> Had Iran launched a comparable preemptive strike on Washington—killing the president, his officials and family members during active negotiations, while simultaneously killing over 100 American children—the Times and the entire political establishment would have responded with a fury that would have made the reaction to September 11 appear measured. The demand for accountability would have admitted no qualification.
I seethe as much as the next guy whenever Bret Stephens writes for the NYT, but people need to get a grip. It's an editorial with 3 pundits. To extrapolate this to implied Democrat policy is total nonsense.
This is a socialist take on the pro-Iran-war sentiment expressed by the Times and by implication, the leadership of the Democratic Party. What is chilling -- and this is discussed in the piece -- is the de facto pass that the editorial gives Trump for war crimes and proposed war crimes. It’s not new on the part of the Times, but the article does help clarify what the establishment is thinking about Iran.
The New York Times has always been fundamentally pro war. In the early 2000's they employed Judith Miller as she laundered the W administration's WMD lies through their paper.
It's crazy to pretend that the democratic party is the same as it was in the 60s and to use a NYT article to prove that rather than actually looking at what democrat administrations did in Iran compared to republicans in the last 20 years. Democrats (Obama) signed a treaty with Iran to prevent development of nukes and did not start a war (against the wishes of Israel by the way). Republicans (Trump) ripped up that agreement and invaded with no plan while threating war crimes. Even during Bidden's admin Iran attacked Israel and Bidden did not invade Iran. Yet here we are once again blaming democrats for the war. Maybe if socialists voted we wouldn't be here but they don't so here we are.
Trump: I'm gonna start a war with no end goal and no planning after ripping up the one agreement that made sure Iran would not develop nukes
NYT: this has been disastrous. Maybe Trump should realize that this is bad and has achieved nothing and instead of blasting on ahead and committing war crimes (and pissing the entire international community off) he should get with congress and our allies about having actual goals (like a denuclearization agreement (maybe dare I say like the one that was already negotiated by democrats more than a decade ago))
Yes, well done articulating the NYT's point: that this war isn't wrong, it's just badly done, and Democrats should step up and co-own it to give yet another war the bipartisan stamp of approval for the next ~20 years.
Unfortunately for both you and the NYT, the war is morally wrong, and it would still be wrong if we were doing it "by the book."
You should understand the sovereignty agreements at the end of the cold war if you want to understand the present situation. There were clear treaties in place which the US consistently violated. Doesn't make violence right of course, but becoming educated helps one to overcome the infantilization of the 'other' which does nothing to help one understand the world.
So democrats think this war is bad because it is aimless, not because it is a war? Well, in my (controversial) opinion, war is bad, even if it does have a well defined goal. So yes, democrats bad. We should be chanting 'no wars', not 'no bad wars'
Yes wanting congress and the international community to come together and form a denuclearization peace agreement with Iran = war. Democrats are war mongers because they negotiated an international peace agreement with Iran instead of invading them a decade ago. lol
Everyone is ignoring the Houthis who sit ready to duplicate their earlier closure of the Red Sea. This would stop all oil shipments from Saudi Arabia. Iran has replenished the Houthi stockpile of missiles. They have already struck at Israel. The insurance companies will close the Red Sea again if the Houthis threaten.
I consider myself a progressive and I’d like to see more socialist policies take place in the US. However I cannot stand the leftists/socialists online who would rather fight against NYT and Democrats than Republicans and Trump.
Like it’s one thing if NYT is pro war in Iran but it’s not. And even if it had bias, it’s nothing compared to Fox News.
If these same leftists/socialists put any same effort into getting ranked choice voting implemented in more US elections they might actually get things done. But playing purity politics and criticizing the better of the 2 parties is just unproductive.
shunny14 | 18 hours ago
> Had Iran launched a comparable preemptive strike on Washington—killing the president, his officials and family members during active negotiations, while simultaneously killing over 100 American children—the Times and the entire political establishment would have responded with a fury that would have made the reaction to September 11 appear measured. The demand for accountability would have admitted no qualification.
Big_Snail76 | 14 hours ago
Idk man I could live with it
Edit: with the first party anyway
mephibosheth90 | 20 hours ago
The war itself is the goal.
seejordan3 | 18 hours ago
We aren't talking about Epstein, so it's working.
Stanford_experiencer | 14 hours ago
you literally are
Anxious_Katz | 16 hours ago
For Israel, sure. They're at war with everybody but what about the US. Why did they enter the conflict?
mephibosheth90 | 14 hours ago
Same reason Israel goes to war
Standupaddict | 6 hours ago
I seethe as much as the next guy whenever Bret Stephens writes for the NYT, but people need to get a grip. It's an editorial with 3 pundits. To extrapolate this to implied Democrat policy is total nonsense.
[OP] DryDeer775 | a day ago
This is a socialist take on the pro-Iran-war sentiment expressed by the Times and by implication, the leadership of the Democratic Party. What is chilling -- and this is discussed in the piece -- is the de facto pass that the editorial gives Trump for war crimes and proposed war crimes. It’s not new on the part of the Times, but the article does help clarify what the establishment is thinking about Iran.
theclansman22 | 14 hours ago
The New York Times has always been fundamentally pro war. In the early 2000's they employed Judith Miller as she laundered the W administration's WMD lies through their paper.
ShaeButterBuckets | 44 minutes ago
Tom Friedman, too
MrNathanman | 20 hours ago
It's crazy to pretend that the democratic party is the same as it was in the 60s and to use a NYT article to prove that rather than actually looking at what democrat administrations did in Iran compared to republicans in the last 20 years. Democrats (Obama) signed a treaty with Iran to prevent development of nukes and did not start a war (against the wishes of Israel by the way). Republicans (Trump) ripped up that agreement and invaded with no plan while threating war crimes. Even during Bidden's admin Iran attacked Israel and Bidden did not invade Iran. Yet here we are once again blaming democrats for the war. Maybe if socialists voted we wouldn't be here but they don't so here we are.
horseradishstalker | 9 hours ago
“ the Times outlines what it considers essential for the success of next phase of the war:
congressional authorization to provide domestic legitimacy (as required by law.)
allied support to reconstruct the appearance of international consensus;
strategic planning for the Strait of Hormuz;
and coherent objectives for ending Iran’s nuclear program.”
MrNathanman | 21 hours ago
Trump: I'm gonna start a war with no end goal and no planning after ripping up the one agreement that made sure Iran would not develop nukes
NYT: this has been disastrous. Maybe Trump should realize that this is bad and has achieved nothing and instead of blasting on ahead and committing war crimes (and pissing the entire international community off) he should get with congress and our allies about having actual goals (like a denuclearization agreement (maybe dare I say like the one that was already negotiated by democrats more than a decade ago))
Socialists: this is why democrats are bad
ITAVTRCC | 18 hours ago
Yes, well done articulating the NYT's point: that this war isn't wrong, it's just badly done, and Democrats should step up and co-own it to give yet another war the bipartisan stamp of approval for the next ~20 years.
Unfortunately for both you and the NYT, the war is morally wrong, and it would still be wrong if we were doing it "by the book."
Hothera | 10 hours ago
WSWS parrots Russia talking points like how Russia invading Ukraine is caused by "NATO expansionism".
LeninsState | 5 hours ago
You should understand the sovereignty agreements at the end of the cold war if you want to understand the present situation. There were clear treaties in place which the US consistently violated. Doesn't make violence right of course, but becoming educated helps one to overcome the infantilization of the 'other' which does nothing to help one understand the world.
thejohns781 | 16 hours ago
So democrats think this war is bad because it is aimless, not because it is a war? Well, in my (controversial) opinion, war is bad, even if it does have a well defined goal. So yes, democrats bad. We should be chanting 'no wars', not 'no bad wars'
MrNathanman | 15 hours ago
Interesting takes:
NYT = Democrats?
Yes wanting congress and the international community to come together and form a denuclearization peace agreement with Iran = war. Democrats are war mongers because they negotiated an international peace agreement with Iran instead of invading them a decade ago. lol
Other-Mess6887 | 14 hours ago
Everyone is ignoring the Houthis who sit ready to duplicate their earlier closure of the Red Sea. This would stop all oil shipments from Saudi Arabia. Iran has replenished the Houthi stockpile of missiles. They have already struck at Israel. The insurance companies will close the Red Sea again if the Houthis threaten.
AwesomeAsian | 3 hours ago
I consider myself a progressive and I’d like to see more socialist policies take place in the US. However I cannot stand the leftists/socialists online who would rather fight against NYT and Democrats than Republicans and Trump.
Like it’s one thing if NYT is pro war in Iran but it’s not. And even if it had bias, it’s nothing compared to Fox News.
If these same leftists/socialists put any same effort into getting ranked choice voting implemented in more US elections they might actually get things done. But playing purity politics and criticizing the better of the 2 parties is just unproductive.