Live data from Hacker News

A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

thetimes.co.uk

191–200 of 297 posts

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like an Ayn Rand soliloquy.

I've been told this a number of times. I've never read any Ayn Rand - probably should. I was, however, born and raised in communism, as were my parents, so I talk from experience.

You weren't raised "in communism". You lived in a socialist country ruled by an organization which, depending on the country, might or even might have not called itself communist party. Communism might have been the proclaimed goal of that government, but in reality that was little more than an ideological slogan.

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#192
post #189
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the EU being overly bureaucratic is due to age, the UK system has the same issues. our sovereignty is not important as long as we have the choice to leave in future, but the benefits awarded the middle/working/lower classes is unquestionable and we may not be awarded such luxury under a malevolent or overly 'for the rich' party. Rights are only rights until they aren't. Workers rights in the UK are the best they've e…

I'm British and back staying in the EU, but I think your post is unnecessarily condescending and incorrectly portrays your opinions as facts. The immigration argument is about EU citizens which the Danish system can do nothing to stop/slow, and stopping the 'free-flow' of EU citizens is most Brexiters biggest desire from the campaign. The economic studies are definitely in Remain's favour, but economics as a field is…

Fair enough I could have worded things nicer, I've seen a lot of very bad "facts" circulating about the EU leave/remain debacle and mostly it comes down to peoples feelings about sovereignty.

However, the Danish system does indeed stop and slow EU migrants.

As a British citizen living in Sweden, I can't go live over the bridge in Copenhagen unless I have a residence permit, which requires having a job, or meeting the required points.

Without a residence permit I cannot rent property or pay bills. I had to go through all the pain with my sister-in-law who is Estonian and studies business in Copenhagen. I'm fully versed on the difficulties of getting a residency there and it's certainly not as simple as being an EU citizen.

I've edited my first post to remove the comments about brainwashing as it's not productive to conversation.

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#193
post #125
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often wondered what the world would be like if there was an intelligence group that only did good.

It should be simpler, and easier, than having to do "good." The situation since the creation of the CIA is that it is the armed international branch of money politics. Just getting corporatism out of the CIA and getting its activities aligned with the national interest would be an enormous improvement.

"getting its activities aligned with the national interest"

And what about other nations' national interests? Doing your own interest is not renowned as a particularly ethical activity per se, you know. Before assuming that the evil done by an intelligence agency has to do with its failure to work in its nation's interest, you should ask yourself whether your own interests are legitimate and above other people's interests.

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#195
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear what he meant: the US never had to surrender like Germany or Japan, or even defend on their own soil, so they can shield their operatives indefinitely.

And they didn't really lost in Vietnam, what happened in the end was that they had to pick between two alternatives: carpet bomb the place to hell and "win" or go home. That "win" would have been political suicide for the administration at the time as the majority of the US wanted to go home. In the end it was a victory of the will of the people so I'm glad they went home and I'm not even American so it's not like I…

This. If anyone thinks that the US lost Vietnam, they are kiding themselves. The US chose to go home. Was at the Vietnam Verterans' Memorial yesterday, and they list of dead is astounding. Quite sad, really. Regardless of the reason, we paid a dear price for our beliefs.

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#196
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the soldiers didn't know any better, then that's a sign that our cultural attitudes towards war are somewhat lacking. Those people were not forced to sign up to the military, and if their moral compasses were distorted enough to believe wars not based on self defence can somehow be justified then why is that message getting across? We shouldn't blame the soldiers for doing a difficult job, especially after the dam…

> Those people were not forced to sign up to the military You should read up a bit on the US military. A lot of those people came from disadvantaged backgrounds where army careers are the only ticket out of poverty. The US political and military establishment literally preys on the poor for their cannon fodder. It's the post-Vietnam equilibrium: they won't draft, so (white) sons and daughters of the middle-classes wi…

> "A lot of those people came from disadvantaged backgrounds where army careers are the only ticket out of poverty."

They are not the only ticket out of poverty, speaking broadly these people have choices. What is happening is that the military provides, for some people, an attractive way to get out of poverty, because it comes along with a certain level of prestige. Change the level of prestige and you change the influx of new recruits.

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#197
post #160
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the stated goal of that war was for the instilled government to survive and for democracy to transform the region. Not for the country to become destabilized with former military operatives to go into Syria and form the next great political catastrophe. That definitely wasn't a "win" long term.

That's completely different from winning or losing a war. The events you describe don't affect the US's dominance at all. The region's current turmoil is all internal. The US can just wait it out and then when it's all over, the winner will be weak and the US can just come in again any time and reset the whole thing. So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history.

> So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history.

It does, this thread (and thousands others like it) is the proof. The US are internationally much weaker than they were before the wars in the Middle East, and their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful.

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#198
post #81

Given the serious effort CIA puts into destabilising regions (Lets not forget the large amounts of sources who said people were being ferried and paid to go to Kiev when the Ukrainian uprising was occuring) it would not surprise me very much if they were also behind the Britain "exit" from Europe, since that would cause an economic collapse of the EU and would remove a super-power from play. I feel like a conspiracy…

"I mean it's economic suicide for britain to leave the EU, yet someone is plastering it all over the media and it's not the politicians. :\"

It's still their choice, to democratically decide to leave. Even though it potentially has bad/far-reaching consequences, doesn't mean we can discount the "democratic process" because of nefarious interference by clandestine agencies and media-manipulation.

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#199
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear what he meant: the US never had to surrender like Germany or Japan, or even defend on their own soil, so they can shield their operatives indefinitely.

And they didn't really lost in Vietnam, what happened in the end was that they had to pick between two alternatives: carpet bomb the place to hell and "win" or go home. That "win" would have been political suicide for the administration at the time as the majority of the US wanted to go home. In the end it was a victory of the will of the people so I'm glad they went home and I'm not even American so it's not like I…

The US carpet bombed Vietnam and Cambodia and still didn't win.

See Operation Rolling Thunder [1]

The US sought to destroy all North Vietnamese infrastructure, rail, bridges, and communications.

The North Vietnamese responded by decentralizing. They sent half the population of Hanoi to the country side. When a bridge was bombed, they rebuilt it with dirt or set up a ferry.

When rail was bombed, they split it into smaller segments and only operated at night.

They fully militarized their entire population, civilians carried messages, and relayed goods.

They dug tunnels, set up in caves and got modern anti-aircraft guns and MIGs from Russia and China. Even though their planes were not as good, they were good enough to engage in hit and runs, all the MIGs had to do was show up and the American planes had to dump their payload of bombs to be maneuverable enough to be able to defend themselves.

Cambodia was bombed even more harshly in Operation Menu and then Operation Freedom Deal, which was kept secret from the American public.

"The United States dropped upwards of 2.7 million tons of bombs on Cambodia, exceeding the amount it had dropped on Japan during WWII (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) by almost a million tons."

It didn't work. We could not subjugate Vietnam or Cambodia. One of the things it did accomplish was creating a civil war in Cambodia and a generation of crazies led by a Western educated leader, Pol Pot, that responded to their inability to feed their population with the killing fields.

This stuff just doesn't work and we keep doing it over and over again, creating mass human misery and trauma, and destroying the economic surplus of our nation.

The US projected all the "power" it had at Vietnam and Cambodia. It carpet bombed, it defoliated the jungle with agent orange. It used ground troops. It attacked the neighboring countries to deny sanctuary to the Viet Cong across borders. It killed three million Vietnamese. It still couldn't win.

The only other weapon the US could have used was nuclear. The US could have annihilated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with atomic weapons. Only those weapons are powerful enough to destroy as much as we think "carpet-bombing" with conventional explosives can accomplish.

The land mass is too large, the number of planes that could get past Vietnamese air defenses too small, the power of conventional weapons also too small, and the ability of the Vietnamese to adapt and repair too great to achieve the effect of total destruction.

The US tried. We really, really tried. The idea that we "kept the gloves on" is a myth. This idea of American omnipotence has to go. There are limits to air power, and limits to American power.

It is the failure to learn this lesson that has created four failed states in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.

Afghanistan is another tragic example. After 15 years of war, counter insurgency, and surge the Taliban now controls more territory than it did in 2004-5.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal

Re: A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela

#200
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An egalitarian communist state has never existed, it's always a state where the ruling party does as it pleases while the majority has no rights whatsoever. (Whether this is superior or inferior to an apartheid state is a tough question.)

That's not true, Cuba is egalitarian, to a far greater degree than the Soviet Union was. Revolutionary Spain was very egalitarian. The Soviet Union can't really be called socialist, it was more of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Grandparent said "communist", not socialist, so while many people argue about the difference it doesn't seem relevant here.

Revolutionary Spain did not survive long enough to discuss IMO.

Cuba... egalitarian in what way? Is there anything the government does that the citizens can legally undo without overthrowing it? (Note that a benevolent dictatorship can exist, in theory, and among other things it can be a communist - or a racist - dictatorship; nothing prevents from the dictator to grant freedoms to the subjects, the point is that nothing prevents him from taking them away, either. If you don't refer to rights in the sense of things the government cannot prevent you from doing but instead refer to "egalitarian" in some sense of Cuban citizens living substantially different lives than Soviet citizens, I'd be curious to hear what exactly you mean.)

Post reply on HN