7 ms·

"War on Terror" is newspeak, it's well known that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 nor had they WMD as claimed to invade them.

jariel 6y ago
Terrorism is a legit issue, and the 'war on terror' is very real, ergo, it's not remotely 'new speak', rather, it's ill-placed propagandastic term that can possibly be used out of context.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The War on Terror is newspeak because we invade states for fabricated reasons in order to wage it. It's not a War on Terror, it's a war of extermination of actors that refused to fold to US interests.
  - jariel 6y ago
    It's false and extremist to suggest that US response to 9/11 and ISIS etc. however misplaced in some areas, is a 'war of extermination'. The 'War on Terror' is real, and ongoing today, and involves almost every state in the world.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The US War against Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, the economic war against Iran and the shooting war against Yemen are not a misplaced response against terrorism. It is the US State Department deciding that actors opposed to US interests must be exterminated with unbelievable violence no matter the cost. It has nothing to do with terrorism, it is purely for military domination and imperialism.
      - forgot_account 6y ago
        >>>It has nothing to do with terrorism, it is purely for military domination and imperialism Nitpick: military domination is not an end-goal in and of itself. Arguably, it is (rightly or wrongly) the US government's primary methodology for enforcing continuance of the Petrodollar system and US global economic domination. Most of the military actions revolve around ensuring the security of Saudi Arabia, the key player in OPEC. I've tried to find scholarly articles on what the US economy might look like without the Petrodollar. Maybe my Google Scholar-fu is weak, but there's not a lot of useful, detailed projections beyond "not good".
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        I agree, the middle-goal is military domination and the end goal is imperialism.
        jariel 6y ago
        The notion of US 'Imperialism' in any classical sense is so obviously false, it's hard to consider it needs a response. The US occupied vast swaths of the world after WW2, and instead of permanent occupation and extraction of wealth and resources, the US set up, where it could some of the most successful civilizations in history. Contrast that with almost every other Imperial power in history, and even current regimes such as USSR/Russia, China etc.. In fact, the only successful Asian states i.e. Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Hong Kong - were established and reformed by Anglo-American powers. More obviously, the US keeps House of Saud in power, liberated Kuwait and Iraq - and could have easily used this opportunity for massive wealth extraction. If the US were an 'Imperial Power' the entire surpluses of the Oil wealth of the entire Middle East would be in the pockets of the US - long ago. The US didn't make a dime in Iraq, as most Oil contracts went to other nations (i.e. Total) and most of the Oil goes elsewhere, including to China. But far from that, US foreign policy is mostly dedicated to stability (which benefits the US economy), hopefully through Western Liberal institutions and possibly even democracy but that of course is more of an aspiration than otherwise. And of course, we're not even getting into issues such as 'freedom of navigation' of international waters, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal (and soon S. China sea) by all participants, including Russia, China, Iran - which is guaranteed by the US Navy - and were US power to not exist, there would be no such thing as 'open seas'. And not counting the 'Big Peace' in the ME between Egypt and Israel which is kept intact by major geopolitical contributions including by far the largest cash outflows of direct foreign aid by any nation to any other nation in the world, which is of course by the US to Egypt and Israel respectively. And though it's hard to tell for sure, more likely than not: Taiwan. And on and on. That the US makes poor choices is obvious, but it's equally obvious they are not an Imperial power.
  - zadkey 6y ago
    Reminds me of fabricated claims in Europa Universalis 4 or Hearts of Iron 4.
- Yc4win 6y ago
  It's such a fake non-issue. It's just to get America involved in the ME on behalf of another country's interests.
thrwway34 6y ago
You conveniently forgot about 5000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs that US troops found in Iraq.
- manicdee 6y ago
  Oh you mean the caches of weapons sold to Iraq by the US that had been buried for decades? As opposed to the rationale for the invasion which was Iraq building stockpiles of WMD from their own factories? Or are you talking about a different cache of chemical weapons?
- GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  Or about how the CIA consistently funneled bad intelligence to the state dept. who knew it was bad and still lied about it? https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war...

jariel 6y ago

Terrorism is a legit issue, and the 'war on terror' is very real, ergo, it's not remotely 'new speak', rather, it's ill-placed propagandastic term that can possibly be used out of context.

sudosysgen 6y ago
The War on Terror is newspeak because we invade states for fabricated reasons in order to wage it. It's not a War on Terror, it's a war of extermination of actors that refused to fold to US interests.
- jariel 6y ago
  It's false and extremist to suggest that US response to 9/11 and ISIS etc. however misplaced in some areas, is a 'war of extermination'. The 'War on Terror' is real, and ongoing today, and involves almost every state in the world.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The US War against Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, the economic war against Iran and the shooting war against Yemen are not a misplaced response against terrorism. It is the US State Department deciding that actors opposed to US interests must be exterminated with unbelievable violence no matter the cost. It has nothing to do with terrorism, it is purely for military domination and imperialism.
    - forgot_account 6y ago
      >>>It has nothing to do with terrorism, it is purely for military domination and imperialism Nitpick: military domination is not an end-goal in and of itself. Arguably, it is (rightly or wrongly) the US government's primary methodology for enforcing continuance of the Petrodollar system and US global economic domination. Most of the military actions revolve around ensuring the security of Saudi Arabia, the key player in OPEC. I've tried to find scholarly articles on what the US economy might look like without the Petrodollar. Maybe my Google Scholar-fu is weak, but there's not a lot of useful, detailed projections beyond "not good".
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        I agree, the middle-goal is military domination and the end goal is imperialism.
        jariel 6y ago
        The notion of US 'Imperialism' in any classical sense is so obviously false, it's hard to consider it needs a response. The US occupied vast swaths of the world after WW2, and instead of permanent occupation and extraction of wealth and resources, the US set up, where it could some of the most successful civilizations in history. Contrast that with almost every other Imperial power in history, and even current regimes such as USSR/Russia, China etc.. In fact, the only successful Asian states i.e. Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Hong Kong - were established and reformed by Anglo-American powers. More obviously, the US keeps House of Saud in power, liberated Kuwait and Iraq - and could have easily used this opportunity for massive wealth extraction. If the US were an 'Imperial Power' the entire surpluses of the Oil wealth of the entire Middle East would be in the pockets of the US - long ago. The US didn't make a dime in Iraq, as most Oil contracts went to other nations (i.e. Total) and most of the Oil goes elsewhere, including to China. But far from that, US foreign policy is mostly dedicated to stability (which benefits the US economy), hopefully through Western Liberal institutions and possibly even democracy but that of course is more of an aspiration than otherwise. And of course, we're not even getting into issues such as 'freedom of navigation' of international waters, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal (and soon S. China sea) by all participants, including Russia, China, Iran - which is guaranteed by the US Navy - and were US power to not exist, there would be no such thing as 'open seas'. And not counting the 'Big Peace' in the ME between Egypt and Israel which is kept intact by major geopolitical contributions including by far the largest cash outflows of direct foreign aid by any nation to any other nation in the world, which is of course by the US to Egypt and Israel respectively. And though it's hard to tell for sure, more likely than not: Taiwan. And on and on. That the US makes poor choices is obvious, but it's equally obvious they are not an Imperial power.
- zadkey 6y ago
  Reminds me of fabricated claims in Europa Universalis 4 or Hearts of Iron 4.
Yc4win 6y ago
It's such a fake non-issue. It's just to get America involved in the ME on behalf of another country's interests.

thrwway34 6y ago

You conveniently forgot about 5000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs that US troops found in Iraq.

manicdee 6y ago
Oh you mean the caches of weapons sold to Iraq by the US that had been buried for decades? As opposed to the rationale for the invasion which was Iraq building stockpiles of WMD from their own factories? Or are you talking about a different cache of chemical weapons?
GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
Or about how the CIA consistently funneled bad intelligence to the state dept. who knew it was bad and still lied about it? https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war...