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

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#151

Post by [deleted] »

b215826 wrote: post #55
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.

> support of the current war in Ukraine The Intercept has mostly echoed current left-liberal talking points ever since Greenwald left, so you won't find many articles critical of the current war there. Anyway, since the OP is about Kissinger, it's interesting to note what he had to say about the current war [1] > "After saying that Western countries should remember Russia’s importance to Europe and not get swept up “…

[deleted]

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#152

Post by PestoDiRucola »

missedthecue wrote: post #106
favorited wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't there intra NATO conflict between Turkey and Greece?

It's never come to full blows though.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#153

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

favorited wrote: post #74
science4sail wrote: post #61

Earlier 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.

Right, so the other great military powers in NATO, like France and the UK will stand up to the US to protect the Netherlands? Sounds more like something that would happen in a game of Risk than in the real world, to be honest.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#154

Post by hummer_embark »

ragnot wrote: post #60
hummer_embark wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Ukraine war is a negative for him. He wanted to use Russia against China. Like how he previously used China against the Soviet Union. He was the one advising Trump towards detente with Russia during the 2016 campaign. Unfortunately for him, others within the deep state made that policy impossible.

Got any more reading for that?

[dead]

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#155

Post by hummer_embark »

vlovich123 wrote: post #102
hummer_embark wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Ukraine war is a negative for him. He wanted to use Russia against China. Like how he previously used China against the Soviet Union. He was the one advising Trump towards detente with Russia during the 2016 campaign. Unfortunately for him, others within the deep state made that policy impossible.

That’s an interesting take. Only a year or two ahead of the Ukrainian election Trump was threatening withholding agreed to and paid for arms shipments to Ukraine unless they announce investigations into Biden’s son. His people also blatantly lied claiming meetings with Russians ahead of elections were just about adoption policy whereas really it was about lifting the Magnitsky act which was the reason Russia banned U…

The contact with Russia prior to inauguration was for lobbying on behalf of Israel.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/01/michael-flyn...

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#156

Post by kornhole »

_kbh_ wrote: post #150
kornhole wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is all described here in greater detail. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... The article you cite from the military think tank says clearly that Gorbachev was given assurances. Military think tanks are not generally valid or good sources for such topics.

Gorbachev himself is the source of my article, that is a primary source. You are using a secondary source that talks about the primary source to try and discredit the primary source itself. This doesn’t work and is entirely an underhanded method to try and present non factual information as true. Once again the fact that Sachs does not know this from a primary source is worrying, what else is he entirely unaware of t…

We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances. Yes there are no signed agreements. One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented.

That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create a security threat which we are seeing now play out. If you find something that Sachs got wrong, I would love to hear it.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#157

Post by _kbh_ »

kornhole wrote: post #156
_kbh_ wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gorbachev himself is the source of my article, that is a primary source. You are using a secondary source that talks about the primary source to try and discredit the primary source itself. This doesn’t work and is entirely an underhanded method to try and present non factual information as true. Once again the fact that Sachs does not know this from a primary source is worrying, what else is he entirely unaware of t…

We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances. Yes there are no signed agreements. One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented. That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create…

> We may be splitting hairs about signed agreements and assurances.

None exist, unlike the assurance that Russia would never invade Ukraine.

> Yes there are no signed agreements.

Of course there aren't cause it never happened, and was never promised.

> One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented.

There were never any real agreements, to anyone in any way shape or form that constituted and actual agreement that was meant to be enforced, the leader of the country himself has said that already.

> That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create a security threat which we are seeing now play out.

No they weren't their leader literally said he knew that wasn't the guarantee, this is more Putin invented fiction to just his imperialistic war of conquest.

> If you find something that Sachs got wrong, I would love to hear it.

Here's an article that refutes everything he wrote.

> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1661857051725709314.html

Here's another

> https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey...

By the way, I looked up Jeffery Sachs cause you seem to love him as a source, so I googled him, turns out he's appeared on Russian propaganda shows hosted by Vladimir Solovyov.

Now why would Sachs go on a show that just pure Russian propaganda I wonder?.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#158

Post by msla »

camillomiller wrote: post #125
mimd wrote: post #119

Earlier 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…

What do you think of Chomsky now that he supports Russia in its invasion of Ukraine?

> Conflating Marxism/Communism as one thing

Modern Communism is explicitly Marxist in theoretical line.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#159

Post by eynsham »

hayst4ck wrote: post #100
eynsham wrote: post #92

Earlier 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.

It was an aeroplane read that shouldn’t have been. The principal charges I recall against Kissinger were these:

- that he generally failed to inform himself on the history of the region and thought in generalities (‘peaceful Bengalis’, etc.) instead of reading reports from the region seriously and in depth;

- that he overestimated the importance of Pakistan as a bridge to China, and consequently (and irrationally) attempted to support Pakistan;

- that he did not seem to understand the nature of the geopolitical position that would emerge after the war, seemed to ignore the Anglophile and pro-US tendencies of the middle class intellectuals underpinning the Bengali nationalist movement and Awami League, ignored the risk of lasting resentment (which hasn’t, in fact happened in the Bangladeshi case but arguably is one reason for lasting Indian Russophilia) consequent on American actions in the crisis; and

- that he seemed to ignore the possibility that the Bengalis might win, and instead doubled down until it really was obvious.

Now, maybe Kissinger overall was still an excellent strategist (although I’d disagree.) But even if he was, Kissinger still had extremely strong preconceptions, which weren’t always obvious to those with whom he interacted. And those preconceptions were quite hard to change. So even if Kissinger was in some ideal sense more rational than others through his strategic understanding, for the purposes of actually interacting with other people, he wasn’t: you’d have to guess what his preconceptions were, and you’d have very great trouble changing them to align with his other objectives.

Re: Kissinger's killing fields

#160

Post by dragonwriter »

msla wrote: post #158
camillomiller wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What do you think of Chomsky now that he supports Russia in its invasion of Ukraine? > Conflating Marxism/Communism as one thing Modern Communism is explicitly Marxist in theoretical line.

> Modern Communism is explicitly Marxist in theoretical line.

Some of it is, much of it isn’t (even some of what claims to be isn’t; despite the Marxist-Leninist branding, Leninism and everything descended from it, including Maoism, starts by rejecting foundational elements of Marxism to derive a short-cut approach in order to bypass capitalist development.)

Post reply on HN