6 ms·

Why is this comment downvoted? You have the right to see China, USSR and NK as immoral regimes but there's nothing non-factual here.

charonn0 1y ago
The topic is cybercrime and espionage, not nuclear brinksmanship or colonialism. Whatever parallels can be drawn don't seem to be very relevant, so the comment comes off as an attempt to deflect criticism.
- torben-friis 1y ago
  Maybe it wasn’t clear, but I think the comment is explaining the importance for superpowers of keeping their immediate surroundings politically aligned - china wants NK on their side for the same reason neither the US or the URSS wanted nukes on their doorstep.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- codpiece 1y ago
  It was still a fascinating aside, and it's not like HN stays on topic in a thread. I learned something today.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    I do wonder what's the state of history education today when one only learns a basic history event today, and through a layman's forum post which is surely going to have all the complete perspective as opposed to setting out an explicit agenda.
- skinnymuch 1y ago
  You can’t separate colonialism and imperialism from Korea. As if any of us know what Korea would be doing if the west didn’t invade then sanction among other things.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    North Korea invaded South Korea after US pressured South Korea to disarm. North Korea was the imperialist actor here.
    - skinnymuch 1y ago
      That’s not what imperialism means. At all. Next you’ll say China wanting reunification with its own people is imperialism but NATO in Ukraine isn’t. Or they can be equivocated. I haven’t heard about the disarming stuff. I don’t think that part happened.
      - noduerme 1y ago
        What an apt comparison you make in your apologia for dictatorships! For the imperialist Beijing regime to "reunify" with an independent state in Taiwan which it never controlled is just like the czarist empire based in Moscow "reunifying" with Ukraine: It's an autocracy invading an independent democracy, killing people, and taking away their right to self-determination. Comparing this with Ukraine wanting to join NATO or the EU for the defense of their right to self-determination and to live free of an authoritarian police state is laughable. But such a comment can only come from ignorance of the differences between systems of government with human rights and those with none, or else be sheet wicked propaganda paid for by an authoritarian regime. The equivocation here is in your comment - one must wonder what your actual motive is.
        skinnymuch 1y ago
        Ukraine arguably gave up its sovereignty when it became a neo-colony of the imperialist west and NATO in 2014. No one has the heavens mandate to any land. We are only human. Not gods. You don’t get to do whatever you want on the land of your nation state just because of blood and soil arguments like you and your blood is from there. Western and liberal democracy is not about human rights. If China never had claims to Taiwan…then the KMT never should’ve gone there either according to your logic. And don’t have rights to that land now unless settler logic is used. > one must wonder what your actual motive is. I am an anti-imperialist and [pan-]nationalist. I don’t hide that. That is in contrast to most westerners or Europeans who go based off enlightened centrist and liberal vibes along with western, white, settler, and European chauvinism and supremacy.
- the_af 1y ago
  > The topic is cybercrime and espionage, not nuclear brinksmanship or colonialism. Those are all closely related topics in geopolitics.
mopsi 1y ago
[flagged]
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  > For starters, this propaganda often mischaracterizes the Monroe Doctrine as the US preying on its neighbors the way Russia and China are currently doing, when in fact it was a policy aimed at keeping wars between European colonial powers away from the newly independent countries in the Americas. ...so we can freely do as we please. Of course we've been preying on our neighbors. We've been invading and deposing all across the Americas to force alignment with our interests for well over a century now. We even have terrorist training camps hosted on our soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f... What, do you think that our invading Grenada, or Panama, is somehow in their interests? It's a flagrant violation of international law and sovereignty. To imagine that this is somehow an abnormal deviation from our "protection" of our neighbors is... well, I honestly didn't realize anyone thought that way anymore. Furthermore, we didn't enforce this doctrine when France invaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Saint_Pierre_and_Mi...), nor in the Falklands war. Look I can understand not thinking america is "evil" or entirely machiavellian, but it seems just as absurd to take any noble intentions we claim to have at face value. The monroe doctrine is as good an example of this as any.
  - corimaith 1y ago
    >Panama 92% of Panamans supported the invasion to despose Noreiga and actually would have preferred the US do it earlier back during his second coup. Truth be speaking, I would where you are getting your history, if not just from skewed leftist internet Podcasters. Not mentioning the larger context of the Cold War and the opinions of the people on the ground does look more like lying by omission.
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      I read history books like anyone else, the cold war was just straight retarded, and we trained Noriega (at the very school I already linked to). Furthermore just because I want someone to invade and liberate us doesn't mean it's not a violation of international law and sovereignty.
corimaith 1y ago
The causality between missiles in Turkey causing the Cuban Missile Crisis is unsubstantiated by historical facts from the Soviets own perspectives. It's more that Cuba requested nukes first, the USSR opportunistically took, then they to resolve the crisis they took that opportunity to remove Turkish missiles. It wasn't really a tit for tat on part of the USSR's intentions, Cuba was the primary agent here. Not that it really mattered later on once ICBMs are developed.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jmyeet 1y ago
  From Khrushchev's own words (27 October 1962) [1]: > Your missiles are located in Britain, are located in Italy, and are aimed against us. Your missiles are located in Turkey. > You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it is 90 miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America. But Turkey adjoins us; our sentries patrol back and forth and see each other. Do you consider, then, that you have the right to demand security for your own country and the removal of the weapons you call offensive, but do not accord the same right to us? You have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us. How then can recognition of our equal military capacities be reconciled with such unequal relations between our great states? This is irreconcilable. According to General Boris Surikov [2]: > 'Khrushchev and his Defence Minister, Rodion Malinovsky, were at Khrushchev's estate on the Black Sea. They went for a walk and Malinovsky pointed in the direction of Turkey and said: 'That's where the American rockets are pointing at us. They need only 10 minutes to reach our cities, but our rockets need 25 minutes to reach America.' Khrushchev thought for a while and then said: 'Why don't we instal our rockets in Cuba and point them at the Americans? Then we'll need only 10 minutes, too.' This article goes on to quote the Soviet Ambassador to Cuba, Alexander Alexeyev, who was a direct witness and a go-between between Khrushchev and Castro: > 'On 14 May 1962 I was called to a meeting of the Defence Council at the Kremlin. Khrushchev said, in effect: 'Comrades, I think it would be a good idea to instal rockets in Cuba. Do it clandestinely. I don't want it known in the US until November (after the mid-term Congressional elections). Alexander Alexeyev, how will Fidel react when we present him with our decision?' [1]: https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct27/doc4.html https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct27/doc4.html [2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-cuban-missile-crisis-1962-the-world-at-death-s-door-1555622.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-cuban-missile-crisi...

charonn0 1y ago

The topic is cybercrime and espionage, not nuclear brinksmanship or colonialism. Whatever parallels can be drawn don't seem to be very relevant, so the comment comes off as an attempt to deflect criticism.

torben-friis 1y ago
Maybe it wasn’t clear, but I think the comment is explaining the importance for superpowers of keeping their immediate surroundings politically aligned - china wants NK on their side for the same reason neither the US or the URSS wanted nukes on their doorstep.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
codpiece 1y ago
It was still a fascinating aside, and it's not like HN stays on topic in a thread. I learned something today.
- corimaith 1y ago
  I do wonder what's the state of history education today when one only learns a basic history event today, and through a layman's forum post which is surely going to have all the complete perspective as opposed to setting out an explicit agenda.
skinnymuch 1y ago
You can’t separate colonialism and imperialism from Korea. As if any of us know what Korea would be doing if the west didn’t invade then sanction among other things.
- corimaith 1y ago
  North Korea invaded South Korea after US pressured South Korea to disarm. North Korea was the imperialist actor here.
  - skinnymuch 1y ago
    That’s not what imperialism means. At all. Next you’ll say China wanting reunification with its own people is imperialism but NATO in Ukraine isn’t. Or they can be equivocated. I haven’t heard about the disarming stuff. I don’t think that part happened.
    - noduerme 1y ago
      What an apt comparison you make in your apologia for dictatorships! For the imperialist Beijing regime to "reunify" with an independent state in Taiwan which it never controlled is just like the czarist empire based in Moscow "reunifying" with Ukraine: It's an autocracy invading an independent democracy, killing people, and taking away their right to self-determination. Comparing this with Ukraine wanting to join NATO or the EU for the defense of their right to self-determination and to live free of an authoritarian police state is laughable. But such a comment can only come from ignorance of the differences between systems of government with human rights and those with none, or else be sheet wicked propaganda paid for by an authoritarian regime. The equivocation here is in your comment - one must wonder what your actual motive is.
      - skinnymuch 1y ago
        Ukraine arguably gave up its sovereignty when it became a neo-colony of the imperialist west and NATO in 2014. No one has the heavens mandate to any land. We are only human. Not gods. You don’t get to do whatever you want on the land of your nation state just because of blood and soil arguments like you and your blood is from there. Western and liberal democracy is not about human rights. If China never had claims to Taiwan…then the KMT never should’ve gone there either according to your logic. And don’t have rights to that land now unless settler logic is used. > one must wonder what your actual motive is. I am an anti-imperialist and [pan-]nationalist. I don’t hide that. That is in contrast to most westerners or Europeans who go based off enlightened centrist and liberal vibes along with western, white, settler, and European chauvinism and supremacy.
the_af 1y ago
> The topic is cybercrime and espionage, not nuclear brinksmanship or colonialism. Those are all closely related topics in geopolitics.

mopsi 1y ago

[flagged]

MangoToupe 1y ago
> For starters, this propaganda often mischaracterizes the Monroe Doctrine as the US preying on its neighbors the way Russia and China are currently doing, when in fact it was a policy aimed at keeping wars between European colonial powers away from the newly independent countries in the Americas. ...so we can freely do as we please. Of course we've been preying on our neighbors. We've been invading and deposing all across the Americas to force alignment with our interests for well over a century now. We even have terrorist training camps hosted on our soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f... What, do you think that our invading Grenada, or Panama, is somehow in their interests? It's a flagrant violation of international law and sovereignty. To imagine that this is somehow an abnormal deviation from our "protection" of our neighbors is... well, I honestly didn't realize anyone thought that way anymore. Furthermore, we didn't enforce this doctrine when France invaded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Saint_Pierre_and_Mi...), nor in the Falklands war. Look I can understand not thinking america is "evil" or entirely machiavellian, but it seems just as absurd to take any noble intentions we claim to have at face value. The monroe doctrine is as good an example of this as any.
- corimaith 1y ago
  >Panama 92% of Panamans supported the invasion to despose Noreiga and actually would have preferred the US do it earlier back during his second coup. Truth be speaking, I would where you are getting your history, if not just from skewed leftist internet Podcasters. Not mentioning the larger context of the Cold War and the opinions of the people on the ground does look more like lying by omission.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    I read history books like anyone else, the cold war was just straight retarded, and we trained Noriega (at the very school I already linked to). Furthermore just because I want someone to invade and liberate us doesn't mean it's not a violation of international law and sovereignty.

corimaith 1y ago

The causality between missiles in Turkey causing the Cuban Missile Crisis is unsubstantiated by historical facts from the Soviets own perspectives. It's more that Cuba requested nukes first, the USSR opportunistically took, then they to resolve the crisis they took that opportunity to remove Turkish missiles. It wasn't really a tit for tat on part of the USSR's intentions, Cuba was the primary agent here. Not that it really mattered later on once ICBMs are developed.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jmyeet 1y ago
From Khrushchev's own words (27 October 1962) [1]: > Your missiles are located in Britain, are located in Italy, and are aimed against us. Your missiles are located in Turkey. > You are disturbed over Cuba. You say that this disturbs you because it is 90 miles by sea from the coast of the United States of America. But Turkey adjoins us; our sentries patrol back and forth and see each other. Do you consider, then, that you have the right to demand security for your own country and the removal of the weapons you call offensive, but do not accord the same right to us? You have placed destructive missile weapons, which you call offensive, in Turkey, literally next to us. How then can recognition of our equal military capacities be reconciled with such unequal relations between our great states? This is irreconcilable. According to General Boris Surikov [2]: > 'Khrushchev and his Defence Minister, Rodion Malinovsky, were at Khrushchev's estate on the Black Sea. They went for a walk and Malinovsky pointed in the direction of Turkey and said: 'That's where the American rockets are pointing at us. They need only 10 minutes to reach our cities, but our rockets need 25 minutes to reach America.' Khrushchev thought for a while and then said: 'Why don't we instal our rockets in Cuba and point them at the Americans? Then we'll need only 10 minutes, too.' This article goes on to quote the Soviet Ambassador to Cuba, Alexander Alexeyev, who was a direct witness and a go-between between Khrushchev and Castro: > 'On 14 May 1962 I was called to a meeting of the Defence Council at the Kremlin. Khrushchev said, in effect: 'Comrades, I think it would be a good idea to instal rockets in Cuba. Do it clandestinely. I don't want it known in the US until November (after the mid-term Congressional elections). Alexander Alexeyev, how will Fidel react when we present him with our decision?' [1]: https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct27/doc4.html https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct27/doc4.html [2]: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-cuban-missile-crisis-1962-the-world-at-death-s-door-1555622.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-cuban-missile-crisi...