Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote is apocryphal. There is no evidence he said that. And if he did, it was in jest.
Kissinger him self claims to have said it. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#ef...
[deleted]
Kissinger's killing fields
131–140 of 176 posts
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kissinger him self claims to have said it. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html#ef...
502 error
If it counts for anything, at least a journalist saw the relevant quote in the same link: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/about-that-kissing...
I got a 502 in Firefox but it worked in Safari.
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to brush up on what the word "instigated" means.
I know what the word means. I also know history and have been following events there closely for over a decade. I am old. I watched the fall of the Soviet Union. I watched Serbia. I watched Georgia. And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them.
> And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them.
What you said is patently false there is only one imperial instigator in this war, that’s Russia what remains after that is the imagined fever dreams of people trying to justify and support a war of imperialism by Russia that is systematically doing what it can to wipe out the existence of the country it seems to subjugate.
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kissinger wasn't exactly unimpeachably rational; see e.g. G.J. Bass's The Blood Telegram .
I would appreciate the short version if you have the time to summarize it.
I haven't read it but the summary here seems useful: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Ge...
> Giving an astonishing inside view of how the White House really works in a crisis, The Blood Telegram is an unprecedented chronicle of a pivotal but little-known chapter of the Cold War. Gary J. Bass shows how Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship as it brutally quashed the results of a historic free election. The Pakistani army launched a crackdown on what was then East Pakistan (today an independent Bangladesh), killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending ten million refugees fleeing to India—one of the worst humanitarian crises of the twentieth century.
> Nixon and Kissinger, unswayed by detailed warnings of genocide from American diplomats witnessing the bloodshed, stood behind Pakistan’s military rulers. Driven not just by Cold War realpolitik but by a bitter personal dislike of India and its leader Indira Gandhi, Nixon and Kissinger actively helped the Pakistani government even as it careened toward a devastating war against India. They silenced American officials who dared to speak up, secretly encouraged China to mass troops on the Indian border, and illegally supplied weapons to the Pakistani military—an overlooked scandal that presages Watergate.
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Your position is giving very much a free pass to the atrocities the U.S. government was responsible for at the time. Chomsky was one of the few voices that saw it, and denounced it accordingly. His position on Pol Pot has never been fully absolutory, instead he just focused more on the injustices coming from his own camp, where he certainly had more weight to excert. Also, Marxism is a perfectly fine philosophy, and…
I thought about some interesting quips but you kinda just fell on you own sword.
I gave Chomsky benefit of the doubt several years ago about influence and his position on pol pot, but after more dives on the subject, no, he's unrepentant and petulant. Also you're hero worshipping him by assuming he's one of the "few". He's one of the few you know. And Marxism is heavily intertwined with Communism historically. The distinction is academic only and revolutionaries of the 20th century interchanged them so heavily so as to make it nearly indistinguishable. To ignore it's "implementations" is the "no true Scotsman" at it's finest.
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While the US isn't a signatory to the ICC, a cargo van and a private jet would solve that. Wouldn't that just result in the US invading the Netherlands to rescue them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... > This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague…
Which would be a disaster, because it would be an intra-NATO military conflict, and while intra-NATO military alliances exist, they are untested and it's hard to imagine another NATO state backing US military action in the Netherlands. The Netherlands would invoke Article 5 and request military assistance from other NATO members against the US.
In the hypothetical situation and In the context of a thread discussing countries doing illegal:immoral things
Me thinks agreements will be broken
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would appreciate the short version if you have the time to summarize it.
I haven't read it but the summary here seems useful: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Telegram-Kissinger-Forgotten-Ge... > Giving an astonishing inside view of how the White House really works in a crisis, The Blood Telegram is an unprecedented chronicle of a pivotal but little-known chapter of the Cold War. Gary J. Bass shows how Nixon and Kissinger supported Pakistan’s military dictatorship as it brutally quashed the r…
I am not sure that shows a level of obvious departure from realpolitik that the person claimed.
> Driven not just by Cold War realpolitik
The quote even says realpolitik was a major influence.
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of what you say could be factually correct, and it's still an imperialistic war instigated by Russia to subsume a neighbor. Accepting an Ukranian identity was never on the table. War may be a racket, but history is what it is and now we're here. There are several morally corrupt parties, but that does not make them equal. That is a fallacy. Civilians suffer, and they suffer tremendously. We mustn't lose sight of…
In this case it's hard for me to justify the forcing of republics that are largely Russian to belong to a union that has been turned decidedly anti-Russian including with a coup and NGOs and intelligence activity. There has been a lot of bloodshed, including of civilians before the "war" started and much of it was from the side that is now aggrieved. I understand the economic reasons for not wanting Russia to control…
Which "republics that are largely Russian" are you talking about?
If you mean LNR & DNR, then that's just plainly not true. At most they were majority Russophone (depending on how you count "native language"), which is not at all the same thing.
You might also want to look up what ethnic Russian citizens in e.g. Moldova or Latvia think about the perspective of Russia "helping" them the way it "helped" ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of what you say could be factually correct, and it's still an imperialistic war instigated by Russia to subsume a neighbor. Accepting an Ukranian identity was never on the table. War may be a racket, but history is what it is and now we're here. There are several morally corrupt parties, but that does not make them equal. That is a fallacy. Civilians suffer, and they suffer tremendously. We mustn't lose sight of…
In this case it's hard for me to justify the forcing of republics that are largely Russian to belong to a union that has been turned decidedly anti-Russian including with a coup and NGOs and intelligence activity. There has been a lot of bloodshed, including of civilians before the "war" started and much of it was from the side that is now aggrieved. I understand the economic reasons for not wanting Russia to control…
Justify the forcing of republics that are largely Russian to belong to a union that has been turned decidedly anti-Russian including with a coup and NGOs and intelligence activity.
The "coup" theory you're referring to is nonsense. Nobody in Ukraine (nor anyone else who understand the actual event chronology, and just how marginal and insignificant the events you're referring to were) puts any stock in it.
To many other cognitive distortions in your post for me to unpack. It's clear that your whole thought process is backwards -- starting from a moralistic position ("Western geopolitical elites bad; those who seem oppose what they want, good"), and building your "understanding" of recent history from that.
Re: Kissinger's killing fields
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instigated is maybe too strong a word, but certainly at least provoked. It's a testament to the awesome power of US propaganda that you can't throw a stone in Texas without hitting a house flying the Ukrainian flag, but almost no one actually knows the history and circumstances leading up to the war. I think these two pieces provide some good background: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-...…
Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members. Russia doesn't have a right to be upset that Ukraine kicked out a corrupt puppet. As for NATO expanding east, Russia has something of a grievance there but the U.S. and NATO should never have relegated some of the former Soviet states to the status of "buffer regions" in perpetuity in the first place. Those countries have the ri…
Yanukovych was removed by the Ukrainian parliament on a vote of 328–0 out of 450 members.
Well there was a bit more going on than that (for example, as to why the other members were not present, and how that came to pass).
But either way - the "coup" allegation is bogus, and not taken seriously by anyone in Ukraine.