Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidw | Hacker News Reader

> Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars.

Probably more in the 'emotions' camp than in the 'concrete facts' camp, even if no one wants to admit it.

Many US wars were triggered by dis/misinformation: The Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam, and the fictitous nuclear weapons program in Iraq come to mind.

For Iraq, the government made an argument something like, 'you can't wait for the mushroom cloud'.

I think there is a difference between how wars are "sold" to voters and why nations actually go to war.

Yes, good point. But let's not overestimate leaders' deep strategic thinking or rationality; they can be mislead and emotional too.

Let's also not pretend that Iraq was about WMDs rather than empire. They knew it was a lie.

WMDs would also be about threat to empire.

The US War in Iraq was not due to misinformation. Misinformation may have sold it to the public, but to give the people responsible for that war a pass, as if they were just mislead, is .. well it's just covering for their actions.

Yes, agreed. Part of my point is that, public or private, it was not driven by facts.

Right, because endless US involvement in ground wars in the middle east has always been firmly on the side of "concrete facts."

In content and fact you seem to be in agreement with the post you're replying to, but in tone you act as though you're refuting them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com