- Leadership knew that the taliban was not responsible for 9/11 but entered the country anyway. Unlike Iraq, there is no oil in Afghanistan. There was no strategic value in conquering this country other than intimidating other countries not to fuck with the states.
- USA spends 39% of global spending on military but has only 4% of the population.
- Vietnam is the most bombed country in the world.
- The US has caused so much suffering, instated dictators like Pinochet, fueled proxy wars in Latin America and in the middle-east, they even funded the taliban in the 80s.
- American foreign policy is insane and USA is a terrorist state.
change my mind internet.
edit: spelling
This just reduces the usefulness of the word ‘terrorist’, which, principally implies statelessness.
Statebased terrorist actions is an oxymoronic term. If a “terrorist” organization has state backing, by definition, its no longer a terrorist org. Authoritarian, fascist, militaristic, genocidal, racist, and on and on, sure. But keep definitions meaningful.
OP specifically says “terrorist state”
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. I think that USA fits the bill. Let’s not discuss semantics. As OP, I want to focus this post on how if you can change my mind on US Foreign policy which to me is pretty fucked up.
Every state is a terrorist state, then. There isn’t a single one that doesn’t use state-funded officials to keep either the locals or foreigners under some kind of control due to threat of or actual conflict of some kind.
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims
By that definition, every state that has ever waged a war is a terrorist state.
Let’s not discuss semantics.
Your post is based on classifying X into group Y, that sort of claim has to presuppose some semantics of Y by definition.
If I walk by a restaurant and I see a waiter delivering a plate of sushi to a customer, and I like what I see, but I don’t believe in the “idea” of private property, so I just go ahead and eat the sushi, am I the victim of terrorism when the police show up and handcuff me and take me to jail?
The act of handcuffing and abduction is not non-violent - I would not willingly walk to the jail and the police have to use physical force to restrain my arms and legs and carry me off. The arrest serves no practical purpose as it cannot restore the sushi I have already eaten - it is purely ideological. Practically, even if I don’t believe in private property, the fear of jail alone keeps me from doing what I want - eating the sushi. This is terrorism!
If you didn’t want to argue about semantics you shouldn’t have used inflammatory semantics! There is still time to recant and use less questionable words instead, while getting your main point across.
Slight correction: Vietnam is not the most bombed country - Cambodia is. Same war, same reason, but on the other side of the border. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal.
I would not argue in favor of the crimes that the US has committed and I wish the leadership was held accountable for its crimes. However, I will definitely prefer a US hegemony, if there is a better alternative on the offering right now I will be the first to support it.
I don’t think I’ll be able to change your mind (I personally don’t think you’re necessarily wrong—it is subjective after all) but some things can be explained a little bit.
Leadership knew that the taliban was not responsible for 9/11 but entered the country anyway. Unlike Iraq, there is no oil in Afghanistan. There was no strategic value in conquering this country other than intimidating other countries not to fuck with the states.
I don’t have anything here, really.
USA spends 39% of global spending on military but has only 4% of the population.
This is far more easily explained. The US has so many military commitments. NATO, Rio treaty, Australia/New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, Korea…and that’s definitely not a complete list. The US is also sort of the only reliable military that can be anywhere rather quickly. The US has historically provided a lot of humanitarian via the use of its military logistics. Kosovo, Fukushima, and Haiti come to immediate mind, but I know there’s a lot more.
Vietnam is the most bombed country in the world.
Probably. But it is important to understand the context of the world at the time. The Cold War was a weird and potentially dangerous time. It’s easy to look back on this now with “we shouldn’t have been there” but it’s also very certainly possible if the US wasn’t involved there, countries further S/SE of Vietnam could have also “succumbed to Communism/Socialism” or just been plain invaded.
The US has caused so much suffering, instated dictators like Pinochet, fueled proxy wars in Latin America and in the middle-east, they even funded the taliban in the 80s.
Yes, definitely a lot of bad choices. But some were often believed to be the least bad option at the time.
It’s also important to remember that Communist/Socialist leaders were also responsible for a large number of atrocities. Khmer Rouge killing fields comes to mind. I’d probably guess that Socialist/Communist leaders were more ruthless & responsible for more deaths than US-backed ones on a “per-instance case”, but I’m not a historian and am fully willing to be convinced otherwise with evidence.
American foreign policy is insane and USA is a terrorist state.
I’m curious what aspects of foreign policy you find insane. Some instances make a lot of sense to me (Ukraine, for example). Others, such as Israel, sort of make sense from a “cold-blooded” point of view (needing an ally in the region) even though I don’t agree with it with all on a personal level.
I guess my point of view sort of boils down to: If there’s a power vacuum, a single group or nation will attempt to take that power vacuum. And the US certainly isn’t ideal, but very well could be the “least bad option”. This may certainly be me having this opinion because I grew up in the US, but I personally wouldn’t want China or Russia, for example, holding the same position the US currently does.
THIS EXACTLY. YOU WILL BE DESTROYED!!
i like your thinking. especially the part about needing an ally like Isreal in the middle east.
I think that the idea of “least bad option” and power vacums is messed up. I am a pacifist. Maybe this is the world we live in. Step on people or get stepped on. I just think the charade of US being some benevolent savior is such bullshit and it would be nice to shed some light on all the suffering an injustice caused by waging all these foreign wars.
I think the least bad option would be diplomacy.
I think the least bad option would be not to bully other countries through threats of violence or economical sanctions of they don’t come around to US policy.
I think that manufacturing consent through accusing other countries of not being democratic is doesn’t justify war. That is lying to the public and makes people not trust government.
Thank you for addressing my previous points. I have now gotten my unpopular opinion out of my system. Time for coffee
i like your thinking. especially the part about needing an ally like Isreal in the middle east.
Eh, it’s not a great argument—just an argument.
I think that the idea of “least bad option” and power vacums is messed up. I am a pacifist. Maybe this is the world we live in. Step on people or get stepped on. I just think the charade of US being some benevolent savior is such bullshit and it would be nice to shed some light on all the suffering an injustice caused by waging all these foreign wars.
I agree. It’s not merely messed up, but fucked up. Unfortunately, I honestly believe that another super power would eventually do the same thing the US is doing. I don’t claim that the US is some benevolent savior and honestly, barring MAGA republicans, I don’t think many US citizens do either. Is there a sense of apathy? Most definitely—people don’t believe (in many cases, rightfully so) they have an impact/voice in the matter.
I think the least bad option would be diplomacy.
Agreed. But history has shown time and time again, it doesn’t always work. You can’t do diplomacy without power behind it. Look at Russia v Ukraine for an example.
I think the least bad option would be not to bully other countries through threats of violence or economical sanctions of they don’t come around to US policy.
Sure? But sometimes that’s required because some country’s leadership won’t respond to anything other than violence/sanctions.
I think that manufacturing consent through accusing other countries of not being democratic is doesn’t justify war. That is lying to the public and makes people not trust government.
Sure, but that’s politics. In a utopian ideal of a world, that makes sense. I don’t think it does for our world, though.
The military industrial complex will not stop until it’s completely destroyed. Eisenhower tried to warn us against it over a half century ago, but it fell on deaf ears. The “defense” spending is almost completely allocated to “offense”. The US won’t even defend it’s southern border. Anyone can invade the country from the south, while the military is spending billions of dollars and spreading troops all over the world. It’s like driving a tank into the city and destroying buildings to “protect your house”, but leaving your house unlocked and the gate open.
The motivation for invading Afghanistan was to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. Talks with the Taliban broke down a few months prior and the plans were drawn up for the invasion.
Those plans were then followed when a decent enough excuse to do so was allowed to occur. This is why Al Queda were able to escape en masse to Pakistan.
Vietnam is the most bombed country in the world.
And yet, according to polling:
As you correctly say the US bombed them intensively. The US also committed untold war crimes.
Why do the Vietnamese see the US in such a positive light? Why are the communist government seeking closer (military) ties with the US?
deleted by creator
The mere existence of the state itself is the most successful terrorist organization ever existed.
Iraq would be a better example than Afghanistan - bin Laden et al were in Afghanistan.
They certainly continue to terrorise and ethically cleanse the indigenous population, whose land they stole and treaties remain broken to this day.
Duh doy
Agricultural society is a terrorist state
That military spending and heavy-handedness are the main reasons you’re not currently living under a Chinese or Russian boot barely subsisting on low quality food in a cold crumbling commieblock on roach patrol.
We get surveilled just as much as people in Russia and China do
I disagree, the US factually spies on its citizens but china goes way beyond. I don’t think the US logs every piece of dissent and destroys your credit score with it.
You can think it, but you’re wrong.
That’s a good argument. “Nu-uh.” I’ll use that sometime.
