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

141–150 of 309 posts

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#141

Post by Hikikomori »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #72
ggm wrote: post #7

I'm not entirely sure I get what this tells us. A degree of cynicism in politics is inevitable, for the players. And, Kissinger was undoubtedly playing. As was Mao, with other people. Interesting Edgar Snow was brought up, I read his long March piece as a child, it's pretty accessible. ("Red Star over China" 1937) Zhou EnLai was a survivor and a moderating force in the bad times. The national museum in Tienanmen squa…

The fascinating thing with Kissinger is that he's still alive, still wields political influence, and has been active for eighty years and was wielding his influence in essentially all major conflicts during that time. He just published another book and just celebrated his 100th birthday. He started out as a German Jewish refugee. Fought in WW II and became an American, ended up being part of the post WW II effort to…

This is disgusting, Kissinger is absolutely a war criminal.

He played both sides and helped sabotage the 68' peace talks by leaking information to Nixon, just to get a job within either administration. So great, he helped end a war he prolonged for years and was involved with the bombing of neighboring countries.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#142

Post by pydry »

chrysler wrote: post #112
hutzlibu wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historians disagree on what exactly? That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? "It is up to you to reconsider or make yourself comfortable with Tucker Carlson" And strong disagree. I don't have to make myself comfortable or align with any character or movement, just because most of the world wants only to think in black and white.

>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico? This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine. Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.…

Monroe doctrine has nothing to say about Kalingrad.

The US invaded Grenada so for sure they would invade Mexico.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#143

Post by KptMarchewa »

licebmi__at__ wrote: post #101
FreshStart wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I also agree with your hate of realpolitik excuse and comment; yet I have to ask... What is the alternative? idealism? a mix of both? I find the idealist to be useful fools for propaganda. I find the mix of both even worse as it mostly becomes "it's right when we do it". I guess in my view where I see these are the only alternatives, I just hate whoever disagrees with me and create a reason post-facto like [realpolit…

The problem is when those "realpolitik" enthusiast become surrender monkeys.

What should be known as "real" is acknowledging evil, genocidal intent of some dictatorships and working towards undermining them, not strengthening them by trade deals and allowing them to enforce their claims.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#144

Post by hutzlibu »

chrysler wrote: post #130
hutzlibu wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

>> 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".

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#145

Post by KptMarchewa »

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.

The fact that russia wishes to make some words into existence does not mean they existed.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#146

Post by KptMarchewa »

mantas wrote: post #99
_kbh_ wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why it's funny to see people view the war in Ukraine as a "good guy vs bad guy". The geopolitics are incredibly complicated and there is a lot behind the scene the average person doesn't see. This war is as clear as WW2 if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to say, it’s plain as day to most people.

Talking about WW2, a lot of people still think Soviets were the good guys. Forgetting how nazis and soviets split eastern europe. And later soviets forgot to leave.

And that's clear to everyone nowadays. You really see anyone disputing that?

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#147

Post by fuzzybear3965 »

haunter wrote: post #2

Not gonna lie this is the first time I’ve read the term “memcon” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation

Thanks. This was really un-Google-able.

Edit: ChatGPT was able to answer: https://chat.openai.com/share/7dd3589f-7cf7-4c37-b613-63b57b... .

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#148

Post by hutzlibu »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #145
hutzlibu wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

The fact that russia wishes to make some words into existence does not mean they existed.

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

That does not make it any binding international agreement, sure. But some of those words existed.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#149

Post by quetzthecoatl »

_kbh_ wrote: post #118
quetzthecoatl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> tell me who were the good guys in WW2? The ones that killed hundreds of millions more than the Nazis? The Allies. The Nazis, the ones committing genocide, they are the bad guys. > The notion that Allies were good guys is just pure white supremacy - that non white causalities don't count. The notion that the Allies were the good guys in WW2 is not white supremacy. The fact that the Allied countries did bad things ou…

>The Allies.

> The Nazis, the ones committing genocide, they are the bad guys.

Except, the allies killed way more people. They just happened to be non white. You are a white supremacist for downplaying it - essentially saying those genocides don't matter as it happened to brown and black people.

>Are you seriously trying to tell me the Nazis/Axis powers where the good guys in WW2?.

Do you have some serious reading comprehension problems? I am saying both are bad. If you just look at the ww2 alone, then Nazis were bad, but if you look at everything that was happening around the world, then the allies were much much worse. As bad as Nazis were, the Allies were much much worse.

Re: The Mao-Kissinger Meeting of 1973

#150

Post by contrarian1234 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #35
contrarian1234 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your central thesis probably has merit, I just want to point out that the way you present it sounds incredibly ignorant and simplistic to anyone in Asia. Maybe Japan and Korea are more ethnostates.. but it's sorta ridiculous to say it's an Asian things Within 5 minutes of arriving in Kuala Lumpur you will see more diversity than in most American cities - with equal parts Indian, Chinese and Bumi (ethnically Ind…

Han runs China with a strong majority. For western provinces where minorities are a majority, the symbolic governor will always be an ethnic minority (eg Tibet will have a Tibetan governor), but the real power will be held by the Han party secretary. Some of the party secretaries that have run Tibet and Xinjiang are famous hardliners that have probably created more problems than they’ve solved.

Interesting stuff. I won't pretend to understand the inner workings of the party haha. I have heard they very aggressively rotate party members so that they don't establish deep rooted regional networks - and that you aren't ever assigned from the region you're from. So that seems to be in line with what you illustrate. I also know they have intense quotas for minorities and affirmative action - but with the demographics involved I don't imagine you'd really get anyone other than Han executives most of the time

Though in the end it's a bit besides the point. The state and the people concerned for the most part don't perceive themselves as an ethnostate - and it's their selfidentification which is at play here. I could see it changing - but a Han ethnostate would be a bit scary. It'd mean loosing legitimacy over minority areas - but there are huge Han minorities in most Asian countries. So far the Chinese state hasn't pushed the line that it's got an obligation to represent their interests (though it's come up)

It's interesting that by contrast in my experience in Taiwan there is much more of a perception that they're a Han ethnostate. There are a few "aboriginal" and other minorities - but it's mostly viewed as a curiosity

Post reply on HN