2 ms·

> It's a propaganda strategy to prime the American public to support inevitable offensives against China. You are giving the US government way too much credit

> It's a propaganda strategy to prime the American public to support inevitable offensives against China. You are giving the US government way too much credit about playing the long-game at an expert level while hiding its motives and being united of purpose. I've seen how the US motivates itself to war (e.g. the invasion of Iraq) and it is clumsy, obvious and with lots of infighting.

verall 3y ago
I think this looks clumsy, obvious, and doesn't seem to be well coordinated with other government agencies
feoren 3y ago
> I've seen how the US motivates itself to war (e.g. the invasion of Iraq) and it is clumsy, obvious and with lots of infighting. It somehow still works though.
adventured 3y ago
That's clearly a false claim. The US had a long history of combatting the USSR successfully to give one example, spanning the entire post WW2 Cold War era. That included preparing the US population and military for a possible war with the Soviets (which also successfully included building far superior military hardware vs what the Soviets were producing). It wasn't clumsy for the most part, it was exceptional. That included battling them economically, industrially, with espionage, with long-term allies, in locations outside of Europe, and so on. It was a united political front overwhelmingly. Yes, there were exceptions, and they don't refute the overall. Iraq was trivial compared to half a century of standing off with the Soviet Empire. The USSR is long gone. Russia is a joke. The US superpower remains. The US won in part thanks to the US political machine playing the long game, and very often doing it in a united fashion. There is very wide political unity when it comes to certain enemies, one of those now is the CCP. Major threats to the US superpower positioning almost always draw out unity among the political class, over whatever term is required.
- bhouston 3y ago
  I give you that the US government efforts to contain Soviet Russia was much different than the Iraq war - eg. unified populace for the most part, long-term, strategic but also relatively open and explicit. I would also argue it wasn't a war, so it is a different thing all together. I guess I was referring to the specific idea that this was a plan to establish a cause belli.
hotnfresh 3y ago
Yeah, they were telling obvious lies about Afghanistan, and that was a war that would have had plenty of support anyway. They’re not exactly subtle about this kind of thing—though it works regardless, so I guess they don’t need to be.

verall 3y ago

I think this looks clumsy, obvious, and doesn't seem to be well coordinated with other government agencies

feoren 3y ago

> I've seen how the US motivates itself to war (e.g. the invasion of Iraq) and it is clumsy, obvious and with lots of infighting. It somehow still works though.

adventured 3y ago

That's clearly a false claim. The US had a long history of combatting the USSR successfully to give one example, spanning the entire post WW2 Cold War era. That included preparing the US population and military for a possible war with the Soviets (which also successfully included building far superior military hardware vs what the Soviets were producing). It wasn't clumsy for the most part, it was exceptional. That included battling them economically, industrially, with espionage, with long-term allies, in locations outside of Europe, and so on. It was a united political front overwhelmingly. Yes, there were exceptions, and they don't refute the overall. Iraq was trivial compared to half a century of standing off with the Soviet Empire. The USSR is long gone. Russia is a joke. The US superpower remains. The US won in part thanks to the US political machine playing the long game, and very often doing it in a united fashion. There is very wide political unity when it comes to certain enemies, one of those now is the CCP. Major threats to the US superpower positioning almost always draw out unity among the political class, over whatever term is required.

bhouston 3y ago
I give you that the US government efforts to contain Soviet Russia was much different than the Iraq war - eg. unified populace for the most part, long-term, strategic but also relatively open and explicit. I would also argue it wasn't a war, so it is a different thing all together. I guess I was referring to the specific idea that this was a plan to establish a cause belli.

hotnfresh 3y ago

Yeah, they were telling obvious lies about Afghanistan, and that was a war that would have had plenty of support anyway. They’re not exactly subtle about this kind of thing—though it works regardless, so I guess they don’t need to be.