Talk:Wars provoked by Deep State

Expanding the scope

I personally believe the scope of this article should be expanded to include wars directly started by the Deep State in addition to wars provoked by the Deep State through less direct means. What do you think, Andy?--Geopolitician (talk) 20:35, March 4, 2022 (EST)

What do you have in mind specifically? Sounds fascinating.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:41, March 4, 2022 (EST)

Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was concocted as much as Hitler's pretext for the invasion of Poland. It was based on AP reports from the CIA, which Congress and the public swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

One would think the Vietnam generation has moved passed MSM reporting by now, and adopt a skepticism toward government narratives. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 20:49, March 4, 2022 (EST)

Great point about how the Vietnam War was started by the Deep State. LBJ felt he needed to pretend that the U.S. was attacked in order for LBJ to win reelection in 1964.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:04, March 4, 2022 (EST)

Here are a few of my takes:

1) The Gulf War was directly started by the Deep State, not provoked by it. It's highly debatable whether April Glaspie's comments to Saddam constituted a "green light" for him to invade, but even if they did that doesn't mean we had to go to war. As a matter of fact, we didn't have to go to war. But in the end we did go to war, because the Deep State saw Saddam's invasion as a threat to the petrodollar scheme Nixon and Kissinger set up with Saudi Arabia back in 1974. And the Deep State created multiple false narratives to dupe the American public into demanding war and thus giving the conflict some sort of "legitimacy."

2) The War on Terror was directly started by the Deep State, also on false pretenses. Not only did the Deep State intentionally allow 9/11 to happen, it also lied to the American public about which country was the primary backer of bin Laden. It was not Afghanistan; it was not Iraq; it was not even Iran. It was Saudi Arabia, a country we have and still do treat as a vital ally.

3) The Iraq War was directly started by the Deep State, also on false pretenses. Do I even need to explain this one?

4) The conflicts caused by the Arab Spring were directly started by the Deep State, since it was the CIA who propped up the relevant Islamist uprisings.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:45, March 4, 2022 (EST)

Arab Spring, yes, definitely. The Syrian and Libyan wars were started by the Deep State. As to Saudi Arbia, we've discussed this at length. You still do not understand the difference between the Saudi government Saudi oligarchs, or understand the Islamic system of governance. Did bin Laden have some support from rich Saudi citizens for overthrowing the Saudi government? Yes. Did the Saudi government take action in the form of sanctions against the dissidents to protect itself? No. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 00:09, March 5, 2022 (EST)

So, because commercial, financial, and banking transactions are reported in the West between Saudi citizens and al Qaeda, that does not mean the Saudi government sponsored it, as you naively believe. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 00:12, March 5, 2022 (EST)

Provoking vs appeasement

Andy, I'm not sure if events such as Acheson's speech at the National Press Club or April Glaspie's comments to Saddam Hussein constitute acts of provocation. They sound like much more like acts of appeasement, in stark contrast to the blatant warmongering against Russia which ultimately resulted in the invasion of Ukraine.--Geopolitician (talk) 23:15, March 4, 2022 (EST)

The term "appeasement" is misused a lot. I can also mean delaying an inevitable conflict until a more advantageous time. It should not be regarded as some eternal doctrine to be applied. It can voted out in a heartbeat. RobS^{Let's Go Brandon!} 00:17, March 5, 2022 (EST)

World War I, World War II, and Korea

I'm not sure if those wars qualify as being provoked by the Deep State, if for any reason because back in those days many of the agencies that compose the Deep State were either in their infancy or not yet created. The wars we've fought since and including Vietnam, on the other hand, is another story.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:08, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

Woodrow Wilson: "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” - At that time, we can pretty much say it existed outside government, in media and banking, etc. it was Wilson who partnered and brought it inside government, creation of the Fed, war propaganda, the debt ceiling Act, the Espionage Act, etc.

As to WWII, I don't really want to get into most of it now, but if you compare the quote of Adolf Hitler (various translations) of, "If international Jewish finance plunges the nations into another world war, it will be the end of the Jewish race in Europe", or words to that effect, and look at the career of Harry Dexter White, you come up with some interesting leads. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying Hitler believed it was true, and White worked for the Comintern in the US Treasury Department. So whatever "deep state" existed in those days was closely connected to the Comintern and KGB.

Wikileaks email c. 2005 that shows the gradual transition of the deep state apparatus from conservative Republican control to the children of commie left liberal subversives.

As to Korea, you need some background understanding on both world wars, and we don't have the time or space here right now to get into it. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:35, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

With McCarthyism, KGB influence and control of the "deep state" that existed under FDR & Truman was booted out, and an extreme reaction set in against Soviet communism, culminating in the assassination of JFK & Vietnam war (largely led by WWII & Korean war veterans' in the deep state who felt betrayed for the sacrifices they made in those two wars). RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:42, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

IOWs, when looking at the deep state, it's not so much an organized institution; rather look at the attitudes, prejudices, and experiences of that generation of the people in power, inside and outside of government at that moment in time. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 22:50, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

Continuing: "the attitudes, prejudices, and experiences of that generation..."; in WWI we could say it was what they called "the Illuminati' carried through Freemasons, etc. (on an international plane, Bolsheviks could be included); in the interwar period it's the Comintern; in the United States post-WWII it's the CIA and its numerous fronts, related agencies, and international alliances (MI6, etc,; CIA, and even NATO were created and set up basically with the encouragement of MI6 because the 'attitude, prejudices, and experiences' of the American people and its Congress historically was resistant to secret organizations. In the immediate postwar period MI6 and their American allies felt something was needed to counter the KGB, whose forerunners had an impressive track record of infiltrating and taking over the Russian Empire, destroying the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, and had expanded its tentacles in to the American government).

After a thorough purging of the American government (look at the careers of Hiss, Oppenheimer, etc) a new generation of American leaders came to power who were veterans of these wars. Contrary to the popular histories of those wars, many veterans who risked their lives and fought those wars for "freedom, democracy", etc. felt they had been betrayed and the effort was for nothing (with the rise of Communist bloc in Eastern Europe and China). Among this generation of new leaders is Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and John Kennedy, who share close wartime experiences. All served in the Navy in the South Pacific, and both Nixon and McCarthy worked in Naval Intelligence. Kennedy famously opposed secret organizations and spoke openly about it. And they killed him.

Fast forward to the post-Cold War (post-Papa Bush) Clinton era. The baby boomer spoiled brats and incompetents who grew up on sex, drugs, rock n roll and were brainwashed by KGB propaganda during the Vietnam war now took over leadership and control of the deep state. It wasn't suddenly, but it did occur over the next 20 years. America's "national security apparatus", which had been in the hands of conservative Republicans since Eisenhower, by the time of the Patriot Act and Obama was firmly in the hands of the commie left subversive Democrats, the children of the targets of COINTELPRO. It's now payback time. And this generation of deep staters aren't focused on foreign influence. They are focused on their perceived domestic enemies. More later. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 06:00, August 22, 2023 (EDT)

Brief recap of the attitudes, prejudices, and experiences of the WWII generation. The generation that fought WWII gave America four presidents - all who fought in the South Pacific against the Japanese Empire - Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, and Papa Bush. They carried the burden of combat daily for more than 3 1/2 years since the day the war began. No American veteran of Europe and Normandy (who fought the Nazis for only 9 months and were already badly battered by the Soviet Union) ever served as president. The WWII generation that grew up in poverty and hunger of the 1930s spoiled their children in the more prosperous 1950s. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 07:09, August 22, 2023 (EDT)

IOWs, there has been a complete reversal of roles in America: the children and grandchildren of commie subversives of the McCarthy era, Vietnam war protesters and draft dodgers, Democrats and assorted leftists, etc., now are in control of the Deep State, and conservative Republicans are out. The hunted have become the hunters. Like the KKK up to the New Deal era, they perceive the Republican party as the greatest national security threat to America, not any foreign influence like the Comintern, "Russia", the Peoples Republic of China, Islamic terrorism, etc. To the extent they engage in warmongering rhetoric against Russia and China, they only seek to unify the country under Democrat control. The neocons, smaller in number, are a different subject. The neocons are in alliance with these commie deep staters for similar objects; however the neocon focus remains on foreign enemies, and they can be seen as manipulating the Democrat commie deep staters (like AOC or Bernie Sanders, for example). Both factions enjoy control of the biggest boondoggle of all, the military industrial complex. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 07:31, August 22, 2023 (EDT)

Let's examine the term "deep state." The second half of the term is the word "state". In a political context, a "state" cannot be held together by anything other than solid, centralized institutions. This means that by default, defining the Deep State requires singling out a collection of institutions as forming its core. And again, many of the modern Deep State institutions didn't exist in 1917, 1941, or 1950.

With this in mind, I believe that it would make more sense to label whatever existed in 1917, 1941, and 1950 as a distinct predecessor to the Deep State, much like how the realms of pre-1648 Europe can be considered distinct predecessors to their modern, Westphalian nation-state counterparts.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:15, August 22, 2023 (EDT)

Well yes, but these institutions "partner" with outside institutions, like Twitter, Google, Microsoft, Raytheon, Blackwater, (or even Wuhan lab) etc. Then you also have the "donor class" who kickback the proceeds of government contracts to legislators, who appropriate the money to executive branch agencies that award contracts. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:23, August 22, 2023 (EDT)

Not to stray too far, but let's look at this business-government relationship going back 100 years to the creation of the Fed. Nobody wanted central banking solely in the hands of government, equally no one wanted it solely in the private sector. So a compromise was reached: while private investors owned the bank, the government appoints its board of directors. The only way to make the system work is for everybody to be on the same song sheet. Sure, government doesn't appoint the board of Raytheon or Google, but the money flows from government to business and back to legislators again tells the story. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:33, August 22, 2023 (EDT)

And if Congressman X doesn't want to take the money from government contractors/partners, thinks he's going to lead a populist crusade to reform the system, or simply dies, the government contractors and "partners" will just find somebody else to donate to. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 14:38, August 22, 2023 (EDT)

The Civil War

If we are willing to include pre-1945 conflicts on this list on the grounds that the Deep State is defined not by post-war intelligence agencies but by deeply-embedded anti-constitutionalist bureaucrats, then I think the list should go as far back as the Civil War. I've seen convincing arguments that Lincoln intentionally started the Civil War in order to justify the establishment of subsequent big government initiatives such as the draft, fiat currency, waging war without the approval of Congress, etc.--Geopolitician (talk) 13:38, September 7, 2023 (EDT)

Personally, I'd focus on the period of 1961-1963, between Ike's MIC speech and the JFK assassination. The terms "conspiracy theory" and "deep state" entered the lexicon shortly after that time. Ike's MIC speech even states that what he is talking about didn't exist 15 years earlier when he commanded at Normandy. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 13:45, September 7, 2023 (EDT)

Iranian-Israeli war

Asking for permission to edit the article to include the Iranian-Israeli war as a Deep State-provoked war. Specifically, that the war was a direct result of the Abraham Accords, which were meant to be the framework for the establishment of a Middle Eastern equivalent to NATO, with Iran being the target to surround, destabilize, and destroy. And that October 7th was Iran's response to this provocation, much like how Russia's invasion of Ukraine was its response to NATO's provocations.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:57, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

So this would be considered a proxy war? RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 01:25, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Being that it is ongoing, I would preface the entry with something like, "one view is...." in the first sentence or two. It can always be tweeked later. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 01:29, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Little Satan [sic] as tail of Big Satan [sic]

It should start with 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini. As Islamic Fascist Republic saw what they defined little Satan (sic) as a "tail" of big Satan (sic) US the BIG enemy, beginning in the WEAK days of coward Jimmy Carter.. Then there is the competition Sunni-Shiite : who dominates the Islamic world which intensified in the 10 year Iran Iraq war. Iran uses the "Palestinian " Arabs to gain dominance among Muslims, while it hates and persecutes its own Arab minority.Telling (talk) 03:56, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

I'm assuming Geo's referring to the American deep state. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 10:16, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Thanks Telling (talk) 15:25, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

If we go back to 1979, then we might have to go back to 1954. That's my worry. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 15:50, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Now, Geo wants to say, "the Abraham Accords, which were meant to be the framework for the establishment of a Middle Eastern equivalent to NATO". That's interesting in that Trump allegedly wanted to establish an ME NATO. We should at least hear what he wants to say. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 15:53, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Trump wanted a ME NATO while he was still naive about just how depraved our so-called allies actually are. But now that they have attempted to take his life not once but twice, I suspect he will be a lot more hardline in his second term. Zelensky, Netanyahu, and Lai are all scared right now. And they should be. --Geopolitician (talk) 23:12, November 3, 2024 (EST)

The debate right now seems to be between John Mearsheimer and Gilbert Doctorow. Mearsheimer says Bibi is the boss and Biden the stooge (tail wagging the dog) and Doctorow says Biden is the mastermind and Bibi is just taking orders from Washington. That's why I suggest prefacing it with "one view is..." and probably under the proxy war heading. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 15:57, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

I see, BTW, not refering to Geo. But one of the major motivation by others to object the Abraham Accords is that it dismantles the myth as if Israel is just "against (any) Arabs".Telling (talk) 16:22, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Yes, definitely. That's why we should leave open room for more than one interpretation on the current conflict. RobS^{The Truth. Just Putin It Out There} 20:42, October 28, 2024 (EDT)