jill Stein, 99% of Americans have never heard from her and won't thanks to a completely dominated corporate MSM. My guess most of the people who have heard of Dr. Stein are also her patients!
The key therefore is to infiltrate the Democratic Party the way Gorbachev did with the Communist party. It would be nice if we had another candidate that was even further to the Left than Bernie, but it is already a small miracle that Sanders has been allowed to come along this far. He still hasn't chosen a viable running mate and therefore has allowed himself to remain pretty vulnerable to the bag of tricks that corporate America will surely use against him when they feel he is gaining too much traction with the electorate. The next fourteen months will be incredibly interesting to watch. Let's hope that democracy wins for once... though I'm doubtful!


#16

It is politically naive to suggest you can "infiltrate the Democratic Party." It has already been just as infiltrated by neoconservative libertarian operatives as the Republican Party. They are two sides of the same Confidence Game. Probably at least since November 22, 1963. If not before then.

Fascist billionaires like the Koch Brothers are funding the Republican Party and Tea Party Christian Dominionists. An alleged "progressive" Democrat Obama idolizes Ronald Reagan. He never hid this fact. The Bipartisan Illusion is Permanently Wired. Neither Bernie Sanders nor any subgroup of Democratic Party loyalists are going to break through that Deep State Firewall.


#18

Bernie would not drag us into war and all others would.

What is so confusing about that?


#19

I have supported Dr. Jill Stein in the past but I wish that more grass roots people would support her and break the two party duopoly some day. What was done to Jill in the last election was the most deceitful and rotten treatment of a legitimate candidate that I have seen!


#21

Why don't Alternet, Truthdig, Truthout, CD run articles on Stein and the Greens? They are nowhere to be seen, and yes, wouldn't expect them to appear on MSM. There's been a lot of recent material on how Sanders has to get a foreign policy statement somewhere into his talking points: militarism, perpetual war, Defense budgets--all would be good links to his populist and socialist domestic message. In that regard, how about Sanders jumps out front and selects Stein for VP candidate--maybe someone w an established foreign policy position.


#22

Right. Dems are not as mouthy about their militarism as R's are, but they do a pretty good job of war-making, either by leading it (Kennedy, Johnson) or voting for it.


#23

The only difference between the clowns in the Republican clown car and the Democratic Queen of Darkness is that the clowns all want to bomb then shit out of Iran, including nuking it. She on the other hand has her sights set on Russia as part of the handling of Ukrainian debacle (instigated by her neo-conartist boys and girls) under the aegis of NATO, a wholly owned subsidiary of the US war machine.

OK folks, which would you have? One of the clowns or the Queen? Well, there are the alternatives of Sanders, or Dr Jill Stein, or the other candidates out there vying for the office of the US Presidency.


#24

For Christ's sake Ms. SR, get off your misanthropic hobby-horse.

You have a black hearted lady Queen of Darkness on the Democratic side or the most rational and decent lady Dr. Jill Stein of the Greens (as most clueless USAins would say, Who?) on another side to chose from. Go for it. Take your pick. Mine has always been Dr. Stein, but if Barnie Boy takes the primary, I'll go for him for practical rather than philanthropic reasons.