Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Yes, I’m paying attention, thanks.
I have no expectation of penetrating any epistemic closure.
But there may be some people reading this (I mean, apart from James) who have never heard of Anthony Gilberthorpe and might like to check up on him. If not, no harm done.
@Ikonoclast
Your #49
Oh give it a rest, Ikono. There’s nothing particularly wrong with Hillary, and she would be substantially better that any and all of: Nixon (and just imagine if Spiro hadn’t resigned to avoid impeachment and the USA had gotten him instead of Gerald “Can’t chew gum and …” Ford), Ronald “let’s deregulate the Savings and Loans” Reagan, George H W “Let’s make war on Iraq” Bush and George “Cheney and Wolfowitz have told me to invade Iraq and pulverise the Middle East so I’m gonna do it – Mission accomplished” Bush.
Where have you been for the past fifty years ? What brainfarts have you absorbed about Hillary – apart from the efforts of Ken Starr, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart, the NY Times, and Roger Ailes and the whole lying, corrupt Murdoch Press.
The worst you can say about Hillary was that she was a Goldwater Girl cheerleader back in 1964 when she was still in High School. But I reckon we all should get a small gift of mercy or two for things we might have done when we were 17.
@J-D
Your #51
Yeah, ok, but few if any of us here – not being mid-adolescent, with the probable exception of James – have not done a lookup on Anthony Gilberthorpe (inter alia). My favourite was Kevin Drum’s summary on Mother Jones (just after his Friday Cat-Blogging post).
I have no idea who “James” is though my suspicion is he’s a soft troll – or someone playing at being a troll, anyhow -just having his five minutes of fun. And in my mind, having concluded that he’s most likely a young troll, I invoke the standing rule: “Don’t feed them”.
Ikonoclast wrote on October 16th, 2016 at 13:01 :
GrueBleen wrote on October 16th, 2016 at 15:15 :
Nothing particularly wrong!? As I wrote in the discussion about Trump and Tribalism on May 30th, 2016 at 23:53 :
The number of people killed in wars that Hillary Clinton helped to start since 1990 is barely an order of magnitude less than the 60 million that died in that terrible global conflagration which ended 71 years ago in 1945. According to Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ), as many as 1,500,000 may have died in Iraq alone as a result of war, starvation and disease since 1990. Certainly many hundreds of thousands died in Iraq. Given Clinton’s record, our history from 1939 until 1945 may be about to repeat itself, only on a larger and more terrible scale, should she win the presidential election this year.
I would be curious to know if anyone, who watched Donald Trump’s speech of 13 October or the the second debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on 9 October, still believe that he molested those women.
(The second debate is no longer available on YouTube unfortunately – most convenient for the MSM liars who claim that Donald Trump lost that debate.)
In the speech of 13 October Donald Trump systematically demolishes a number of the claims of sexual molestation recently made against him.
There is another debate coming up at midday +10 (Daylight Saving Time) on Thursday 20 October. I suggest that anyone who wants to be properly informed about the choices that Americans face on 8 November and the likely consequences for the rest of the world of a victory of either of the two candidates, watch that debate, if they are able to.
GrueBleen, concerning your ad-hominem attack, I have been posting to johnquiggin.com for many years now. The link above is only one of many examples.
Rather than engaging in further psychoanalysis of me, I would appreciate it, if you would, instead, simply addressed the substance of my posts.
(Apologies for having used <strong> tags above, when I should have used <blockquote>tags.)
The speech, I referred to above, in which Donald Trump emphatically denies claims that he attempted to molest all those women can be found here. As I said, I would be interested to know how many people still believe all the allegations so recently made against Donald Trump after they watched the 46 minute video.
@James (#48)
Don’t you think this was a little odd, given that before running for the presidency Trump called Paula Jones “a loser”, “unattractive” and “not very talented”, characterised Bill Clinton (his long-time friend) as a “victim” and expressed sympathy for Hillary?
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/trump-clinton-sex-then-vs-now/index.html?sr=twCNN100916trump-clinton-sex-then-vs-now0934PMStoryLink&linkId=29736106
Don’t you think he might just be using these women, and Clinton-haters such as yourself, for his own ends? What makes you think he has any interest in any of the policy issues which are important to you?
@James
Your #54
“I have been posting to johnquiggin.com for many years now.”
And your point is ? You are still a soft troll “James”, no matter how long you claim to have been posting.
“I would appreciate it, if you would, instead, simply addressed the substance of my posts.”
And the above statement of yours is ample demonstration of the correctness of everything Collin Street said in his post #38 of October 16th, 2016 at 07:51. Nothing of which can you even begin to comprehend.
@Luke Elford
Yes, even leaving aside all the other issues (and why should one do so in any case?), Trump is a billionaire who avoids taxes and exploits workers. There is plenty evidence for that. Why would anyone think a billionaire cares about ordinary people?
@GrueBleen
Some of us manage to get beyond binary thinking of the sort where there are only black hats and white hats. “Trump is a black hat” does not necessarily lead to the conclusion “Hillary is a white hat”. Hillary’s hat is a dark grey which would look black except for the real black of Trump’s hat. I’m putting this in terms you might understand. Some of us understand the issues when a system does not give the people a real choice in political and political economy terms.
The speech, I referred to above, in which Donald Trump emphatically denies claims that he attempted to molest all those women can be found here.
Look. Run this through, build a decision tree.
If he’s accused and he’s not guilty… he’ll deny the accusations.
If he’s accused and he is guilty… he’ll… deny the accusations, no?
So. The guilty and the innocent alike deny accusations, which means that the existence of a denial per se doesn’t offer us any information that helps us tell the difference between a false and a true accusation. Denials essentially mean nothing; sensible people ignore them.
So of course I’m not going to watch a 46-minute video that a-priori can’t tell me the thing you think I should watch it for. Neither is anyone else.
I regret that I am unable to satisfy your curiosity, as I have watched neither.
I note that none of those who posted since I last posted on October 16th, 2016 at 21:45 – Luke Elford, GrueBleen, Ikonoclast, Collin Street and J-D – have bothered to watch either of the debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – the first rigged debate or the second – or looked at Donald Trump’s speech in which he refutes the allegations that he sexually molested a number of women.
I have been accused of not being able to see what is right in front of me, yet yet none of those listed above have even bothered to look.
As I said above, others, who wish to be informed, can watch the third debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump this coming Thursday at midday (+10:00 Daylight saving time).
They have they not responded to my post about how four victims of Bill Clinton – including Juanita Broadrick, who says that Bill Clinton raped her, endorsed Donald Trump.
They have not bothered to respond to my earlier post, in which I showed that John Barry repudiated allegations made against Donald Trump by his cousin, Summer Zervos.
I note that none of those listed above have expressed any opinion about war crimes in which Hillary Clinton is complicit – the invasion of the republics of the former Yugoslavia, the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the ongoing proxy invasion of Syria, which has so far cost the lives of 400,000 Syrians, including 80,000 Syrian soldiers.
Presumably, like Hillary Clinton, they all thought it funny when Muammar Gaddafi was murdered and also laugh at the prospect of war by the United States against Iran.
@Ikonoclast
Your #59
I just love your childish moral hectoring, Ikono – most bracing on a new Monday morning.
And I really love your use of “hats” to avoid any sensible discussion. Now if you really want to portray Hillary as “a dark grey which would look black” hat, that’s up to you and your simplistic set of black/white values.
Otherwise, you could actually provide a list of what you believe to be her crimes and misdemeanors and provide at least some evidence for the rest of us to believe she’s committed them. And credible evidence would be good, not just the partisan ravings of American MSM, thanks. Any criminal proceedings, perhaps ?
@James
You have no basis for drawing these conclusions. I did watch the second debate, and have seen plenty of what Trump has said at rallies.
But here’s the thing: attempting to pivot to ISIS when asked about sexual assault, having to be asked multiple times before providing a straight answer about whether he has actually sexually assaulted women, stalking Clinton on stage and then claiming she was moving into his personal space, saying that he’d never sexually assault the women who’ve made allegations against him because they’re not attractive enough, having his campaign provide multiple, contradictory responses—none of this adds up to the masterful refutation of the allegations you think it does.
But more importantly, Donald Trump has not been done in by the mainstream media (which, by the way, has paid virtually no attention to his impending child rape case) and evil, scheming, lying, manipulative women. Donald Trump has been done in by his own words and actions over decades as a celebrity who has desperately courted the attention of the mainstream media, words and actions that have revealed him to be a disgusting human being.
@Luke Elford
Your #64
May I respectfully suggest that you read Collin Street’s #38 of October 16th, 2016 at 07:51 above.
It may save you from wasting a lot of otherwise good, useful time.
[And keep a copy of it for later, plagiaristic use 🙂 There’s lots of people (billions, actually) to whom it applies]
@GrueBleen
You started the flame war mate. As always you start it and then pretend innocence. “Oh, give it a rest” is very condescending. But I’ve realised you don’t really understand what you say or your motives for saying it. In future I will return like for like. In other word, “give it rest Gruebleen”.
@Ikonoclast
Your #68
You’re quite right, Ikono, I just didn’t realise how sensitive you are to very ordinary phrases and expressions. You call that a “flame war” ? Give it a rest, Ikono.
Now, are you ever going to grow up and put an actual case about “dark grey hat” Hillary, or should I just note that your posts are about on a par with the maunderings of “James”: a lot of verbiage and no facts.
@GrueBleen
Give it rest, Gruebleen.
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.” ? Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky’s assessment of Hillary is in line with the statement above (except that she isn’t president yet.)
Now let me see, which thinker do I place more credence in, Noam Chomsky or GrueBleen? ROFL, it’s no contest.
So again, give it a rest Gruebleen.
@Ikonoclast
Your #68
Yep, just what I expected – just a pissant little quote from a linguist of some minor note. No statement of charges, no evidence, just verbiage again and again and again.
Give it a rest, Ikono.
Luke Elford on October 17th, 2016 at 08:49
The second debate was on 10 October. It’s curious that you have failed to mention the supposed faults, that you supposedly saw in Donald Trump’s performance, until now.
For my part, I think Donald Trump clearly won that debate in spite of the moderator’s bias against him. Those, who would like to form their own judgement can watch for themselves:
Luke Elford wrote:
To the contrary, the mainstream media (including Google News), is clearly hostile to Donald Trump who, promises to act the vested interests that they serve. For the mainstream presstitute media, including the Huffington Post, to publish the allegations of child rape against Donald Trump just days before the election is yet another attempt to rig the vote against Donald Trump.
There is no reason that the case against Donald Trump cannot be heard after the election, even, if he is elected President.
Luke Elford, can you name the “evil, scheming, lying, manipulative women” to whom you refer?
@GrueBleen
James isn’t a ‘soft troll’, Gruebleen. He is entirely sincere. Make of that what you will.
@James
“The second debate was on 10 October. It’s curious that you have failed to mention the supposed faults, that you supposedly saw in Donald Trump’s performance, until now.”
You got me, James. My impression of the debate is just a complete fabrication and the proof is that I’m only reporting it now, six days later.
@Ikonoclast
Now let me see, which thinker do I place more credence in, Noam Chomsky or GrueBleen? ROFL, it’s no contest.
Regardless of whatever Gruebleen thinks, Noam Chomsky isn’t a lawyer, and the remark you quote (and the article/speech from which it is derived) is essentially a moral condemnation, not a legal opinion. Chomsky is probably right that many of the things that have been done by postwar US presidents should be crimes under international law, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are.
oops – forgot the quote tags.
Make that seven days. Even worse.
Insofar as it relates to me, that is correct. I have never watched a Presidential debate in my life. It would be a waste of my time. Also, I don’t need to watch Donald Trump’s speech to know that he denies the allegations against him.
Again responding only insofar as the comments relate to me: I have made no accusations against you, and I have not associated myself with any accusations made by anybody else.
See my observation above.
I have not responded because it makes no difference to me who endorses Donald Trump, or any other Presidential candidate for that matter, past, present, or future.
Now that’s not true. I have responded to that. However, I don’t mind responding again: although you have referred to what her first cousin has said, you have not said whether you think she is lying, or whether you think all the other women who have made allegations against him are also lying.
Insofar as this comment relates to me, it is correct: I have expressed no opinion about whether Hillary Clinton is complicit in war crimes. I don’t understand why you would want me to.
You are not entitled to that presumption. I regard death as sad, not funny (although to be strictly accurate it’s impossible to deny that occasionally there is a blackly comic element in the circumstances of a death, as in the words of General John Sedgwick very shortly before he was shot dead, ‘They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance’). I never laughed at Gaddafi’s death.
On the other hand, I think it’s worth noting something Kurt Vonnegut wrote:
‘… Total catastrophes are terribly amusing, as Voltaire demonstrated. You know, the Lisbon earthquake is funny.
‘I saw the destruction of Dresden … and certainly one response was laughter … that’s the soul seeking some relief.
‘Any subject is subject to laughter …
‘Humor is an almost physiological response to fear …
‘… I was working on a funny television series years ago. We were trying to put a show together that, as a basic principle, mentioned death in every episode and that this ingredient would make any laughter deeper without the audience’s realizing how we were inducing belly laughs.’
(Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country)
Further to my comments about the Chomsky quote, I will say that I agree that at least some of the actions taken by postwar Presidents that Chomsky discusses do fall within the definition of crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Nuremberg principles.
Thank you, Tim Macknay for your post of October 17th, 2016 at 12:34. Below, in Appendix 2, is the Urban Dictionary definition of ‘soft troll’ – the only definition I could find. Perhaps, GrueBleen might care to explain, some time, how by having posted the above posts, I conform to that definition?
Donald Trump, contrary to the supposed “high moral ground” taken by German Chancelor Angela Merkel, Time Magazine’s 2015 “Woman of the Year”, opposes open borders. The chaos caused by Angela Merkel after she suddenly opened Germany’s borders to anyone who could get there from Syria, the Middle and Near East and Africa in August 2014, and the consequent outrage against her by native Germans is described in An Update From Germany (14/10/2016) by Linh Dinh | Lew Rockwell.
Like Donald Trump, the similarly demonised Marine le Pen of France also opposes mass immigration of Muslims to France whilst supporting Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic President of Syria in his war against terrorist invaders armed and paid for by her own government, the United States government and their allies.
Appendix 1: Correction to my previous post
Correction: “who, promises to act the vested interests that they serve” should have been “who promises to act against the vested interests that they serve.”
Appendix 2: urbandictionary.com definition of soft troll
The soft troll is the counter part to the more provocative, traditional trolling used to incite anger and hostility. The goal of the soft troll is to inflate the ego of the reader and to gain readership. Commenters cannot resist displaying their superiority and even go so far as to display their comments on social networking sites. What results is a mass intellectual “circle jerk” of people who, while smart enough to correct the mistakes of the poster or point out the obvious joke the poster was illiciting, are not self aware enough to realize that it was all set up. There is no damage done to the posters themselves, they will go on thinking they are quite clever. The true spoils of such a troll go to those who ascertain the true goal of the poster. A symbiotic relationship emerges where all parties walk away feeling superior over the other.
@Tim Macknay
Your #71
I suppose I’ll have to, Tim, because I surely can’t make of it what I won’t.
But I guess I could inquire – without expecting any exposure of private confidences – just how you know that ?
@Tim Macknay
Your #73
“Regardless of whatever Gruebleen thinks, Noam Chomsky isn’t a lawyer,”
Just by way of clarification, just where did “whatever GrueBleen thinks” get into the conversation ? And yes, Tim, I am very well aware that Mr “Universal Grammar” isn’t a lawyer – that is, indeed why I called him a linguist. Ok ?
Now: “Chomsky is probably right that many of the things that have been done by postwar US presidents should be crimes…”
What is your source for Chomsky being right about “many of the things that have been done” ? Can you point to a list of such things prepared by Chomsky, please. Or indeed by anybody on Chomsky’s behalf ?
And just maybe, for Ikono’s benefit, somebody should point out that Hillary hasn’t actually been elected POTUS yet, so even Chomsky’s little list of those who shouldn’t be missed does not cover anything that would explain Ikono’s implacable hostility to her.
As for most politicians, even of minor little places like Australia, the most common state is DIYD*2 (Damned if you do, damned if you don’t). And because willful misinterpretation is rife, let me make it crystal clear that I do not think HRC or anybody, is actually a blameless angel.
@Tim Macknay
Your #77
Yes, but do they all fall into the category of crimes that demand execution as punishment – remembering, of course, that of the 21 (plus the absent Borman) tried at Nuremberg, 3 were acquitted, 7 were only jailed, and the remaining 11 were indeed hanged.
So perhaps you could line up the actions taken by postwar Presidents that Chomsky discusses with the actual crimes for which the Nuremberg 11 were hanged, and show conclusively that “all of the post war presidents” would be hanged too. Whilst remembering, of course, that Chomsky make his accusation back in 1990, so the list of Presidents he nominated does not include Bill Clinton, George W Bush or Barack Obama – unless Chomsky has issued an update. Has he, do you know ?
@GrueBleen
It wasn’t my intent to imply that you thought Chomsky was a lawyer, although my comment does read that way – apologies. The intent of that remark was to point out to Ikonoclast that Chomsky wasn’t an appropriate authority against which to compare your views of international humanitarian law. It wasn’t supposed to be disparaging of you – sorry if it came across that way.
Regarding your question about my source, it seems from your #81 that you’ve located the 1990 Chomsky speech/article from which Ikonoclast’s quote is taken. I don’t agree with Chomsky’s statement that all postwar presidents would be hanged, so I have no interest in trying to demonstrate it conclusively. I only opined that some of the actions taken by postwar presidents do appear to be crimes under the Nuremberg principles.
I agree that the Chomsky quote is in any case irrelevant to claims that HRC is a ‘war criminal’, and I don’t think we’re really in disagreement about any substantial issue in this thread. Personally, I find the claims that HRC is a war criminal pretty implausible. Most of the claims of that nature I have read are polemics that are clearly based on ignorance about what war crimes actually are, and I have yet to come across an article penned by a person with relevant legal knowledge that makes a cogent case that HRC has committed any war crimes. Coming back to Chomsky momentarily, as far as I am aware, he has called for voters in swing states to vote for HRC in preference to Trump, and he has never expressed the view that HRC is a war criminal. So to that extent, Chomsky’s opinion doesn’t really support Ikonoclast’s view in any case.
@Tim Macknay,
Certainly President John F. Kennedy (1917-1973) was not a criminal, In fact, he is almost certainly the kindest, most intelligent and most courageous leader this world has ever known. Quite possibly, he is the kindest and most courageous human being that ever lived. Consider these facts:
1. On no less than three occasions, he over-ruled his Armed Services Joint Chief of staff, who wanted to launch a first-strike nuclear attack against the Soviet Union
2. A Senator he passed a resolution that made the United States change from supporting France’s colonial war against Algeria to becoming neutral. After he was elected President, the United States supported the the Algerian FLN resistance movement against the French colonialists.
3. …
@James
Well, there was that awful Bay of Pigs business…
@Tim Macknay
Your #82
No, no I wasn’t feeling disparaged or anything, I just wanted to be sure I wasn’t being misunderstood. If I may make the point, experienced readers often ‘read’ by picking up the first syllable or so of a word, combining it with the verbal ‘context’ and thus ‘deducing’ the rest of the word – a process which speeds up reading, but can introduce the odd erroneous interpolation (as I am personally occasionally subject to). So although ‘linguist’ doesn’t really look like ‘lawyer’ my ultra-caution kicked in.
No, I don’t really think you and I are at loggerheads here, but Ikono, for whatever reason, seems to want to hold HRC as a serial offender of various – but always unspecified and undocumented – crimes and misdemeanors. Now I certainly don’t think she’s blameless, but she has been the target of thirty years of innuendo, false accusations and outright lies and slander. So I desire any serious HRC critics to be able to actually document whatever they think she’s committed – it really is that simple. But nobody, so it seems, can ever actually provide genuine documentation.
What we do get is seriously dishonourable rags like the New York Times publishing articles that contain, for instance, clauses such as “this raises serious questions” – “questions” that are never listed or in any way documented. So it’s just weasel words to inspire mistrust in Clinton without having to honestly admit they found nothing wrong.
Much the same as when I was watching SBS news yesterday to hear that Trump “had cast doubt” on the presidential elections. “Had cast doubt” ? What utter bullshut – he’d just made a bunch of ridiculous throwaway claims that, in fact, or at least to anyone still passably sane and of moderately sound mind, were just crap – as we’ve come to expect from Trump every single time. And give him credit, he never disappoints us.
@Tim Macknay
Your #84
Bay of pigs ??? What about the Cuban missile crisis ? Kennedy was all ready to bring on MAD and it was only averted because Nikita (which is a male name, btw) Kruschev was sane and sensible enough to seize on Bertrand Russell’s naive attempt to ‘inspire’ peace and backed down on the missile placement.
Sure enough, if Hillary is as ‘driven’ as Kennedy and the situation ever gets that bad again, then Putin is no Kruschev, there is no Bertrand Russell, and this time we might go all the way. So all you lot who missed out last time can sit around for 13 days wondering when the mushroom clouds will start to erupt.
Now personally, I don’t think Hillary is that crazy – she doesn’t have the hangups that infested Kennedy – so I don’t expect things to get that bad. But miscalculations can happen when amateurs play The Great Game for their first time.
Wikileaks inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London has just had its Internet connection cut by a “state actor” thus preventing Julian Assange from continuing to leak documents harmful to Hillary Clinton. No doubt, GrueBleen will be pleased,
I don’t have time to respond to all the lies posted above, but if others were to take the effort to look at some of my earlier posts, they will see that some those lies have already been refuted. Just for now, I will respond to Tim Macknay’s concern about the Bay of Pigs invasion.
As shown in JFK and the Unspeakable – Why he Died and Why it Matters (2008) by James W. Douglass:
President Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs operation from the previous Eisenhower administration. He was assured by the CIA and his generals that the Castro Communist government was a repressive tyranny and hated by most Cubans. They only needed to allow a small number of anti-Castro rebels sail to Cuba. Once they landed, the Cubans would rise up to support them and overthrow the Castro government.
However, once the invasion began, Cubans did rise up, but instead to support the Castro govenrment and throw out the invaders. As the invaders were being driven into the sea by the Cubans, both the US military and the CIA pleaded for permission to intervene with ships and aircraft to save the invasion.
Kennedy then realised that he had been lied to by his military and the CIA. Having no wish to continue the United States’ past policy of illegally meddling in the affairs of Latin America, he refused to provide that military assistance, and so the Bay of Pigs invasion was defeated.
After the invasion was defeated, a furious JFK, whilst publicly accepting full responsibility for the fiasco, sacked the head of the CIA.
@James
I’m not sure which ‘lies’ you’re talking about. However, obviously my pointing out that Kennedy authorised the Bay of Pigs invasion was not a lie, so I presume that you were not insinuating that it was. I am going to go ahead and suggest that you would do better if you did not reflexively assume that people who say things you disagree with or think are incorrect are acting in bad faith. It is often the case that people say things that are mistaken, or are simply expressing opinions that differ from your own. It does not mean they are lying, or have a malign agenda. It is also possible (indeed inevitable, as you are only human), that on some occasions at least, it is you who are mistaken, rather the person with whom you disagree.
@GrueBleen
Well, I didn’t bring up Kennedy’s actions during the Cuban missile crisis as, unlike the Bay of Pigs, they didn’t appear to fit into one of the crime categories under the Nuremberg principles (further to the earlier discussion). I’m no expert on the Cuban missile crisis, but from what I do know of it, it seems to me that Kennedy handled the situation reasonably well.
It is also possible (indeed inevitable, as you are only human), that on some occasions at least, it is you who are mistaken, rather the person with whom you disagree.
You can check this, self-verify your thinking.
For a five-way conversation, say, you’d expect that each person would make errors at the same rate, which means that the parties should get perceived strike rates of about eighty percent, say. If you think you’re running at, say, better than ninety percent… you’re probably not; “person has difficulties spotting their mistake” is more likely than “person has half the error rate of everybody else”.
[it’s not fifty-fifty because it’s not a two-way conversation; this gets called “dogpiling”, but that’s a misnomer.]
@GrueBleen
Khrushchev did not back down. This is Western historical dogma.
Khrushchev wanted two things only:
Ensure the US never tried to invade Cuba again.
Removal of US missiles on Russian border (in Turkey).
He got both.
The US wanted to:
Invade Cuba
Maintain missiles on Russian borders
They got nothing.
@Tim Macknay
Your #89
Basically, everybody “handled the situation reasonably well” and hence MADness was averted, to the relief of us uninvolved billions.
However, it was Kennedy’s America that was keen on deploying “first strike” missiles around the world and he who authorised the blockade of Cuba to prevent the Soviet ships getting in. Hence I’d essentially attribute the escalation of the situation to Kennedy.
Though yes, fortunately, it never actually came to a war that would definitely have been a crime vide Nuremberg. Though I also should say that my recall is that the “crimes” of Nuremberg were thrown together basically for the purposes of being used against surviving Nazis rather than having any coherent philosophical or legal precedent.
I think we all wonder, from time to time, how the firebombing of Dresden would have looked if the war had gone the other way. Or if basic human decency had prevailed.
@Ivor
Your #91
Oh, ok then Ivor; the Russian ships did sail on into the American blockade – and then what happened ? Did the Russians actually get to place missiles into Cuba ?
@GrueBleen
Why not – America was attempting to ring the USSR with missiles:
See: Western nuclear missiles
@GrueBleen
Though I also should say that my recall is that the “crimes” of Nuremberg were thrown together basically for the purposes of being used against surviving Nazis rather than having any coherent philosophical or legal precedent.
It’s certainly not the case that the principles underlying the Nuremberg trials lacked a ‘coherent philosophical or legal precedent’, although undoubtedly they were a form of victor’s justice. The Nuremberg principles were innovative, but proceeded from earlier developments in international law, notably the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. It is true though, that the discussion, proceeding from Chomsky, of postwar US presidents having committed crimes under the Nuremberg principles is a purely academic exercise, since the concept that individuals could be criminally liable at international law for war crimes was essentially in abeyance during the Cold War, and once the Nuremberg trials were completed there was no international tribunal in existence with competence to deal with allegations of that nature up until the 1990s.
Bollocks – forgot the quote tags again. I obviously got out of bed too early this morning…
@Ivor
It was a strategic confrontation. Both sides came away with an improved security situation, having removed threatening nuclear missile installations from their respective doorsteps. War was avoided. Essentially, everybody won. Given that the Cold War ended over a quarter-century ago, and neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had a clean slate when it comes to dubious uses of military power, arguing about ‘who won’ the Cuban missile crisis seems a tad ridiculous.
@Tim Macknay
You need to read up on a bit of US Cold War history from President Wilson and the antics of the British terrorists such as Bruce Lockhart.
Australia also sent terrorists into USSR to wage war.
The placement of missiles in Italy and Turkey was a unilateral strategic provocation and project of containment as was the Bay of Pigs.
The Yanks almost brought a nuclear conflagration down upon themselves.
Time does not make anything ridiculous.
@Tim Macknay,
My apologies to you and others for my needlessly aggressive language in my post of October 17th, 2016 at 23:07.
Professor Quiggin, my subsequent post of October 19th, 2016 at 09:19 about the firebombimng of Dresden and related issues, which was awaiting moderation, has since disappeared. Can you tell me what happened to it?
Staying roughly within the purview of ‘power’ politics the death of the very ageing Thai king and the desire of the Japanese emperor to abdicate/retire has me pondering the British crown. Could Lizzie be interested enough in succession matters elsewhere to ponder her own demise? Even sudden death can’t be ignored particularly where Australian republicans have suggested that Charles’s succession would be a trigger event to spur change here. I fear we’re going to be caught napping with not much on offer from republican Turnbull.