4 ms·

Straight from Wikipedia: "In his book, Body of Secrets, James Bamford, who spent three years in the United States Navy as an intelligence analyst, writes, that

by codr7 7y ago

Straight from Wikipedia: "In his book, Body of Secrets, James Bamford, who spent three years in the United States Navy as an intelligence analyst, writes, that the primary purpose of the Maddox "was to act as a seagoing provocateur—to poke its sharp gray bow and the American flag as close to the belly of North Vietnam as possible, in effect shoving its five-inch cannons up the nose of the communist navy. ... The Maddox' mission was made even more provocative by being timed to coincide with commando raids, creating the impression that the Maddox was directing those missions ..." Thus, the North Vietnamese had every reason to believe that Maddox was involved in these actions." The US was already neck deep in Vietnam, what they needed was an excuse for going all in. So they started poking the bear, which is exactly what they're doing right now with Russia, Iran, China and probably more. Wars are not started by coincidence, they are very well planned and always come with a hidden agenda.

lsd5you 7y ago
It feels like something the (non-corrupt) left and right should be able to agree on. Plenty of people on the right seem disappointed that Trump seems to have lost his pre-government isolationist tendancies. I suppose the only hope is this time around it's a 'trumpian' ploy. i.e. War or give us what we want, with the emphasis on getting some deal. Not that that is ok. The impression very much is that the deal may be in fact that he may get is give the 'deep state' a war and then he gets some media support and a chance at a second term.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  "War or give us what we want," I always wonder what he really wants from them (Total surrender is probably not going to happen and he rejects the nuclear treaty so what's the endgame?). I also don't understand how nice he is to North Korea in comparison to Iran. North Korea's government is probably the most brutal government on the planet right now and makes Iran almost look nice.
  - wahern 7y ago
    > I also don't understand how nice he is to North Korea in comparison to Iran. North Korea's government is probably the most brutal government on the planet right now and makes Iran almost look nice. Because North Korea says nice things about him in public. He literally made it clear that all he wants with Iran is that he make a deal. He wants the photo ops, he wants the opportunity to look good. A not insignificant number of Trump's base already believe he "solved" the North Korea issue, and that's what he wants with Iran. Personally I seriously doubt that Trump will initiate a full-on war with Iran. I said it in 2016 after the election and I'll say it now: Trump has a preternatural instinct for survival and spinning narratives, and wars are invariably lose-lose for everybody involved. He's not stupid enough to believe Iran could possibly turn out any better than Iraq. He may drop a few bombs to punish the IRGC for making him look bad, but then he'll find an opportune time to claim victory and move on or otherwise shift attention. Iran's regime is safe just like North Korea's is safe.
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      I agree. I am a little worried that if something like 9/11 happened again he may do something impulsive that may spiral out of control.
      - wahern 7y ago
        That's what I mean by preternatural instinct. Yes, he's impulsive and a textbook narcissistic archetype. But that's not all he is. He's Donald Trump for a reason--someone who is successful almost despite himself. For decades everybody around him loses but he always worms his way out before the house of cards falls. However, avoiding the consequences is nearly impossible to do if he attempts to invade Iran, even if he had objectively good reason to. At the very worst we may end up fighting a proxy war through Israel and Saudi Arabia and wrecking even more havoc in the ME, but there won't be another Iraq. In that sense he's reliable and predictable. Russia knows this. China knows this. Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Israel, however... they may be cocky enough to try to manipulate Trump into doing things he simply won't do and is perhaps incapable of doing, and things will go sideways for them. For the U.S. our cost will be in treasure and reputation, which will be par for the course.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
acqq 7y ago
Yes. Moreover, Bamford also wrote a book about the start of one more recent war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pretext_for_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pretext_for_War Written already in 2004. Later it became even more obvious that the Bus administration openly lied to justify the war with Iraq. E.g. recently: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/a...
jdc 7y ago
And war allows Congress to spend unlimited[1] funds, which, it seems to me, is a terrible moral hazard. I don't know what the answer is, but surely there's a way to stop war from crowding out more responsibly budgeted needs. 1. By policy. Obviously the money can still run out.
- mikeash 7y ago
  The answer is for the electorate to be sufficiently educated and free-thinking that they vote out people who deliberately get into stupid wars. Which is probably to say that we’re screwed.

by codr7 7y ago

lsd5you 7y ago

It feels like something the (non-corrupt) left and right should be able to agree on. Plenty of people on the right seem disappointed that Trump seems to have lost his pre-government isolationist tendancies. I suppose the only hope is this time around it's a 'trumpian' ploy. i.e. War or give us what we want, with the emphasis on getting some deal. Not that that is ok. The impression very much is that the deal may be in fact that he may get is give the 'deep state' a war and then he gets some media support and a chance at a second term.

maxxxxx 7y ago
"War or give us what we want," I always wonder what he really wants from them (Total surrender is probably not going to happen and he rejects the nuclear treaty so what's the endgame?). I also don't understand how nice he is to North Korea in comparison to Iran. North Korea's government is probably the most brutal government on the planet right now and makes Iran almost look nice.
- wahern 7y ago
  > I also don't understand how nice he is to North Korea in comparison to Iran. North Korea's government is probably the most brutal government on the planet right now and makes Iran almost look nice. Because North Korea says nice things about him in public. He literally made it clear that all he wants with Iran is that he make a deal. He wants the photo ops, he wants the opportunity to look good. A not insignificant number of Trump's base already believe he "solved" the North Korea issue, and that's what he wants with Iran. Personally I seriously doubt that Trump will initiate a full-on war with Iran. I said it in 2016 after the election and I'll say it now: Trump has a preternatural instinct for survival and spinning narratives, and wars are invariably lose-lose for everybody involved. He's not stupid enough to believe Iran could possibly turn out any better than Iraq. He may drop a few bombs to punish the IRGC for making him look bad, but then he'll find an opportune time to claim victory and move on or otherwise shift attention. Iran's regime is safe just like North Korea's is safe.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    I agree. I am a little worried that if something like 9/11 happened again he may do something impulsive that may spiral out of control.
    - wahern 7y ago
      That's what I mean by preternatural instinct. Yes, he's impulsive and a textbook narcissistic archetype. But that's not all he is. He's Donald Trump for a reason--someone who is successful almost despite himself. For decades everybody around him loses but he always worms his way out before the house of cards falls. However, avoiding the consequences is nearly impossible to do if he attempts to invade Iran, even if he had objectively good reason to. At the very worst we may end up fighting a proxy war through Israel and Saudi Arabia and wrecking even more havoc in the ME, but there won't be another Iraq. In that sense he's reliable and predictable. Russia knows this. China knows this. Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Israel, however... they may be cocky enough to try to manipulate Trump into doing things he simply won't do and is perhaps incapable of doing, and things will go sideways for them. For the U.S. our cost will be in treasure and reputation, which will be par for the course.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

acqq 7y ago

Yes. Moreover, Bamford also wrote a book about the start of one more recent war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pretext_for_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pretext_for_War Written already in 2004. Later it became even more obvious that the Bus administration openly lied to justify the war with Iraq. E.g. recently: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/ari-fleischer-iraq-lies-george-w-bush-wmds https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/a...

jdc 7y ago

And war allows Congress to spend unlimited[1] funds, which, it seems to me, is a terrible moral hazard. I don't know what the answer is, but surely there's a way to stop war from crowding out more responsibly budgeted needs. 1. By policy. Obviously the money can still run out.

mikeash 7y ago
The answer is for the electorate to be sufficiently educated and free-thinking that they vote out people who deliberately get into stupid wars. Which is probably to say that we’re screwed.