Is he dead? Yes he is! - Kissinger dead at 100

[Sttew]

Almost every definition of the Holocaust recognises it as being from 1941-1945: when Nazi Germany invaded the USSR - losing the massive food subsidies they were receiving from Stalin to keep the peace - and realised that they couldn't feed everyone in their territories, so decided the easiest solution was to kill all of the Jews.

That is just a blatant misrepresentation. The roots of the Holocaust can be traced back to the 1930’s when Hitler ascended to power as Chancellor of Germany. You only have to cast your eye over the timeline to see how it unfolded.

In January 1939 Hitler in Reichstag speech warned "if war erupts it will mean the Vernichtung (extermination) of European Jews". WWII started in September 1939.

Timeline of the Holocaust: 1933-1945

www.museumoftolerance.com

 

[Malifice]

There is no genuine defence of US involvement in the Vietnam War, which was really just an extension of Vietnam's desire for self rule after defeating the French during the war of Indochina.

So... China and the Soviets were not funding, arming and equipping the Communist militias in the region?

The Khmer Rogue and the Viet Kong were independent actors?

 

[Malifice]

That is just a blatant misrepresentation. The roots of the Holocaust can be traced back to the 1930’s when Hitler ascended to power as Chancellor of Germany. You only have to cast your eye over the timeline to see how it unfolded.

In January 1939 Hitler in Reichstag speech warned "if war erupts it will mean the Vernichtung (extermination) of European Jews". WWII started in September 1939.

Timeline of the Holocaust: 1933-1945

www.museumoftolerance.com

I'm with you. The Shoah started in 1933 with Hitler coming to power. By late '38 when Kissingers family fled Germany, the Neurenberg laws had been in effect for 3 years, Jews were no longer allowed to work, had property confiscated, were denied medical treatment, kicked out of schools, and were heavily legally persecuted. In '38 Kristallnacht happened, which saw the burning of hundreds of Synagogues, and the imprisonment of 30,000 Jewish people in concentration camps.

The following year Hitler openly threatened them with extinction, invaded Poland, and the killings began in earnest.

Any Jewish person that escaped Germany in '38 is a Holocaust survivor. Any that didnt get out by then, were as good as dead.

 

[Malifice]

Who's to say that Socialism without anything to react against wouldn't become more benevolent?

Because it literally never has. Socialism is a (well meaning) evil, that invariably results in a tyranny.

And Socialism will always have something to react against. Internally at the very least. I mean class struggle is at the heart of Marxist thought, which is the kind of 'Socialism' we're dealing with here. The people that don't want it, or oppose it are the ones that get shipped off to the Gulags or the Killing fields or simply shot at dawn.

Millions killed. Everyone else, with freedoms curtailed by a unitary party tyrannical State telling everyone what to do.

Happened in China. Happened in the Soviet Union. Happened in Cambodia. Happened in North Korea. Happened in Cuba.

It always happens.

 

[Mofra]

So... China and the Soviets were not funding, arming and equipping the Communist militias in the region?

The Khmer Rogue and the Viet Kong were independent actors?

Vietnam have a centuries old hatred of each other and were regularly involved in skirmishes even in the early 90s.

The Khmer Rouge killed 25% of their population.
The Vietnam War resulted in 1.5 to 3.5m dead people - many civilians - and ended up under communist rule anyway.
How many people died in Laos because of Kissinger's 'Secret" bombings?

MSN

www.msn.com

Laos is the most bombed country in the world. Between 1964 and 1973, the U.S. dropped more than 270 million bombs on the country, which had a population of around 3 million at the time.

I'm not sure there are many, if any, reputable historians who would consider US involvement in Vietnam justified, or a successful.
And you're skipping Kissinger's involvement South America.

 

[Mofra]

Because it literally never has. Socialism is a (well meaning) evil, that invariably results in a tyranny.

Oh this old chestnut again. Socialism does not equal Communism, but I'll leave it there as the thread would then get off track.

 

[Malifice]

Oh this old chestnut again. Socialism does not equal Communism, but I'll leave it there as the thread would then get off track.

OK then, lets stay on track.

What kind of Socialism were the Americans seeking to thwart, and what kind was actually practiced by Castro and Che Guevera, the Kims, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, Marx, Lenin, Stalin etc?

It wasn't the 'lets have a free market with healthcare thrown in' Nordic model mate. It was the full-blown Communism type.

Old Uncle Ho was literally a member of the Soviet Communist party, who taught at the Lenin institute:

Ho Chi Minh - Wikipedia

 

[Malifice]

The Khmer Rouge killed 25% of their population.

Not off to a great start as to 'this is why Communism is a good thing and the US should have just let the Soviets impose it everywhere'.

The Vietnam War resulted in 1.5 to 3.5m dead people - many civilians - and ended up under communist rule anyway.

Yeah, because we lost.

The people of South Korea today are eternally happy we at least stopped the Commies at the 38th parallel.

And you're skipping Kissinger's involvement South America.

No, you're skipping Russias involvement in South America.

I acknowledge Kissinger was arming many right and far right-wing movements in South America.

If it wasn't for the Soviets arming the Commies in Latin America, he wouldn't have had to have done any of that.

What was he supposed to do? Allow a wave of Communist regimes in South and Central America spring up, all of which are reliant on (and aligned with) the Soviets?

 

[Malifice]

Mofra

It pains me to disagree with Bourdain here as well, as the man was my ****ing Spirit Animal.

His passing hit me hard.

Bourdain was no fan of the Communists either, and held a strong contempt for how people were treated in communist countries like Cuba and similar places he visited.

Kissinger was put in an unenviable position. Do nothing, and the world falls to totalitarian Communist/ Soviet control.

It's shit, but if it wasn't for the Soviets trying to spread a toxic tyrannical political doctrine everywhere, a lot of it wouldn't have happened.

Of course, you can argue the USA was equally trying to spread free market liberalism. But personally, I don't see that as a bad thing. Its the exact system we have here in Australia, and I can say I prefer it to what they're doing in Cuba or North Korea, and I know which system is better for the world and the people in it, and which of the two doctrines I'd much rather live under.

The exact freedoms of free market liberalism allowed Bourdain to travel to those Communist shitholes. If Bourdain had have come out of his mother's womb in Cuba, you and I wouldn't even know he existed, and he'd lack the freedoms to be in a place to publicly attack Kissinger (or any member of his own Communist regime) at all without being shot.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Bourdain was no fan of the Communists either, and held a strong contempt for how people were treated in communist countries like Cuba and similar places he visited.

Anthony Bourdain hated authoritarianism. 'The Man' dictating what was what. Socialism itself, when it was corrupted by authoritarians it was because the revolutionaries who brought it in were fighters, not politicians. Square pegs COULD fit into round holes, the revolutionary thought, if only they were hammered enough. Running revolutionary war is a far different beast than running the day-to-day needs of a nation, though and too many socialist revolutions soured because the initial vanguard stayed on past the phase where they were useful and required.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

There really is someone in this thread going hard on defending Kissingers legacy. **** me

 

[Osho]

Oh Henry Kissinger,
How we're missing ya.

 

[DaTBird187]

At least we all got a laugh when his glasses fell in the toilet.

 

[Malifice]

Anthony Bourdain hated authoritarianism. 'The Man' dictating what was what. Socialism itself, when it was corrupted by authoritarians it was because the revolutionaries who brought it in were fighters, not politicians.

Mate, you're ALWAYS going to have 'the Man' dictating to you what you can (or cannot) do under Socialism.

Can I own private property in your Socialist utopia? Including land? Can I invent things, or write songs, and sell my labor for profit? Can I freely travel where I want? Can I work in whatever field I desire? Is the press free? Can I set up an opposing political party, seeking to do away with Socialism and reinstate a free market?

The answer to the above is 'No'. The State will own and control everything.

Socialists have been telling me for years just how utopian Socialism is, yet literally (literally) every single instance it's been trialed, it winds up a unitary party tyrannical quagmire, with gulags, killing fields, 'enforced equality', shockingly poor human rights, zero freedom of the press, mass land and property confiscations for 'weath redistribution' and more.

It doesnt work.

If Bourdain had have been born in Soviet Russia instead of good Ole Capitalist liberal America, he couldnt have written his book (that made him famous initially) for profit. He couldn't have worked for the Travel channel unless the Government told him he could. His show would have never been made. And he certainly couldn't talk shit about Soviet leaders like he does about leaders in his own country, or he'd be shot.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Mate, you're ALWAYS going to have 'the Man' dictating to you what you can (or cannot) do under Socialism.

Can I own private property in your Socialist utopia? Including land? Can I invent things, or write songs, and sell my labor for profit? Can I freely travel where I want? Can I work in whatever field I desire? Is the press free? Can I set up an opposing political party, seeking to do away with Socialism and reinstate a free market?

The answer to the above is 'No'. The State will own and control everything.

Socialists have been telling me for years just how utopian Socialism is, yet literally (literally) every single instance it's been trialed, it winds up a unitary party tyrannical quagmire, with gulags, killing fields, 'enforced equality', shockingly poor human rights, zero freedom of the press, mass land and property confiscations for 'weath redistribution' and more.

It doesnt work.

If Bourdain had have been born in Soviet Russia instead of good Ole Capitalist liberal America, he couldnt have written his book (that made him famous initially) for profit. He couldn't have worked for the Travel channel unless the Government told him he could. His show would have never been made. And he certainly couldn't talk s**t about Soviet leaders like he does about leaders in his own country, or he'd be shot.

Yes, in an authoritarian nightmare like the Soviet Union and its 'satellite states' very little of that could be possible. But what exactly IS stopping a nation that is both socialist in ideology yet also permissive of the free spirit from emerging? Only the Will is lacking, Mal my friend. Only the Will.

 

[rank and file]

TBF he learnt off the best.
When MacArthur charged past the 38th parallel and got his arse handed to him to him the US replied with hubris and bombed NK into the stone-age.
Wasn't like M*A*S*H.
More war crimes.

 

[Malifice]

But what exactly IS stopping a nation that is both socialist in ideology yet also permissive of the free spirit from emerging?

The two things (free spirit, and State imposed Socialism) are mutually exclusive.

If you can get 27 million Aussies to voluntarily accept State mandated equality, all you get is people not complaining about being told what to do, where to work, how much to earn, what to 'own' (or more importantly, what not to) or who not to vote for or what political party to form.

You get a media that is heavily suppressed (State controlled and State owned), all property owned by the State (the 'collective'), being forcibly redistributed among the masses, all opposing political parties that advocate private ownership outlawed, and all facets of life subject to State control.

It happens literally every single time. It's implicit in the definition of Socialism for Petes sake which is 'Control and ownership of the means of production by the State (the collective)'

Collective ownership and control, leaves no room for individual ownership or control.

The reality is there is nothing stopping you (in a free market liberal society, such as Australia, today) from getting a bunch of likeminded Socialists and heading out into the bush and living on a collective, with shared communal property and all the good stuff. You and everyone else so interested and part of your little commune, would be socialist in every single way. You can also form a political party aiming to literally be Socialist (we have several in Australia).

The inverse is not true in a Socialist society. Im forced to do what the State tells me to do, whether I like it or not. I cant own my own property, and sell it for profit. I cant profit off my ideas. A group of likeminded capitalists, cant band together (in say a Corporation) and sell stuff for profit, and purchase private property for themselves. They're simply not allowed to. You also can't form an opposition party, seeking to allow people to do any of the above, because you get shot at dawn, or shipped off to the gulags.

The most common firearm in the world today is the Soviet era AK-47 (and its derivatives). Literally 20 percent of the worlds 500 million firearms are AK's. There is 1 AK rifle, for every 60 people on Earth.

Guess how much money Mr Kalashnikov (its creator) got for his invention?

Not a penny beyond his State wages, in the job he was assigned to do, by the State. Creating a device, he cant patent, or make any money off (not that this stopped the Soviet State itself from selling tens of millions of them though).

**** that. It's a tyranny, and the precise reason that Liberals seek an open and free press, a Separation of the powers between the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature, a Liberal standard for any law made, a Constitution, adherence to the rule of law, the presumption of Innocence and Double Jeopardy rules, a Standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' etc.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Time and time and time again it happens every single time.

Hitler wanted 'Socialism' in his National Socialism not for any concern for egalitarianism. It was a ruse to grab State control of everything for the State (himself and his Party) and away to sell the idea to the masses (along with Right wing populism that came along with it).

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I think maybe there aspects of both systems that could be adapted. It's interesting what you say about profit. More than just wanting to make a profit - needing it. We only need to chase profits because of the uncertainty of the system we're in now. We need savings. We need a nest egg. It's hard to imagine anything different because we've all grown up in that model. Saving to get ahead. Saving to keep that roof over the head and food on the table.

So much of the daily grind is made infinitely harder by private enterprise and the endless quest for profit margin. I've always believed that the necessities in life should be controlled by the State and not the private sector - I also believe that the State is NOTHING without a citizenry that truly believes in it. The State owes its existence to the citizenry and mistreatment of them, the nation's greatest asset, makes absolutely no sense to me.

Aspects of our liberal democracy - an independent judiciary, a free press, the ability to criticise, lampoon and satirise our leaders, are necessary building blocks to make a nation too.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

The two things (free spirit, and State imposed Socialism) are mutually exclusive.

If you can get 27 million Aussies to voluntarily accept State mandated equality, all you get is people not complaining about being told what to do, where to work, how much to earn, what to 'own' (or more importantly, what not to) or who not to vote for or what political party to form.

You get a media that is heavily suppressed (State controlled and State owned), all property owned by the State (the 'collective'), being forcibly redistributed among the masses, all opposing political parties that advocate private ownership outlawed, and all facets of life subject to State control.

It happens literally every single time. It's implicit in the definition of Socialism for Petes sake which is 'Control and ownership of the means of production by the State (the collective)'

Collective ownership and control, leaves no room for individual ownership or control.

The reality is there is nothing stopping you (in a free market liberal society, such as Australia, today) from getting a bunch of likeminded Socialists and heading out into the bush and living on a collective, with shared communal property and all the good stuff. You and everyone else so interested and part of your little commune, would be socialist in every single way. You can also form a political party aiming to literally be Socialist (we have several in Australia).

The inverse is not true in a Socialist society. Im forced to do what the State tells me to do, whether I like it or not. I cant own my own property, and sell it for profit. I cant profit off my ideas. A group of likeminded capitalists, cant band together (in say a Corporation) and sell stuff for profit, and purchase private property for themselves. They're simply not allowed to. You also can't form an opposition party, seeking to allow people to do any of the above, because you get shot at dawn, or shipped off to the gulags.

The most common firearm in the world today is the Soviet era AK-47 (and its derivatives). Literally 20 percent of the worlds 500 million firearms are AK's. There is 1 AK rifle, for every 60 people on Earth.

Guess how much money Mr Kalashnikov (its creator) got for his invention?

Not a penny beyond his State wages, in the job he was assigned to do, by the State. Creating a device, he cant patent, or make any money off (not that this stopped the Soviet State itself from selling tens of millions of them though).

* that. It's a tyranny, and the precise reason that Liberals seek an open and free press, a Separation of the powers between the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature, a Liberal standard for any law made, a Constitution, adherence to the rule of law, the presumption of Innocence and Double Jeopardy rules, a Standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' etc.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Time and time and time again it happens every single time.

Hitler wanted 'Socialism' in his National Socialism not for any concern for egalitarianism. It was a ruse to grab State control of everything for the State (himself and his Party) and away to sell the idea to the masses (along with Right wing populism that came along with it).

Not going to get into a defense of socialism, or the form of extreme socialism you think is the only kind that exists, but, did lol at the bolded. You realise that is exactly what would happen in a free market liberal society as well if an employee “invented” the same while working for a company who employed him to do that.

 

[Freomaniac]

And with 50 Laotians killed every year, including now, from unexplored ordnance dropped by America they still act as if they’re the good guys:

‘The country that bombed you is your friend. The one that built your new railway is your enemy’ - Khmer Times

This is the Western media’s bizarre messaging to the people of Laos, a nation that was carpet bombed by America, and which is now being vilified for accepting a new $6 billion railway line paid for by China.

www.khmertimeskh.com

Kissinger’s shameful record also includes:

Support Pakistan’s genocide against Bangladesh

Supporting Indonesia’s invasion and genocide of Timor Leste (Australia did too)

Disrupting and delaying negotiations for a ceasefire in the Yom Kippur war to allow Israel to steal more territory in the Golan Heights and Sinai

Allowing the Iranian dictator the Shah to run wild with his policies in Iran

Supported and assisted with Pinochet’s coup and regime of murder in Chile

Supported the Argentine military junta’s coup and “Dirty War”.

Supported the Brazilian military dictatorship and their attempt to gain nuclear weapons

Tried to stop plans from Portugal to grant independence to their colonies.

Backed the Zaire military dictatorship.

Basically he continued the foreign policy agenda of the US - coup, bomb and dictate.

this is very bad

 

[LeoMessi]

If there's afterlife, I hope his soul is burning in the hottest part of hell