Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

gaodawei.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#291

Post by lisasays »

lenkite wrote: post #233
fullspectrumdev wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US supported Maidan coup. What a load of bollocks. The Ukrainian people made a choice to topple their corrupt government and take control of their countries destiny. Which is an inalienable right.

Yeah, with a truckload of support and sponsorship from Victoria Nuland - the shining [Coup Lady] of the US state department - who also picked the post coup leaders. She wasn't just involved in Ukraine. Was involved in Libya as well - gleefully cheering on when Gadaffi and his grandsons were killed one by one by NATO forces. "What a load of bollocks." Keep sticking your head into the sand.

She wasn't just involved in Ukraine. Was involved in Libya as well

Your basic problem here is that you're confusing "trying to get involved" with "actually being involved and affecting events in a significant way".

In short, the idea that Nuland's shenanigans did anything to move the needle on the ground is utter BS -- fodder for leftwing opinion websites in some Western countries, but not something that anybody in Ukraine takes seriously.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#292

Post by lisasays »

lenkite wrote: post #262
_kbh_ wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of-course, why did you think Donetsk and Luhansk regions held secession referendums in 2014 ? Because there were Russian soldiers holding a gun to their back forcing it. Igor Girkin who was a FSB officer and one of the former leaders of the DPR or LPR armies recently admitted it was mostly Russians and wasn’t really a civil war. > Why would Russia not interfere in their immediate neighbourhood in a nation filled wi…

"Because this never happened, this is a persistent myth spouted by people like Putin to justify the rape and torture of Ukraine." A "myth" recorded in Ukraine's laws by passing bills like 5670-d that effectively made the Russian language illegal in most aspects of public life. Doing so in a multi-ethnic nation in any other part of the world would have raised howls of fascism and anti-democracy by the US mass media an…

Bills like 5670-d that effectively made the Russian language illegal in most aspects of public life.

Nope, that's not what it does. It really not helpful to post opinion-piece fodder like this -- which you obviously haven't made even minimal effort to fact-check.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#293

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

photochemsyn wrote: post #239
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, the consequences of the Green Revolution, i.e. steep population growth The Green Revolution didn't cause population growth. That happens on its own. It did prevent massive famines. You have to be pretty far out in whackadoodle land (or a psychopath, or perhaps both) to think that's a bad thing. As an atheist, I can't really tell the Pope how to run his religion, but if there's anyone who deserves to be c…

"The Wizard and the Prophet" is a very good read in that respect. It's about the contrasting views and results of these two scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Vogt > "According to Charles C. Mann, "Vogt...laid out the basic ideas for the modern environmental movement. In particular, he founded what the Hampshire College population researcher Betsy Hartmann has called 'apocalyptic environmentalism'—the…

Environmental alarmists might not always be wrong, but they have been so far. I don't know why they hate their own species and wish to see it extinct, but then I am not a psychiatrist.

Do you want the Star Trek future we've all dreamed about since we were kids? People like Borlaug will get us there if anyone can. They deserve your attention, not the likes of Vogt and Erlich and the others.

The idea that somehow the maximum population of humans should be limited to single digit billions or even hundreds of millions should be disgusting to reasonable people.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#294

Post by ffgjgf1 »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #193
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Germans didn’t even have the naval to capacity to successfully execute a mostly uncontested landing unless there was perfect weather.

Suppose the germans just forced the local french fisherman at gunpoint to take them over. Would the royal navy lay waste to thousands of french fisherman in the same seas as thousands of british fisherman loaded with their soldiers? I’m surprised the germans also didn’t just lay waste to them at dunkirk with indirect fire.

> fisherman in the same seas as thousands of british fisherman loaded with their soldiers?

Logistically it was impossible to launch an invasion at the same time as the Dunkirk evacuations were happening. Even if they manage to get to England on a few fishing boats what would they do there?

> Would the royal navy lay waste to thousands of french fisherman

The British didn’t have that many qualms about blowing up a significant part of the French navy as a mere precaution. So yes. That not how successful naval invasion work though anyway. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#295

Post by ffgjgf1 »

reducesuffering wrote: post #205
peterfirefly wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany absolutely had a great casus belli against France. France had treated Germany horribly (and invaded Germany first). Very different situation from Russia/Ukraine.

France required Germany to pay for all the destruction that Germany caused by first invading France in WW1. France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921 signed a mutual defense pact. Germany knew this and invaded Poland, knowing France would attempt to defend Poland.

To be fair the allies also did this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany

They maintained the blockade for almost a year after the armistice (just in case..). A hundred thousand died in the famine and a generation of children suffered severe malnutrition.

Now maintaining the blockade during the war was understandable but maintaining it after the fighting was over just to get better terms? Well that’s something many people would find hard to forgive..

> France and Poland knew Germany was a belligerent nation, and in 1921

No it had much more to do with the Polish-Soviet war than with Germany. The Soviets were seen (and rightly so) as a much bigger threat to Eastern and Central Europe than Germany in the 20s

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#296

Post by HellDunkel »

hutzlibu wrote: post #119
HellDunkel wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

„Historians disagree on what exactly?“ Nato expansion beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend reading kappeler. He knows the russian language and history very well (what does nearsheimer know?), translated Putins essay and had no illusions about his intentions. We need to take those people serious who have been right with their predictions, not those who have failed and keep repeating the same talkin…

I will read Kappeler then. But I think I was clear that I have no illusions about Putin. He probably still dreams of a eurasian empire led by him. And he respects only raw power. I still think, it could have gone all very different. For example by sanctioning the russian people in charge and not the whole russian population after 2014. Or not getting involved in Maidan. Or by not invading Iraq, setting a often cited…

Well, we don't know if it would have been possible to change the course of history for the better- right? Might have been even worse- consider 1994. A great deal of effort has been made to respect russian interests, handover of nukes in 1994, no to Nato in 2008, eyes closed on chechnya and georgia, little consequences in 2014... The reasoning was always to respect the russian sphere of influence. But as you say, Putin respects only raw power. "Showing respect" does not equal "raw power". So what we are seeing is less "geopolitics in action" but history in the making, unless you are not willing to give "the people of Ukraine" any voice in this. Now, this is where Kappeler could be helpful. I encourage you reading what he has to say about "maidan involvement".

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#297

Post by ffgjgf1 »

refurb wrote: post #202
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why it's funny to see people view the war Why? I mean you have a point about geopolitics. But it’s still about as stupid as someone saying the exact same words about Poland 1939.. You have a megalomaniac dictator waging an unnecessary imperialist war of aggression . That should make it pretty straightforward, no? > a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. the overall goals and interests of all sides s…

That should make it pretty straightforward, no? It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors. You can't really understand the conflict, where it might go and how it might end if you don't under the history of the region, what drives each state, and what their aims are. It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing.

> It's a simplistic viewpoint that misses a lot of factors.

Sure let’s say so, please enlighten us…

> where it might go and how it might

You’re implying that Russia was planning to be in this position it ended up in all along. That didn’t massively miscalculate it’s ability to quickly defeat Ukraine with a decapitating strike?

> end if you don't under the history of the region

I do.

> It's like saying "iPhone sells well because it's a better phone". That's true, but tells you nothing.

Fantastic analogy. Really makes you think..

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#298

Post by ffgjgf1 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #127
chrysler wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know. Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance. And yet, the reaction is... what? Wh…

"Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation " Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. This does not create trust.

> was verbally promised

Who cares. Eastern European countries are sovereign and can do as they please if they consider it to be in their national interest.

> This does not create trust.

It goes both way. Trusting dictators under any circumstances is an exceptionally idiotic thing to do.

Also it might be hard to grasp however politicians in in charge to change every few years and beholding them to some “verbal promises” made by their predecessor is absurd.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#299

Post by ffgjgf1 »

lisasays wrote: post #227
chrysler wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am referring to the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. It was signed in May 1997 during NATO summit in Paris. At the next summit in July, the first former Warsaw Pact countries were invited into NATO. Official negotiations began in September. I see no conflicts with commonly accepted definitions of conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an ev…

So ... again, you're splitting hairs here. And then some. Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the last step in the process. Official "talks" began much sooner. Already the formation of Visegrád Group in 1991 (whose purpose was largely to get these countries ready to integrate into the EU and NATO). Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NA…

> I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled; you extremify and hyperbolize a lot

I’m sure but I find that this description perfectly fits your reply or the comments you posted earlier.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#300

Post by ffgjgf1 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #144
chrysler wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east. Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not dis…

It is not a conspiracy theory that german foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured "NATO will not expand to the east".

> Hans-Dietrich Genscher

And all present, past and future politicians in Germany, Poland, US end everywhere else are supposed to be permanently bound by what a former German foreign minister supposedly said before leaving office back in 1992.

Makes perfect sense.

Post reply on HN