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

Kissinger's killing fields

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 176 posts

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#111

Post by lisasays »

kornhole wrote: post #103
dragonwriter wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NATO that has expanded right up to Russia's borders. NATO was formed on Russia's borders, it didn’t need to expand to reach them. And countries near you joining a regional security arrangement isn’t a casus belli , most especially not against completely different countries that you have already succeeded in getting the alliance not to admit, thereby also quelling the country’s interest in joining the alliance . I k…

Do not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union. When NATO formed, it's border was the partition of Germany and below. Now it includes many countries that were formally part of the Soviet Union. The US made assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. Ask Jeffrey Sachs who was there when those agreements were made. https://www.commondreams.org/author/jeffrey-d-sachs

Do not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union. When NATO formed, it's border was the partition of Germany and below.

Holy jeepers, this whole line of discussion you're pushing is ridiculous beyond words.

But point in fact: Norway, which borders you-know-which-country, was one of the founding signatories of NATO at the time of its formation.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#112

Post by int_19h »

dragonwriter wrote: post #104
kornhole wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union. When NATO formed, it's border was the partition of Germany and below. Now it includes many countries that were formally part of the Soviet Union. The US made assurances that NATO would not expand eastward. Ask Jeffrey Sachs who was there when those agreements were made. https://www.commondreams.org/author/jeffrey-d-sachs

> Do not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union Russia was a constituent Republic of the Soviet Union and NATO was on the border of Russia, as well as the Soviet Union, when it was formed. > The US made assurances that NATO would not expand eastward Informal assurances of current intent given to the Soviet Union around the time of German reunification and never reduced to a treaty or even a formal executive agreement a…

Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy's sake: the only NATO country that had a land border with USSR proper was Turkey, which joined in 1952, three years after NATO was formed.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#113

Post by [deleted] »

soledades wrote: post #75
kornhole wrote: post #41

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.

Every major outlet is against the war in Ukraine, which is why they want to help the Ukrainians drive the aggressors out.

[deleted]

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#114

Post by lisasays »

mythrwy wrote: post #90
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing to see how durable the opinion that everything in the world is somehow the fault of the US. Russia attempts to annex its neighbor - US fault. China invades Taiwan - the US PROVOKED them. It's warped.

I don't think you understand the history of the area nor what has taken place. Which is understandable if the lens is Western media. The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Likewise many of the breakaway republics (until 1920s). And what happened to Russia in the 90s. How the borders of Ukr…

The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956.

If we're going to go back that far -- it was all part of the Crimean Khanate from 1443 up until 1783 (not 1700 as you know perfectly well), whose border extended up to the Dnipro, all around the Azaq deñizi (which later occupiers would call the Sea of Azov) and then some.

So clearly none of the occupying powers since then have any legitimacy.

That is not to excuse any Russian behavior either.

No, you're just trying to minimize it, and use it as a wedge to get some emotional talking points in.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#115

Post by [deleted] »

soledades wrote: post #75
kornhole wrote: post #41

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.

Every major outlet is against the war in Ukraine, which is why they want to help the Ukrainians drive the aggressors out.

[deleted]

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#116

Post by kornhole »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #84
mythrwy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an imperial war instigated by multiple parties. Not one party. And the Ukrainian people are paying for it in blood.

It's amazing to see how durable the opinion that everything in the world is somehow the fault of the US. Russia attempts to annex its neighbor - US fault. China invades Taiwan - the US PROVOKED them. It's warped.

The statement that the war was unprovoked is proving to be less durable by the day. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-...

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#117

Post by int_19h »

mythrwy wrote: post #90
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing to see how durable the opinion that everything in the world is somehow the fault of the US. Russia attempts to annex its neighbor - US fault. China invades Taiwan - the US PROVOKED them. It's warped.

I don't think you understand the history of the area nor what has taken place. Which is understandable if the lens is Western media. The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Likewise many of the breakaway republics (until 1920s). And what happened to Russia in the 90s. How the borders of Ukr…

I grew up in Russia in the 90s, so yeah, I remember it all very well - the incessant rhetoric from the "patriots" that NATO is about to invade and dismember the country any day now, the purported NATO mercenaries fighting for Chechen separatists etc. It was usually peddled by the same people who believed that Dulles' Plan was a real thing.

It's too bad that those same people now run Russia, and the war is the direct consequence of that.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#118

Post by karp773 »

kornhole wrote: post #53
comrh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many articles are not in support of the current war in Ukraine. A lot of ink has been spilled on what Russia is doing is wrong and should immediately end their war.

People of the US must support their leader to make war. Similarly people of Russia must support their leader for war. An American journal like the Intercept has near zero influence on people in Russia just as Komsomolskaya Pravda has near zero influence on us. If an outlet is promoting hate against another country rather than paths of diplomacy, it is promoting war.

You can't really draw parallels between American and Russian media. What is the equivalent of Fox News in Russia?

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#119

Post by mimd »

camillomiller wrote: post #65
msla wrote: post #51

So many people were wrong about Cambodia: https://globalist.yale.edu/in-the-magazine/glimpses/ghosts-o... > At the time, American scholars Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman argued that media claims of the Cambodian genocide were propaganda, designed to make the US look favorable in the ongoing Vietnam War. Swedish diplomat Gunnar Bergstrom dined with Pol Pot in Phnom Penh while the dictator’s cadres continued their geno…

So, let me understand: the mistake of a non-military intellectual who was not in a position of power at the time, and was proven wrong about his ideologically loaded perspective, is presented as an equivalent to the position of a high ranking official that physically commanded actions that killed thousands of innocent civilians?

You don't think Chomsky has power? Using your influence to cause others to disregard or advocate for actions can lead to as much death as direct influence. He was activity dismissing reports as "misinformation" for ideological reasons at the time and people took his advice. If it caused people to not act, then yes, he's partially responsible.

No, I don't think he's equivalent, but let's not give him a pass here. His ideology lead to excusing and lauding a group of people who wanted to slaughter anyone with education and reduce anyone else to starving farmers. And he didn't do himself any favors afterwards either, sulking and attacking people who pointed out that moral failing, even circa 2000's.

We tend to trash people for that sorta thing, like we do for Kissinger, but since it's Marxism/Communism it's given a pass by media/left groups. Their are still a lot of puff articles for Chomsky/and his similars every year. The imbalance in how we talk about that era in certain circles is a bit nauseating.

Anyway, the Intercept is trying to obscure their favored ideologies excesses, and reassign blame to their ideological opponents. That's why the intercept is specifically titling it "killing fields" to usurp the other known quantity of the Khmer Rouge's massacres, and focusing exclusively on Kissinger. I've heard way too many people blame solely Kissinger as responsible, as if pol pot did not exist, to give the intercept the benefit of the doubt.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#120

Post by dragonwriter »

int_19h wrote: post #112
dragonwriter wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do not confuse Russia with the Soviet Union Russia was a constituent Republic of the Soviet Union and NATO was on the border of Russia, as well as the Soviet Union, when it was formed. > The US made assurances that NATO would not expand eastward Informal assurances of current intent given to the Soviet Union around the time of German reunification and never reduced to a treaty or even a formal executive agreement a…

Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy's sake: the only NATO country that had a land border with USSR proper was Turkey, which joined in 1952, three years after NATO was formed.

> Not that it makes a big difference, but for accuracy's sake: the only NATO country that had a land border with USSR proper was Turkey, which joined in 1952, three years after NATO was formed.

Norway is a founding member with a land border, and borders don't just happen on land; the US also is territorially adjacent to Russia.

Post reply on HN