41–50 of 176 posts
This type of reporting perpetuates war by putting us in a loop of kill, repent and repeat. This is generally the type of reporting I find from this and other billionaire owned outlets. If you disagree, please reference an article where they are not in support of the current war in Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kissinger's friendship with Putin must be a thorn in the side of his many defenders in DC. "Putin and Kissinger, indeed, met regularly – at least fifteen times. Once Putin was even invited for dinner at Kissinger’s home in New York. A “close and trusting collaboration” seemed in particular be established between the Kremlin and Kissinger Associates, Kissinger’s consulting firm." [0] [0] "The Strange Putin-Kissinger F…
Trump himself openly talks about admiring Putin and preferring the way Putin leads to anything here in America, and high ranking members of the American Republican party spent at least one recent July 4th in Moscow meeting with Putin. Connections with the Russian Oligarchy haven't harmed them at all, especially since all their followers are convinced it was a hoax.
Hillary Clinton also spent decades brown nosing Henry Kissinger. I'm curious to see if she releases a public birthday greeting when he turns 100.
[0] https://www.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-offici...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US was in Vietnam fundamentally because graduates of the most elite US universities were not intellectually prepared to distinguish a genuine—if morally suspect—anti-colonial popular revolution from the kind of externally orchestrated Communist takeovers of the immediate post-WW2 period.
Since when was hostility to imperialism suspicious? Like, you think we were right to use military force to defend ourselves against a country that was defending itself against invasion? That just sounds like justifying an unlawful and immoral invasion after-the-fact...
On the flip side, of course, so were many US and NATO interventions—but this is why "anti-imperialist" might be taken as possibly actually meaning anti-NATO and pro-Soviet—much "anti-imperialism" was really just a smokescreen for Soviet maneuvering, same as "liberation" et c. often has been, when the US does it—it'd be foolish for actors on the international stage to take either claim at face value, because they've a history of being half-true or not at all true, just a PR cover for realpolitik Great Games.
Hell, even the British, one of the most-colonial of colonial powers ever, used this against the Ottomans, and it was a lie then, too. Seen Lawrence of Arabia? Stirring up Arab nationalism against the colonizing Turks, not actually for their sake, but just as a convenient play in a larger game?
This is why US elites at the time might genuinely have believed that going to war in Vietnam was a good idea—even bordering on necessary—and perhaps, truly, believed it was morally defensible.
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -- H. Kissinger. It's sad this deplorable human being was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
It's still not too late to bring the blood-money profiteering war criminals Kissinger and Cheney before The Hague. While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that. They should die in custody and disgrace while Snowden and Assange should be free.
There's also the substantial problem that the war crimes (and crimes of aggression) that each is most clearly responsible for are not within ICC jurisdiction for geographical and/or temporal reasons. (Becauae the UK is and was at the time a Rome Statute party, the ICC did have investigate British potential violations in Iraq.)
Kissinger's turning 100 this Saturday. The final horcrux of 20th century imperialism.
Watching what’s become of Ukraine and China must be keeping him going. Probably doesn’t even need a Viagra prescription anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote is apocryphal. There is no evidence he said that. And if he did, it was in jest.
I don't think "He didn't say that, but if he did he didn't mean it" is a great argument, especially since there is proof that he did say it in the documents linked to these articles... It's also clear that that he did tons of illegal/unconstitutional things in his career, so it's pretty clear that he did say it and meant it, because it was an accurate portrayal of his behavior.
"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it."
Imperial wars and the people who waged them in the past are horrible, but the current wars are just and worthy of our support. This type of reporting perpetuates war by putting us in a loop of kill, repent and repeat. This is generally the type of reporting I find from this and other billionaire owned outlets. If you disagree, please reference an article where they are not in support of the current war in Ukraine.
Imperial wars and the people who waged them in the past are horrible, but the current wars are just and worthy of our support. This type of reporting perpetuates war by putting us in a loop of kill, repent and repeat. This is generally the type of reporting I find from this and other billionaire owned outlets. If you disagree, please reference an article where they are not in support of the current war in Ukraine.
Imperial wars and the people who waged them in the past are horrible, but the current wars are just and worthy of our support. This type of reporting perpetuates war by putting us in a loop of kill, repent and repeat. This is generally the type of reporting I find from this and other billionaire owned outlets. If you disagree, please reference an article where they are not in support of the current war in Ukraine.