Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"The Kissinger Cables": WikiLeaks Releases 1.7M Historical Records

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the ok-now-let's-wait-for-kissinger's-rebuttal dept.

Government 199

An anonymous reader writes to note the latest large-scale document release from WikiLeaks: "The cables are all from the time period of 1973 to 1976. Without droning about too many numbers that can be found in the press release, about 200,000 of the cables relate directly to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. These cables include significant revelations about U.S. involvements with fascist dictatorships, particularly in Latin America, under Franco's Spain (including about the Spanish royal family) and in Greece under the regime of the Colonels. The documents also contain hourly diplomatic reporting on the 1973 war between Israel, Egypt and Syria (the 'Yom Kippur war'). While several of these documents have been used by U.S. academic researchers in the past, the Kissinger Cables provides unparalleled access to journalists and the general public. 'The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.' — Henry A. Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, March 10, 1975."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Please, please! (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43389927)

'Fascist Dictatorship' is verging on hate speech. Please use the term 'Stability-Enhanced Administration' or 'American Regional Security Ally'.

Re:Please, please! (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390083)

"Allied Bold Leadership Initiative"

Re:Please, please! (2, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390215)

'Fascist Dictatorship' is verging on hate speech.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat should be no more loved a term than "Fascist Dictatorship," but for some reason it gets a pass [dennisprager.com] . That should be the last thing that happens, given the record - 100,000,000 killed [harvard.edu] in the last 100 years. (And don't look now - North Korea might just be warming up.)

The 1970s, when many of the communications were written, were probably both the high point of Communist and Soviet Power [youtube.com] and the struggle between Communism and freedom. It is unlikely that Communism would have collapsed as soon as it did in Eastern Europe, and most of the world, if freedom hadn't endured in the West to give aid and hope to the oppressed, and some remember that. [telegraph.co.uk]

So, when will Wikileaks start releasing Soviet and Communist archive material? Thats right, Assange probably doesn't consider them "bastards" to be crushed. Well, he going to Ecuador [state.gov] if he can, isn't he?:

The following human rights problems continued: isolated unlawful killings and use of excessive force by security forces, sometimes with impunity; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; corruption and other abuses by security forces; a high number of pretrial detainees; and corruption and denial of due process within the judicial system. President Correa and his administration continued verbal and legal attacks against the independent media. Societal problems continued, including physical aggression against journalists; violence against women; discrimination against women, indigenous persons, Afro-Ecuadorians, and lesbians and gay men; trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation of minors; and child labor.

Re:Please, please! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390333)

Murdering democratically elected governments and replacing them with genocidal dictatorships that cused hundreds of thousands of victims doesn't sound like freedom to me, you psychopathic hypocritical bastards. And you'll still be surprised that the civilized world hates you. Fucking sociopathic criminals.

Intellectual Midgets. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390461)

I doubt even 2% of Slashdot readers have the intellectual capacity to understand the context of these communications. Instead, like the AC above me, they will spout leftist talking points. While at the same time condemning the West for their actions, they are in full support of regimes like North Korea and China, which have inflicted 100 times the deaths and misery than anyone can accuse the West of doing.

Re:Intellectual Midgets. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390525)

True, the cheerleading for North Korea and China on Slashdot is almost embarrassing. Absent, but embarrassing.

Re:Intellectual Midgets. (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390873)

True, the cheerleading for North Korea and China on Slashdot is almost embarrassing.

Absent, but embarrassing.

I have to wonder at the thought processes of somebody who, when you say "Y'know, our support of Operation Condor was really pretty disgusting", somehow hears "I love Communism so much that I'd kiss Uncle Joe right on his death camps! Viva La DPRK!" and begins frothing at the mouth...

Re:Intellectual Midgets. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391129)

Err, there is none. They are operating on conditioned reflexes.

Re:Intellectual Midgets. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391719)

I see it as a hardwired nervous system like a jellyfish has...

Re:Intellectual Midgets. (4, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390899)

Please forgive me if I'm harder on my own country than others. It is because it is my country, the one I have the most stake in and the most control over (Ha!). It's the same reason I'm more concerned with my own kid's behavior than that of other children.

Re:Please, please! (4, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390879)

The 1970s, when many of the communications were written, were probably both the high point of Communist and Soviet Power [youtube.com] and the struggle between Communism and freedom.

Is a struggle between Communism and freedom really what was going on back then?

Re:Please, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391143)

In the minds of the fledgling neo-cons perhaps.

Re:Please, please! (4, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391533)

It was a struggle between which type of control of the population would win. The Communist methods are obviously reprehensible, caused millions of deaths and ultimately failed. The western methods of exerting control over the general public are much less odious, but just as effective in the end. Either way, the people at the top own us, and we do what they want us to do.
I have some hope though, when I see information like this released to the general public. It's a great thing to see the workings behind the scenes so we can get a better understanding of what was actually going on.

Re:Please, please! (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391561)

Sure, it's freedom, as explained by Richard M Nixon's head:
"We enjoy so much freedom, it's almost sickening. We're free to chose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a week with the Pain Monster."

Re: Please, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390427)

Awesome comment! LoL Never heard, or read I guess, it put so perfect. Kudos. Tim Caffery

Re: Please, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391543)

Wha...Why.....How come you signed your name on an anonymous post? What the hell is the point of that?

The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43389945)

Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that.

My initial reaction was to think, "at least he admits it, privately."

After I thought about it for a half a minute, this quotation made my day. I realized that the people of the United States had passed a law [wikipedia.org] that put a man like that in fear. Add one point in the "democracy" column!

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43389981)

It's not a democracy.

It's a democractically elected republic . If you can't tell the difference, you should un-learn the indoctrination you've been given.

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390047)

Which still means it's a democracy, A representative democracy, but a democracy none the less.

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390393)

neither of you mention "Constitutional Republic."
Are you in opposition the rule of LAW like DHS is?

If you had democracy, then 51% of people could vote to KILL YOU.
You don't want democracy, you want a Constitutional Republic, the powers granted by GOD, not some majority problem reaction solution voters kicking out new ordinances, laws,taxes, and loss of rights, gun grabbing, fake DSM science turned to POLITICAL HIT tool, I could go on and on.

What you don't get is that it's now TOO LATE, you can lie and call me a terrorist for pointing all this out, and kill me, but it doesn't change what happens when MATH fucks all their days.

The Math is going to FUCK YOUR DAY Debt to GDP, exponents. Say good by oath breaking scum.

It's coming to a head one way or the other.
You might keep your head down, but your now being attacked electronically.

It's ELECTRONIC WARFARE, and it's FULL SPECTRUM.,

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (4, Funny)

daremonai (859175) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390553)

I wouldn't have believed this post if it weren't in boldface.

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391747)

Boldface and caps are so sincere. How could you not?

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390827)

Representative for who? Just Lesters [ted.com] ?

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390003)

He sounds like he's joking there. I suspect that Kissinger was smart enough, and...er... ethically dis-inhibited enough, to be a truly epic troll when he felt like it.

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (2)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390473)

I'm not so sure since he wasn't smart enough to understand how little he knew about South East Asia so didn't know when to ask for help and made some spectactular mistakes as a consequence. In hindsight we can laugh at such ideas as Vietnam being run out of Russia one week, then China the next, when what seems like the incredibly obvious reality now is that it was being run out of Vietnam. That little bit of stupidity was replaying the previous war where North Korea was being led by the nose by China at the time. The "madman theory" was another very stupid move but I'm not sure if Kissenger was to blame for that one - it's should have been obvious that the USSR had a lot of practise in dealing with madmen.

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391117)

. In hindsight we can laugh at such ideas as Vietnam being run out of Russia one week, then China the next, when what seems like the incredibly obvious reality now is that it was being run out of Vietnam.

In hindsight we can laugh at such ideas as Al-Qaeda being run out of Afghanistan one week, then Pakistan the next, when what seems like the incredibly obvious reality now is that it was being run out of...

Why do people keep mistaking machination for happenstance? Cognitive dissonance?

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391211)

All wars are fought as if they are reruns of the previous war...

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (5, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390023)

Notice what he said. "I'm afraid to say things like that".

Say, not do. He's obviously not worried about doing illegal and unconstitutional things - he just doesn't want to talk about them.

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391173)

What can't be documented can't be prosecuted?

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390115)

He simply said he's afraid to *say* things like that, not *do* things like that. I wouldn't count that as a win.

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (5, Interesting)

fsterman (519061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390197)

You know who got that law passed? People like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked a trove of *historical* documents; Ralph Nader, the father of the modern progressive movement; and Frank Church, an Idaho Democrat who lead the charge to clean up Nixon's mess. How is it, some 30 years later, that their modern-day counterparts are spending life in a military prison, reviled by their own party, and hiding in the embassy of a 3rd world country?

I think this was the "Yes we can" part of Obama's 2008 campaign message. I guess he should have cleaned house [youtube.com] .

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (4, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391867)

The fact that you call it "Nixon's Mess" shows that you're precisely part of the partisan yammering class.

If you think Nixon was doing ONE THING that hadn't been done in spades by LBJ and Kennedy before him, you're hopelessly naive. Ike, perhaps not, but let's recall that - for example - Nixon's assertion that his tapes were inviolable Presidential material was BORN of his observation as a young congressman of the success of that tactic by Ike during the McCarthy hearings. (Ike *despised* McCarthy, and when State Dept files may have exonerated/validated some of his claims, Ike moved the cabinets wholesale into the Oval Office and claimed 'executive privilege' - an assertion the Senate witch hunters were happy to validate...).

When Tricky Dick tried it, the rules of course changed....

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390439)

Ok, so now they don't say things like that anymore, and just continue to do so covertly. That's not exactly one point in the democracy column. All FOIA does is ensure that badness is not documented. It does not prevent it from happening. To do that requires true transparency, and I don't think you're going to find any politician that's really interested in THAT. The problem began when people started running for office rather than being selected by the people. You look at George Washington and he never ran for office. He was foisted into the position expressly by the majority will of the people. Now days it's not about the will of the people. Lobiests, corporations, and lawyers present you with the folks that will most benefit them. So regardless of who wins there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that they're going to be doing the will of the people. Until we change that you will not see democracy.

Re:The full quote re: illegal/unconstitutional (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390591)

It's great that we the people were able to put him in fear, but we probably should have put him in jail instead.

FOIA (1)

phorm (591458) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390909)

Yes the Freedom [REDACTED] Act has certainly made it [REDACTED] for us to see what the government is [REDACTED] to. It's not like they [REDACTED] any important information these days and thumb their nose at the act, after all.

Kissinger (2, Insightful)

Maimun (631984) | about a year and a half ago | (#43389965)

If the US did play entirely by the rules, the USSR would win the Cold War. The USSR was a fascist country, although the red sort of fascism, and observed no rules in its quest for dominance over Eurasia. I am glad the West's only country capable of standing against the USSR had politicians like Dr Kissinger that were focused on winning.

Re:Kissinger (4, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390037)

Wait, so "They are playing dirty" makes "We are playing dirty" right?

Siding with scoundrels tends to return and bite you in the ass. Osama is the proof (and he did win with 9/11. Look at your law and your freedoms today.)

Re:Kissinger (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390629)

Osama is one way it can return and bite you. The other way it can hurt you is with what the spooks call "blowback", as demonstrated most thoroughly in Iran and the US-supported Shah: We support the thugs, the people hate the thugs, so there's a popular revolt that replaces the thugs, and for some reason the new guys thoroughly hate us.

Some other examples of where this dynamic comes into play:
- Chile (thanks to Pinochet)
- Venezuela (after the botched coup against Chavez)
- Nicaragua and Panama (thanks to Manuel Noriega, another CIA asset)
- El Salvador (with US-sponsored death squads)
- Cuba (the US strongly supported the brutal Batista, which is why Castro hated us so much)
- Lebanon (our support of Israeli cluster bombs in Beirut and the like bolsters Hezbollah)
- Vietnam (they still are mad about the "killing millions of them and leaving land mines and chemical weapons all over the place" thing)
- Iraq (we thought they had WMDs because we had sold them the weapons in question)
- in the near future, Afghanistan

Re:Kissinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391055)

We support the thugs, the people hate the thugs, so there's a popular revolt that replaces the thugs, and for some reason the new guys thoroughly hate us.

I fail to see how this applies to Chile. With Pinochet out of power, the first thing the newly-elected government wanted to do was join NAFTA.
Chile-US relations are better now than they were under Pinochet.

Re:Kissinger (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391277)

I'm all about spreading the word of freedom and democracy to the far reaches of the world, but not by force. Force should only be reserved for when a country presents a clear and present danger, and even that is debatable. Above all, I'm constantly reminded of an old saying. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Re:Kissinger (4, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391657)

If the US had had more interest in actually promoting democracy and democratic changes when promulgating its foreign policy, the result would have been more democratic countries that used the US as a model, or at least viewed it in a positive way. On those few occasions when the US has acted in a manner that reflected its own ideals, this has often been the result.
Sadly US foreign policy has usually been shortsighted, focused on advancing US corporate interests and ensuring "stability" in a region - with "stability" usually being in the form of a brutal dictatorship. Things that should at least theoretically not be in keeping with US ideals. Apparently its more important that say US Sugar keeps its control over the sugar industry than the people of the Dominican republic get to have democratic rule and fair laws etc. Mostly it seems the US ideals are seen as being for US citizens only, and that its okay if the rest of the world suffers wars, massacres, dictatorships, etc to make that possible. This is why so many foreign countries dislike the US so much in the end.

Re:Kissinger (1)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390797)

Well his ideas won anyway. It's still hard to call getting shot in the face a win.

Re:Kissinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391359)

For you maybe. It all depends on his goal. If his goal was to defeat America for his children, I'd say he succeeded.

Re:Kissinger (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391911)

Wait, so "They are playing dirty" makes "We are playing dirty" right?

Siding with scoundrels tends to return and bite you in the ass. Osama is the proof (and he did win with 9/11. Look at your law and your freedoms today.)

But Mom! Nikita and Leonid did it too!

Re:Kissinger (0)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390055)

If the US did play entirely by the rules, the USSR would win the Cold War. The USSR was a fascist country, although the red sort of fascism, and observed no rules in its quest for dominance over Eurasia. I am glad the West's only country capable of standing against the USSR had politicians like Dr Kissinger that were focused on winning.

lol, i'd mod ya funny, but i posted instead.

Re:Kissinger (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390097)

If the US did play entirely by the rules, the USSR would win the Cold War. The USSR was a fascist country, although the red sort of fascism, and observed no rules in its quest for dominance over Eurasia. I am glad the West's only country capable of standing against the USSR had politicians like Dr Kissinger that were focused on winning.

And we sir, are currently paying the price.

One of the prices is the hatred towards us. Hatred that made a few folks fly planes into some towers back in 2001. The existence of the TSA and PATRIOT Act can be traced right back to this guy and his cohorts. Hatred that allows terrorists and dictators to build a following and allows them to stay in power.

Bin Laden and Castro wouldn't have been able to do what they did if they didn't have the US as the focal point to blame for the problems that they and their people's hate.

I see it all around the geopolitics of our World: we are paying the price for the past actions of people like this.

The Middle East is stuck in their shit partly - I said PARTLY - because of the actions of people like this.

And there's plenty more.

And in the meantime, those people, like Kissinger, lived or are living a nice fat happy life.

Re:Kissinger (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390443)

And in the meantime, those people, like Kissinger, lived or are living a nice fat happy life.

And hundreds of thousands were brutally murdered (or worse) when those people (i.e. the USA) replaced their democratically elected governments with fascist dictatorships *in the name of fucking freedom*.

Maybe if someone fucking *apologized* there would be a bit less resentment. I doubt it, though.

Re:Kissinger (-1)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390507)

Think of the alternative.

Islam hates Communism just as much, if not more than Democracy. So flying planes into buildings would be just as much a possibility.

Plus, you wouldn't be able to post here on Slashdot...well, since you seem to be sympathetic to the former U.S.S.R, maybe you would be allowed to post here.

Re:Kissinger (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390573)

Wow, and here I was thinking of an alternative where we managed to partner with people who weren't corrupt murderous assholes who we could train to fight without having our own weapons and training used against us.

Who am I kidding? The only two possible choices [wikipedia.org] for dealing with the USSR were bin Laden and Santa Claus! We did the best we could!

Re:Kissinger (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390883)

since you seem to be sympathetic to the former U.S.S.R

Clearly anybody who criticizes actions that led to blowback that has severely harmed the US and its citizens is sympathetic to the USSR. What next, Churchill was a Nazi sympathizer because he thought the bombing of Dresden was a mistake?

Re:Kissinger (1)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391691)

Its a much more comfortable world when you see things only in black and white, and know that God (tm) is on your side no matter what you do. :P
Its much harder for those people to understand that you can support Democracy while simultaneously criticizing some aspect of the way its being conducted.

Re:Kissinger (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390567)

It really all depends on perceptions though. And let's face it, no matter what we did they would have found something to generate hatred of the US. In Bin Laden's case we actually trained him and his people trying to liberate them and look at how he turned it around on us. We've done a great deal to try and help others in the world just to get shit on, and I'd like to at this point withdraw all of our aid from foreign countries less they think that providing them with aid is somehow manipulating their geopolitical position to our benefit. See Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, N. Korea, and a whole host of others who we've helped just to be stabbed in the back later on down the road. They hate us if we help, and they hate us if we do nothing. Might as well do nothing and focus on helping our own. We're not the world police and we're not the savior of the world either. Let em fend for themselves.

Re:Kissinger (4, Interesting)

b4upoo (166390) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390937)

I don't know how happy Kissinger is or the rest of his ilk. I do know that nations can not take treaties with the US seriously at all. Just the example of the treaties signed with native American peoples alone are enough to force me to believe that treaties with the US are worthless.
                    It is all very depressing. But I suspect that without slavery, forced labor, creation of deliberate poverty to force low wages, and usurping land and generally scheming to rob the world blind I doubt that the US would ever have existed at all. Human history seems to be all about this evil mindset. The Apache rampaged and attacked others and took what they wanted as normal practice. The later immigrants into the Americas did no differently at all. The one difference is that the Apaches did not hide what they did at all. Even admitting that such things go on is dangerous for Americans. Dr. King is an example of what our government can do when people speak out.

Re:Kissinger (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390113)

We must support fascism to defeat fascism. Yep, that sounds about like the kind of thinking I would expect from Kissinger. It also helps explain why they they love us so much in Central and South America these days.

Re:Kissinger (2)

Freddybear (1805256) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390521)

We supported the USSR to defeat the Axis Powers. So yeah.

Re:Kissinger (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390813)

*I* am in Schrodinger's box...or am I?

Schrodinger was in the cat's box.

Re:Kissinger (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390389)

Instead, thanks to the magnanimous USofA we had the luxury of enjoying the freedom of being mass murdered by the fascist dictatorships you fucking hipocritical criminals replaced our democratically elected governments with. The world would almost certainly be a better, more free place if you fuckers had all been nuked into oblivion.

Re:Kissinger (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390463)

Jeezus, someone needs a history lesson. You are a brainwashed fool.

There were no good guys. There are no good guys. You chose a side, and it happens to be one the most aggressive and violent side in history, so you get to pretend your history is 'truth'. But you're a fool for painting the kaleidoscope of history and winners and losers in black and white. You're a large part of the reason the rest of the world hates us - you don't have the wherewithal to comprehend other perspectives or insights.

Btw - I'm on your 'side', I'm just not a fool.

Re:Kissinger (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390503)

It turned out that the only way to win was not to play - Nixon going to China and also talking with the USSR. After that it was just a wait despite Reagan trying to start it all up again.

Re:Kissinger (1)

wylf (657051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390519)

focused on winning.

But at what cost? Arguably the entire south east asia region for a start.

Re:Kissinger (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390753)

The USSR was a fascist country, although the red sort of fascism

Red fascism? Is that supposed to be an oxymoron? Fascism and communism were mortal enemies. You might want to look up a minor historical incident called World War II.

What fascism and communism did have in common was that they were both totalitarian. Words have a meaning; use them appropriately.

I am glad the West's only country capable of standing against the USSR had politicians like Dr Kissinger that were focused on winning.

And how was Henry focused on winning? By sabotaging peace negotiations and prolonging the Vietnam war so Nixon could win in 1968? The Vietnam war was a quagmire for the US and as such the USSR loved it. They could grind down the US just by shipping a few weapons to North Vietnam. Hence he was giving aid to our enemies - the Constitutional definition of treason.

Re:Kissinger (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391741)

And how was Henry focused on winning? By sabotaging peace negotiations and prolonging the Vietnam war so Nixon could win in 1968?

In Kissinger's worldview, the Democrats were part of the ongoing effort of Communists to take over the US, so it was absolutely imperative that they not be allowed to win.

Re:Kissinger (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390825)

What quest for dominance?
Oh, you mean this one [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Kissinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390835)

That's stupid. The USSR would have collapsed all on its own without US food aid, probably 20 years earlier than it did. The Fascist US was worried about what would happen to their nukes. They would have supported them forever if they could have. "Winning" my ass.

Re:Kissinger (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390841)

The word you are looking for is "totalitarianism".

Re:Kissinger (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390867)

So the cure of cancer (heck, could be even flu) is to kill the patient? Since Pyrrhus [wikipedia.org] i didn't hear an excuse like this.

Re:Kissinger (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391131)

The USSR was a fascist country,

OK, and so is the USA. Our Fearless Leader[s] make unconstitutional and even downright traitorous decisions on a daily basis, selling us up the river for their own short-term benefit. Now what?

Re:Kissinger (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391693)

I am glad the West's only country capable of standing against the USSR had politicians like Dr Kissinger that were focused on winning.

Sure you're glad — you're a normal person. You don't have tiger blood and Adonis DNA.

Henry Kissinger was on a drug... It’s called Henry Kissinger. It's not available because if you try it, you will die. Your face will melt off, and your children will weep over your exploded body. If you borrowed Kissinger's brain for five seconds, you’d be like, "Dude! Can’t handle it, unplug this bastard!’"

When it came to the USSR, defeat was not an option. They picked a fight with a warlock. Kissinger was banging seven-gram rocks, because that’s how he rolled. He had one speed, he had one gear: "Go!"

Re:Kissinger (1)

Darby (84953) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391715)

If the US did play entirely by the rules, the USSR would win the Cold War.

So you're saying that capitalism can't win on its own merits?
Interesting viewpoint from somebody who supports a genocidal sociopath like Kissinger.

Re:Kissinger (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391897)

If the US did play entirely by the rules, the USSR would win the Cold War. The USSR was a fascist country, although the red sort of fascism, and observed no rules in its quest for dominance over Eurasia. I am glad the West's only country capable of standing against the USSR had politicians like Dr Kissinger that were focused on winning.

Why is it that so many continue to think that the ends justify the means, when in reality the means applied determine what you end up with? The ends don't justify the means, the means determine the ends.

"Without droning" (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43389975)

I didn't think they had drones back then. Oh. Never mind.

Monty Python's song (2, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#43389977)

Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
You're the doctor of my dreams.
With your crinkly hair and your glassy stare
And your Machiavellian schemes
I know they say that you are very vain
And short and fat and pudgy but at least you're not insane!
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
And wishing you were here!

Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
You're so chubby and so neat.
With your funny clothes and your squishy nose
You're like a German parakeet.
All right so people say that you don't care
But you've got nicer legs than Hitler
And bigger tits than Cher!
Henry Kissinger
How I'm missing yer
And wishing you were here!

I also always remember Tom Lehrer's comment that political satire died when they gave Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize.

Re:Monty Python's song (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391161)

I also always remember Tom Lehrer's comment that political satire died when they gave Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize.

He was wrong. Instead, the Nobel committee simply began providing sufficient political satire, such that no one else had to provide any. As evidence I give you Obama's Nobel for Heroic use of Drones.

Re:Monty Python's song (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391549)

Huh, I thought he got the Prize for "Not Being Bush"?

Re:Monty Python's song (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391863)

Exactly, he'd only just been elected.

I think they were trying to convince him to live up to that prize...something he's failed miserably at.

The moral of the story... (2)

coofercat (719737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390009)

The moral of the story is that once you realise the "alright" president/prime minister/premier/whatever is actually up to all sorts of no-good, then the ones you don't think so much of are positively up to their necks in it.

Re:The moral of the story... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390081)

The moral of the story is that once you realise the "alright" president/prime minister/premier/whatever is actually up to all sorts of no-good, then the ones you don't think so much of are positively up to their necks in it.

Umm, 1973-76 would place these cables in the Nixon administration, with some later Ford material. Ford may have been feckless enough to secure 'alright' status; but did Nixon ever qualify as anything other than a nasty piece of work?

Re:The moral of the story... (3, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390593)

From the documents released a few years ago Ford was bribed (donation to Republican party) by the leader of Indonesia to put pressure on Australia and other nearby nations to stay out of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. Being bribed by a foreign power to set foreign policy is closer to treason than "alright", especially when President Ford flew halfway around the world to pick up the cash on the day of the invasion. Nixon looks like a saint in comparison.

Re:The moral of the story... (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390677)

I'm no Ford fan(he just had such a short term and relatively bland reputation that he seemed a viable candidate for a "eh, ok" designation); but Nixon isn't a saint even by those standards. His petty politicking around the Paris Peace accords cost us(not to mention the poor bastards who lived there) a substantial bill in blood in Vietnam.

Re:The moral of the story... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390961)

From the documents released a few years ago Ford was bribed (donation to Republican party) by the leader of Indonesia to put pressure on Australia and other nearby nations to stay out of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor.

Cite? Not that I'm terribly skeptical, just that I'd like to read up on it.

Re:The moral of the story... (2)

phayes (202222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390645)

Foreign policy wise, Nixon was pretty good. Normalizing relations with China while not abandoning Taiwan is an example of something that could have become a festering wound that he avoided.

Re:The moral of the story... (4, Informative)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391027)

Normalizing relations with China while not abandoning Taiwan is an example of something that could have become a festering wound that he avoided.

To give the devil his due, there are certain things that Nixon/Kissinger did right. You mentioned one of them. Others are détente and SALT I. But those are no reason to loose sight of the corrupt, murderous, and possibly outright treasonous things that they also did. History is full of such contradictions. For example, nobody likes to mention that without Stalin's forced industrialization in the 1920's and 30's, the Nazis probably would have won.

Re:The moral of the story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43391505)

I'm (not) looking forward to the release of documentation confirming the sabotaging of the Vietnam War peace process prior to Nixon's election by offering the North Vietnamese a better deal if he became president. Thousands more American kids died, including a high school classmate of mine. Kissinger is a treasonous murderer and I hope he burns in hell with McNamara and Nixon.

spel czech iz ur fiend (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390035)

unparalleled

Think outside the box. (-1, Flamebait)

hessian (467078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390043)

If government is allowing you to see these "leaks," they're benefiting in some way from the environment that results.

To assume that government is actually constrained by such things is to assume benevolence in government; perhaps it is most beneficial for them that you think this is all they have to reveal.

It's not paranoia to realize that in an age of utter selfishness, people will hoard power and use it deviously. What would Machiavelli do?

I dunno, release about a billion documents unrelated to what he's actually trying to hide.

Re:Think outside the box. (2)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390143)

The government isn't that clever by a longshot. Besides, it could just as easily backfire and remind everyone of all the scummy tactics we were engaging in just 40 years ago (and encourage more people to ask if we're still engaging in them today--which, sadly, we probably are).

Re:Think outside the box. (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390207)

What would Machiavelli do?

Well, I believe Machiavelli wrote a separate book on republics, which I haven't read, but the closest relevant chapter in _the Prince_ is probablyChapter IX [constitution.org] , where he says:

Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.

I'm aware that Machiavelli's name is a synonym for ruthlessness, but if you actually read what he wrote, there's a lot more to it than that. He wrote a lot about the importance of gaining and keeping the people's support. So, I do not think Kissinger by and large took the right lessons from Machiavelli. Now, Lyndon Johnson, *there's* a true student of Machiavelli!

Re:Think outside the box. (5, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390711)

What Machiavelli talked about was how to achieve and hold power. That requires the people's support. But a Machiavellian, like any true politician, does it for his own sake, not for theirs -- and Machiavelli thus talked about how to reconcile this fundamental selfishness with the need to keep the people's support.

The problem comes when there is a distinction between enacting policies that benefit the people, and feigning to so just in order to get their support while actually not having their best interests at heart. This is why transparency in governance is the ultimate enemy of politicians and yet the only thing that gives government a shade's chance of actually serving the public.

Re:Think outside the box. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390837)

If government is allowing you to see these "leaks," they're benefiting in some way from the environment that results.

To assume that government is actually constrained by such things is to assume benevolence in government; perhaps it is most beneficial for them that you think this is all they have to reveal.

Google must have been created to confuse us all. Slashdot to waste our time.

The fact is, if you read the cables, it doesn't read like a Stephen King novel. A reader would be hard pressed to not notice that 99% of the picture is missing.

Re:Think outside the box. (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390939)

if you read the cables, it doesn't read like a Stephen King novel

And how did you expect a raw dump of 200,000 cables to read? Let me know when you've read and studied all of them.

so these are in the wild? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390117)

where can i get them?

and do i trust wikileaks to be impartial to the information in those documents?

Re:so these are in the wild? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390319)

and do i trust wikileaks to be impartial to the information in those documents?

LOL of course not.

Wikileaks has already demonstrated that they're willing to skew the data and completely misrepresent data if that misrepresentation supports their political views.

Collateral Murder video, anyone?

Re:so these are in the wild? (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391119)

and do i trust wikileaks to be impartial to the information in those documents?

LOL of course not.

Wikileaks has already demonstrated that they're willing to skew the data and completely misrepresent data if that misrepresentation supports their political views.

As has the US government. Which is why no good student of history relies on a single source.

And while the "Collateral Murder video", as originally released, was as much a piece of propaganda as any US government release, Wikileaks has a much better track record when it comes to raw dumps. Not necessarily because they're unbiased, but because they don't have the resources to edit them. If nevertheless the US government believes the cables have been selectively released, I'll look forward to their release of additional information to set the record straight.

Constitutional Republic VS DHS and Oath Breakers (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390145)

Usually called a Constitutional Republic.
Real democracy will eat you, like when 51 percent vote it's okay to kill you an eat you.
Instead we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The existence of the agency called DHS is in 100% opposition to the US Constitution. It' must be de-activated, disarmed (with a BRAC like program) and the security clearance of all those people revoked for their treasonous bullshit.

All of the problems today are because of oath breakers. Senators don't regulate the monetary system. Every one of them ought be arrested for that. Or lose their power.
Don't like that example? It really is EVERY PROBLEM, is exactly the way they fucking want it.
How about the 49 oath breakers that tried to sign the UN Small Arms treaty and override our fucking constitution and GOD GIVEN RIGHTS to bear arms..
Every fucking day they're coming out with new fucking laws and rules and ordinances, and treaties, and shit.

Every one of those "spread democracy" fuckers is an oath breakin piece of shit, usually breaking the logan act and affiliating with foreign agenda like agenda 21 from the UN, Carbon Tax UNEP/IPCC, CFR (high level oath breaking), AIPAC (Jewish oath breaking), PNAC (conservative oath breaking)

You can't trust the FBI or DOJ cause where are all the fucking banksters? Free, and doing it again.

I conclude the RULE OF LAW has been destroyed

but you go ahead and say no, and then don't fucking cry when they STEAL Your COCK SUCKING RETIREMENT .
Go look at the oath breakers on HR 390

IT'S TOO LATE TO WAKE UP NOW, can you say capitol controls, new world order, fema regions

Obama should not be impeached, he ought be arrested for treason, spending the rest of his fucking life in ft. leavenworth.

These fuckers are the ones who spread death squads and war, funded by banksters.

IT'S TOO LATE TO WAKE UP NOW

NEW GLOBAL ORDER the fuckers are saying it in the OPEN now on CSPAN-2. BIDEN breaking his oath RIGHT FUCKING NOW live on CSPAN-2

Re:Constitutional Republic VS DHS and Oath Breaker (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390285)

Also this North Korea shit is already effecting my purchase habits.
on eBay I won't bid on any thing HongKong, China, Taiwan, PI, South Korea, Japan, I used to a LOT. Gas parts Kovea in SK, radios from Japan, Chips from all over the fuckin place, the people of these countries aren't my enemy, our respective misguided governments are.

But I won't be buying things located PHYSICALLY there until this fucking war crap stops. My fucking money is already being stolen by a thousand fucking cuts, to have something I buy destroyed by a war isn't something I am willing to take a chances on.

These fuckers like Biden love to talk about cybersecurity and intellectual property, copyright. (Their buzzwords of treason) They want your RIGHTS, GUNS, MONEY, PROPERTY, AND LIFE! BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO CRASH THIS SYSTEM! Still denying cause of my shit language?
GO listen to Biden right now on CSPAN-2. It's on Drudge, everywhere, "NEW GLOBAL ORDER." they prosecuted us as kooks and nuts with the false science the DSM when we said NEW WORLD ORDER, but now they fucking OPENLY SAY NEW GLOBAL ORDER. That's the same shit as CHEMTRAILS, ask some piece of shit ICLEI oath breaker if CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL, they call you a COOK, and use the DSM on your ass. BUt NOW we fuking find out the chemtrails are called "AERIAL SPRAYING" so they denied the shit because of ONE WORD. A WORD GAME. This shit MUST STOP.

IT'S TOO LATE TO WAKE UP NOW, THE MONETARY SYSTEM based on imagination IS GOING TO CRASH, and IT"S GOING TO BE FUCKED UP FOR EVERYONE. IRA's PEnsions, Savings accounts, banks, and no the fucking FDIC can't make good if the whole thing blows, the full faith of the US GOvernment is going to be 30 year paper treasury notes after they steal your SHIT. Then the capital controls, where they say you can only withdraw $300 of your money each day. So basically $19,500 a year even though you might be a millionaire.

IT IS TOO LATE, TO WAKE UP.

Watch as OBAMACARE BLOWS UP because it's unsustainable because the MEDICAL COSTS.

The Free Shit Army keeps marching ON though...
The Free SHit army is what is allowing CONSENT of these mother fucking OATH breakers by their votes. They are still stuck in the LEft Right paradigm.

Re:Constitutional Republic VS DHS and Oath Breaker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390637)

While I agree in substance I fail to see how you're going to win people to your way of thinking using that particular method of delivery.

Re:Constitutional Republic VS DHS and Oath Breaker (3, Informative)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43391199)

Usually called a Constitutional Republic. Real democracy will eat you

Warning: the English language is subject to change over the centuries. Right wingers and libertarians particularly take note. In the 18th century the word "democracy", without further qualification, generally referred to direct democracy. We are currently the 21st century (check your calendars if you doubt it). At this time, and for many years, the term "democracy" has taken on a more general meaning, and may refer to either direct or representative democracy, with or without a constitution. This may be verified by using a new type of reference called a "dictionary".

If you can't find anything more substantial to complain about than your fetish for using 18th century meanings for certain words, do you actually have anything to say?

Israel? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43390347)

Israel? Lot of infant dick sucking going on over there, I hear.

Mostly already available, but not the point (2)

rabbin (2700077) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390431)

These were mostly already available, but the value here is that they are now easily accessible and searchable. In addition, there is a history of previously declassified documents becoming re-classified:

The previous declassification Executive Order 12958 signed in 1995, under the Clinton administration, was resisted by officials in the Defense Department and the U.S. intelligence community. The reclassification program was started in the fall of 1999 (Executive Order 13142). Security concerns were heightened by the Wen Ho Lee case, and "alleged" inadvertent release of nuclear secrets by the State Department.[1] 55 boxes of material were removed to the classified storage area on the sixth floor.[2]

It sought to be covert for as long as possible, but was revealed by the National Security Archive in February 2006.[3] By that point over 55,000 pages had already been reclassified, many dating back more than 50 years.

During the George W. Bush administration the scope of the program widened (Executive Order 13292), and was scheduled to end in March 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._reclassification_program [wikipedia.org]

Still today (3, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a year and a half ago | (#43390931)

What amuses me is that most people like to pretend that this type of stuff doesn't continue into the present day.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?