Henry Kissinger (May 27 1923 - Nov 29 2023)

[coffee_rules]

9 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

For warmongers, "doing the right thing" only applies to "doing the right thing" for your own state's citizens to keep them happy so there are no internal revolts. Even Arthashastra seems to state that. This does not apply to having the same sense of humanity for the citizens of another state; they are not your problem unless they become part of your state. 

 

For Kissinger, communism was evil and detrimental to the US' (his state's) self-interest. So, uprooting communism by any means was seen as necessary and, if millions of Vietnamese were killed along with 1000s of US soldiers, so be it. Despicable thinking.

Didn’t know you were writing his hagiography ? you are either misquoting Arthashastra or you and HK have misunderstood it to be warmongering. Kautilya never said war is the solution. It is what to be considered as the final resolve for dharma. He was basically channeling what is said in the Bhagavad Gita. 

[Khota]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

too many people here think you are anti indian and support anti indian activities. Time to re-evaluate your position. 

 

Many people think that you are a racist, minority hater and a fascist at heart but you are good at getting people banned. So the opposition to you is less.

[Khota]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Dumb things to say. DJT was never a warmonger like HK. 

He was not a warmonger but was racist for sure. Did not believe in democratic institutions either.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

Many people think that you are a racist, minority hater and a fascist at heart but you are good at getting people banned. So the opposition to you is less.

i cant be racist to Indians, since i am an Indian myself. Plus race itself doesnt exist, nor do i subscribe to the idea of race that your euro masters have planted in your head.

No one gets banned for opposing me, else you'd have been banned a long time ago.

Your khalistani friend got banned for being khalistani gaddar. 

 

[Khota]

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

i cant be racist to Indians, since i am an Indian myself. Plus race itself doesnt exist, nor do i subscribe to the idea of race that your euro masters have planted in your head.

No one gets banned for opposing me, else you'd have been banned a long time ago.

Your khalistani friend got banned for being khalistani gaddar. 

 

You look down upon race of people. Classis rascist.

[Muloghonto]

28 minutes ago, Khota said:

You look down upon race of people. Classis rascist.

Which race of people do i look down on, mr racist ?

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 12/2/2023 at 5:59 PM, coffee_rules said:

Dumb things to say. DJT was never a warmonger like HK. 

 

I read my post a few times and still can't see where I said DJT was a warmonger.

 

I said DJT is an A-hole (nothing to argue there), but people support him anyway because he is on "their team" or represents their views.  Same can be said of Joe Biden or Elon Musk or Ricky Ponting. Not warmongers. 100% A-holes. But they have people who will vehemently/blindly back them because they are in their in-group. 

 

Bottom line" All warmongers (like HK) are A-holes, but not all A-holes are war-mongers.

 

Looks like this topic jerks your knee like a rubber hammer at the doctor's office. :-(.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 12/2/2023 at 6:06 PM, coffee_rules said:

Didn’t know you were writing his hagiography ? you are either misquoting Arthashastra or you and HK have misunderstood it to be warmongering. Kautilya never said war is the solution. It is what to be considered as the final resolve for dharma. He was basically channeling what is said in the Bhagavad Gita. 

In this thread, I have called HK's thinking despicable, and you say that is a hagiography?  (BTW, I had to google hagiography coz I had never heard that word).

 

At any rate, HK could have misinterpreted Kautilya and still claim to have been inspired by him. Like so many people claim to be inspired by Christ, yet commit heinous acts.

 

More to the point, here is an interpretation of Kautilya's view on war that seems to support my view that Kautilya felt that, if a king could win, he should go to war. I am willing to be corrected.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/40432#FOOT53

 

 

 

Which States to Attack

In Kautilya's view of the world, expansion by a prosperous kingdom was inevitable, natural, and good, and as a consequence, moral considerations did not enter into his deliberations, only what was for the good of the kingdom. If a king can win, then he should go to war. As Kangle says, the Arthasastra "preaches an ideal of conquest." ¹²¹ But who should be attacked? This is not an ethical question. The decision takes only careful calculation and observes the principle that a king should attack weakness. Certain states are vulnerable. If a state is unjust, then its people will welcome a deliverer from a tyrannical king; if a kingdom is weakened from a poor economy, or if a state has experienced some kind of calamity ranging from fires to flood or famine, then a king "should make war and march." ¹²² As Rajendra Prasad says, Kautilya believed that "whenever an enemy king is in trouble, and his subjects are exploited, oppressed, impoverished and disunited, he should be immediately attacked after one proclamation of war." ¹²³

Every adjacent kingdom should be looked upon as an enemy and classified. If a kingdom is strong, Kautilya called it a "foe"; if a kingdom is suffering calamity, then it is "vulnerable"; if a kingdom has weak or no popular support, then "it is fit to be exterminated." Even if one cannot attack a strong neighbor or "foe," one can harass it silently and weaken it over time. ¹²⁴ What Kautilya called an enemy "fit to be exterminated" was an enemy with little or no popular support, an enemy whose subjects quite likely would desert to Kautilya's attacking army. ¹²⁵ And Kautilya argued, or perhaps assumed, that imperial expansion was the correct goal: "After conquering the enemy's territory, the conqueror should seek to seize the middle king, after succeeding over him, the neutral king. This is the first method of conquering the world. . . . And after conquering the world he should enjoy it divided into varnas . . . in accordance with his own duty." ¹²⁶

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

49 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

I read my post a few times and still can't see where I said DJT was a warmonger.

 

I said DJT is an A-hole (nothing to argue there), but people support him anyway because he is on "their team" or represents their views.  Same can be said of Joe Biden or Elon Musk or Ricky Ponting. Not warmongers. 100% A-holes. But they have people who will vehemently/blindly back them because they are in their in-group. 

 

Bottom line" All warmongers (like HK) are A-holes, but not all A-holes are war-mongers.

 

Looks like this topic jerks your knee like a rubber hammer at the doctor's office. :-(.

 

 

You were bringing DJT just to respond to the comment about HK being a necessary evil, and I considered to be false equivalence. I hate politicians like HK, Churchill who were villains of the war as much as Hitler or Hi Chi Minh . DJT is anything but evil as HK. 

[Muloghonto]

57 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

I read my post a few times and still can't see where I said DJT was a warmonger.

 

I said DJT is an A-hole (nothing to argue there), but people support him anyway because he is on "their team" or represents their views.  Same can be said of Joe Biden or Elon Musk or Ricky Ponting. Not warmongers. 100% A-holes. But they have people who will vehemently/blindly back them because they are in their in-group. 

 

Bottom line" All warmongers (like HK) are A-holes, but not all A-holes are war-mongers.

 

Looks like this topic jerks your knee like a rubber hammer at the doctor's office. :-(.

 

 

Ukraine says hello. 

 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

In this thread, I have called HK's thinking despicable, and you say that is a hagiography?  (BTW, I had to google hagiography coz I had never heard that word).

 

At any rate, HK could have misinterpreted Kautilya and still claim to have been inspired by him. Like so many people claim to be inspired by Christ, yet commit heinous acts.

 

More to the point, here is an interpretation of Kautilya's view on war that seems to support my view that Kautilya felt that, if a king could win, he should go to war. I am willing to be corrected.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/40432#FOOT53

 

 

 

Which States to Attack

In Kautilya's view of the world, expansion by a prosperous kingdom was inevitable, natural, and good, and as a consequence, moral considerations did not enter into his deliberations, only what was for the good of the kingdom. If a king can win, then he should go to war. As Kangle says, the Arthasastra "preaches an ideal of conquest." ¹²¹ But who should be attacked? This is not an ethical question. The decision takes only careful calculation and observes the principle that a king should attack weakness. Certain states are vulnerable. If a state is unjust, then its people will welcome a deliverer from a tyrannical king; if a kingdom is weakened from a poor economy, or if a state has experienced some kind of calamity ranging from fires to flood or famine, then a king "should make war and march." ¹²² As Rajendra Prasad says, Kautilya believed that "whenever an enemy king is in trouble, and his subjects are exploited, oppressed, impoverished and disunited, he should be immediately attacked after one proclamation of war." ¹²³

Every adjacent kingdom should be looked upon as an enemy and classified. If a kingdom is strong, Kautilya called it a "foe"; if a kingdom is suffering calamity, then it is "vulnerable"; if a kingdom has weak or no popular support, then "it is fit to be exterminated." Even if one cannot attack a strong neighbor or "foe," one can harass it silently and weaken it over time. ¹²⁴ What Kautilya called an enemy "fit to be exterminated" was an enemy with little or no popular support, an enemy whose subjects quite likely would desert to Kautilya's attacking army. ¹²⁵ And Kautilya argued, or perhaps assumed, that imperial expansion was the correct goal: "After conquering the enemy's territory, the conqueror should seek to seize the middle king, after succeeding over him, the neutral king. This is the first method of conquering the world. . . . And after conquering the world he should enjoy it divided into varnas . . . in accordance with his own duty." ¹²⁶

 

 

It seemed like you were trying to imply that HK was inspired by Kautilya for his actions . Western Indologists have attributed western action to a lot of Indian philosophy, most of it wrongly. Starting from Hitler’s Aryan race theory to the use of Swastika. Oppenheimer understood Vishwadarshana of Gita to get inspired for causing the destruction of humanity. Kautilya from what I have read had a lot to say about governance, economy , politics and finally foreign policy. A lot of what he’s said on Rajniti to deal with hostile neighbors. He advocates diplomacy, treatises first and never said be aggressive in all times. A lot of his work on aggression is towards a hostile neighbor and what is jais or justified in that hostile scenario. Unfortunately , a lot of warmongers have misunderstood or read bad translations to justify their actions. Just as in a book, context is lost in translations. 

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It seemed like you were trying to imply that HK was inspired by Kautilya for his actions . Western Indologists have attributed western action to a lot of Indian philosophy, most of it wrongly. Starting from Hitler’s Aryan race theory to the use of Swastika. Oppenheimer understood Vishwadarshana of Gita to get inspired for causing the destruction of humanity. Kautilya from what I have read had a lot to say about governance, economy , politics and finally foreign policy. A lot of what he’s said on Rajniti to deal with hostile neighbors. He advocates diplomacy, treatises first and never said be aggressive in all times. A lot of his work on aggression is towards a hostile neighbor and what is jais or justified in that hostile scenario. Unfortunately , a lot of warmongers have misunderstood or read bad translations to justify their actions. Just as in a book, context is lost in translations. 

 

The central tenet of Kautilya's foreign policy is the ' Sam, dam, dand, bhed' , in that order. He very clearly says that its better to bribe your way to victory than to kill your way to victory (as a king).

 

PS: Reminds me of the time i attended a lecture by that moron named Michael Witzel. after prattling on about a whole bunch of nonsense, when the lecture was over, i caught him saying that indians were cannibals, particularly in the east and its relatively recent, so it persists in the language. 
Curious, i asked him what did he mean and he said, after finding out i am a bong, that 'bengalis have this phrase, that threatens/wards off against cannibalism...which is ritual eating of the brains'. I was like 'wtf'. 

After thinking on it a few minutes, i realised he is talking of the bengali phrase 'amar matha khash na' -  direct translation being 'dont eat my head'. When it is LITERALLY used to say 'stop being annoying'. 

Then i realised whats the problem with these retards from the western arts faculty : they don't understand idioms and their languages are too primitive for them to study ours systematically.

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Muloghonto

[BacktoCricaddict]

36 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It seemed like you were trying to imply that HK was inspired by Kautilya for his actions . Western Indologists have attributed western action to a lot of Indian philosophy, most of it wrongly. Starting from Hitler’s Aryan race theory to the use of Swastika. Oppenheimer understood Vishwadarshana of Gita to get inspired for causing the destruction of humanity. Kautilya from what I have read had a lot to say about governance, economy , politics and finally foreign policy. A lot of what he’s said on Rajniti to deal with hostile neighbors. He advocates diplomacy, treatises first and never said be aggressive in all times. A lot of his work on aggression is towards a hostile neighbor and what is jais or justified in that hostile scenario. Unfortunately , a lot of warmongers have misunderstood or read bad translations to justify their actions. Just as in a book, context is lost in translations. 

That's possible.

[BacktoCricaddict]

16 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Sam, dam, dand, bhed'

 

Hmm ... I always learned it as Sam, dam, bhed, dand.

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Hmm ... I always learned it as Sam, dam, bhed, dand.

i learnt with the last two switched. Maybe coz it rhymes better. Let me check what order its supposed to be.

 

[coffee_rules]

54 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

i learnt with the last two switched. Maybe coz it rhymes better. Let me check what order its supposed to be.

 

It was always - Saam, Daam, Dand, Bhed - 

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

It was always - Saam, Daam, Dand, Bhed - 

And I also did not learn it as Daam, but Daana.

 

Saama   Daana  Bheda     DanDa

 

In that order.  In fact there was a single word derived from those words: SamadanabhedadanDOpaaya  (danDa+upaaya = danDopaaya).

 

There's even a Thyaagaraja song extolling Rama's ability to use these upaayas correctly.  GOAT Madurai Mani Aiyar popularized it.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict

[Muloghonto]

42 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

And I also did not learn it as Daam, but Daana.

 

Saama   Daana  Bheda     DanDa

 

In that order.  In fact there was a single word derived from those words: SamadanabhedadanDOpaaya  (danDa+upaaya = danDopaaya).

 

There's even a Thyaagaraja song extolling Rama's ability to use these upaayas correctly.  GOAT Madurai Mani Aiyar popularized it.

 

 

well that is definitely incorrect. One cannot win victory over the enemy via daana. 

 

[coffee_rules]

34 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

well that is definitely incorrect. One cannot win victory over the enemy via daana. 

 

 

daana/daan in Sanskrit has multiple connotations. Daam is basically a price which in negotiations means a bribe. Daana also means a gift. In neogotiations. daana, is basically a gift to lure the opponent to your side. Both are used. Bheda Danda order is from the Tygararaja song - Sarasa  SamaDanaBhedaDanda   chatura for describing Rama's qualities. I have no idea why he choose that order.

[BacktoCricaddict]

9 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

daana/daan in Sanskrit has multiple connotations. Daam is basically a price which in negotiations means a bribe. Daana also means a gift. In neogotiations. daana, is basically a gift to lure the opponent to your side. Both are used. Bheda Danda order is from the Tygararaja song - Sarasa  SamaDanaBhedaDanda   chatura for describing Rama's qualities. I have no idea why he choose that order.

 

But Thyagaraja is not the only one to use it in that order. I learned independent of that. And the term SamdanabhedadanDopaaya too I learned before I heard that song (the song just stuck in my mind because I am a huge fan of MMI)

 

To me, it makes sense. Dialogue to gift to separation/division to punishment. More and more draconian in that order.

 

It must be said that this concept is not just for dealing with enemies or warcraft or whatever. It has been used to deal with people in general. In those scenarios, punishment would be the last resort.

 

I've been wasting (investing?) some time today to look this up and there are many sources where the upayas are listed in this order even with respect to Arthashaastra.

 

https://idsa.in/idsacomments/UnderstandingKautilyasFourUpayas_pkgautam_200613

 

Maybe there is no set order except you always start with Sama. Then, if the other party is too belligerent, you may feel like you have to jump straight to danDa.

Edited December 5, 2023 by BacktoCricaddict