Skip Navigation
97 留言

  • A long time ago somebody linked me to a whole bunch of pictures and video from the invasion, and it was...Barbarossa-type shit. The image of the grinning American trooper hoisting his flamethrower in front of someone's doomed farm, while not gory, is it's own kind of horrifying. I highly recommend the article What I saw in Fallujah. It's tough to read but necessary, from someone who was there on the ground and outside the purview of official media.

    It would seem insane to me that none of these people ever went to the Hague if I didn’t know that the US has already threatened to bomb it. As a kid I used to think international law was some solemn thing, now I see It's a comedy

    Fun fact: the Hague Invasion Act was signed in August of 2002

  • Bush should be in jail for Iraq.

    Regarding Afghanistan, we should have focused exclusively on counter-insurgency and let the Loya Jirga do its thing without US interference.

    • regarding afghanistan, you should've left it the fuck alone you imperialist

      the more your shit government meddles there, the worse it gets.

      the way to fix the cold war era meddling isnt to go in and kill a lot more people, it's to stay the fuck away.

      also give them back their fucking money.

    • Or just not launched a war of aggression at all.

    • war is just a way for businesses to shore up their falling profits. destroying another country gives victor companies chances to rebuild, which temporarily shores up profit rates because so much capital is destroyed and the creation of new capital during the windup phase actually increases the rate of profit for a little bit. there are other techniques as well. that said, the corruption was so rampant that they didn't even execute that well. either way the human costs of continuing to run capitalism as usual are staggering and wars are one of the many facets of that. all the other explanations and media outrage etc and just cover stories to make it palatable for the public, which has already believed the big lies about democracy and freedom existing under capitalism

      • Your argument would be very convenient for socialists or communists looking for an explanation that blames war on the rich. Unfortunately I do believe it is a gross oversimplification that is neither useful nor particularly true.

        While it is true that the military industrial complex has gotten out of control in many western countries since World War II, the argument that private industry is the true beneficiary and intentional instigator of war can be readily disproved. Rather, this assumption made by many on the left is born from a partial realization of the truth that war is about resources, but the argument quickly loses the plot thereafter. War is indeed about resources, both physical and psychological in nature, or put more succinctly, war is about security. Each state actor responds and reacts as necessary in order to ensure their legitimate security needs are met.

        This view was famously espoused by political scientist Kenneth Waltz when he built upon the theories of classic realists such as Machiavelli. Whereas Classic Realism suggests that war is about power, Waltz takes it one step further with Structural Realism and gives us an academic framework to understand the balance of power and the motivation behind state actors. Waltz suggests that these power shifts are the result of states reacting to perceived threats in order to ensure security. For instance, in the Structural Realist view, one could say that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an attempt to gain security in response to a perceived NATO threat. Using this theory, we could similarly suggest that the US invasion of Afghanistan was a move to obtain greater security in a region that threatened the US hegemony (though the argument starts to break down here when we distinguish between the Taliban and Al Qaeda as neo-realism does not explain the action of non-state actors).

        While it would be fair to say that in many western countries, the military industrial complex has acquired a massive amount of power and control over the government, it can hardly be said that war exists only for the benefit of war profiteers who help with nation building. The most obvious proof of this is the fact that war long pre-dates crony capitalism, nation building, and the military industrial complex as a whole. Furthermore, while lobbyists do hold an incredible amount of power, they are certainly not the rulers and final decision-makers of our country. Foreign policy is set by a number of diverse lawmakers and civil servants across the political landscape, but the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam, which was opposed by the Military Industrial Complex, as well as the US intervention in Somalia which was wholly a humanitarian mission, are proof that they do not make the final decisions.

        Our democracy certainly has many problems. Money pollutes our campaigns, and lobbyists hold far too much power. Trump's five year lobbying ban for former US officials was a good start until he repealed it. We need more measures that limit lobbyists, and limit the ability of ANY politician or political party from totally derailing our country by putting us into unnecessary wars. We need more checks and balances in our system that prevent career politicians from fucking the rest of us over. And dammit, we definitely need to elect some better people than these jokers we've been electing lately. However; war is far more complex than you suggest.

    • Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan, so maybe they didn't need to invade Afghanistan at all.

    • https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/

      • The United States is a constitutional hipocracy. Chomsky has an interesting style of writing...

  • Inevitably with the passage of time you move on to other topics and while this is happening you focus on narrower more specific effects. But this is so damn infuriating because it's exactly what EVERYBODY SAID WOULD HAPPEN. Early 2000s when these American wars of adventure started you had people saying this would be destabilising, encourage the very terror supposedly being fought against, cost the US themselves mountains of treasure, degrade their reputation and put them on a path of decline. In the lead up to Iraq many warned that this would be destabilising for the whole world as well as the nation of Iraq itself, that it would make things more dangerous globally, create power vacuums and breed generations of resentment and hatred and it clearly has. This is not to even mention on top of it all, the absolute monumental human tragedy it has wrought. This was stupid, stupid, stupid decision making.

    • Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of all this cheap oil, I mean, freedom! Bringing freedom to these rich oil, I mean freedom starved countries! - 'murica in the 2000s

      Thing is, the USA has been pulling this kind of shit for a long time. The Kingdom of Hawaii being overthrown is a very good and old example, dating back to 1893 for the coup and 1898 for the incorporation. The Philippines being denied their independence for almost 50 years after the Spanish sold them out in 1898 is another example. The USA is an unrepenting reoffender when it comes to fucking other countries.

    • Relevant Onion article

      And it was less “stumbling into iraq cause we have no clue what we’re doing” and more “If Halliburton and Raytheon make enough money off of all this they’ll donate enough to my staffers and I that we can all customize our cadillacs” (I recommend season 1 of the podcast Blowback if you wanna take a deeper dive)

97 留言