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)