A must read: Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy"

[Sikander]

I got this book a few years ago, and quite agree. It's both enlightening and entertaining. It is basically a history of the international relations of nation states, and Kissinger's dry sense of humor is very much in evidence. I actually laughed out loud when he would make a funny understated comment and I imagined him saying it in that crazy accent.

[Graag]

Henry Kissingers guide to Diplomacy: If in doubt bomb them, preferably secretly. If anyone asks any questions, deny everything, or bomb them if they're foriegn.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Graag
Henry Kissingers guide to Diplomacy: If in doubt bomb them, preferably secretly. If anyone asks any questions, deny everything, or bomb them if they're foriegn.

....


stop it man, you're killing me....

.....

.....please, no more! I can't take anymore of your wicked humor......

[Berzerker]

Joseph -

If I remember correctly, the US Gov. was concerned about another country becoming a Communist country.

Democratically elected and socialist.

Whether you agree or not there are some in the US who have by action or otherwise stated that there will not be another communist country in the America's as long as they are around.

These people own the hemisphere?

I don't why but the younger generation don't have the same views about communist that my generation and older have about communism.

I'm 43 and have no love for communism, but I don't defend murder either.

Getting back to the General. In that timeframe if the general was in the way of replacing the Government then he would have to go.

Murder is acceptable? Then I suppose you'd defend Osama bin Laden or is murder only acceptable when the US murders people?

I have said this many times on Apolyton threads, it is easy for the youth of today to look back at our country, or other countries and their leaders and say No Way, that was wrong. But until you have lived that time period, it is hard for you to really know what was happening in this country or any other countries and why thing happen the way they did.

It's not about young or old, it's about morality and immorality. And Kissinger's involvement with the slaughter of untold numbers in Chile is just one of his crimes. There's the not-so-secret bombing of Cambodia that led to the Khmer reign of terror and his complicity in Cyprus. I suggest you read Hitchin's book, Kissinger can't even leave the country without consulting with lawyers because of the possibility he'd be arrested and extradicted for his crimes.

[Bereta_Eder]

read it both in english and in greek

the world through "american" eyes

and the best example yet of why a country should double screen its immigrants

[RGBVideo]

US's actions in Cambodia and Chile were both long-range disasters.

[Graag]

Don't forget Laos

[Static Universe]

And East Timor and Viet Nam...

And even the United States, if he really was involved in the extended series of criminal and undemocratic acts we refer to as Watergate, and evidence suggests he was.

If he really undermined the Viet Nam peace conference before the 68 elections, and evidence suggests he did, that's not only illegal and unconstitutional, it's treason.

He arranged to have all of his public papers from government service sealed in the Library of Congress, and the courts have OK'ed this, so that he can't be effectively investigated until after his death.

The man can't even go into most Third World countries for fear of imprisonment or assassination.

Here's an interesting Kissinger quote from a Bilderberger conference in 92:

"Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from evil. The one thing every man fears is the 'unknown'. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government."

Here he is telling the European power elite how to establish military control over an American city with a threat that doesn't even exist.

That's the man Bush wanted to investigate 9-11. The argument could certainly be made that Kissinger-style secret diplomacy led to 9-11 in the first place, no matter if you believe Osama did it or subscribe to any degree of conspiracy theory.

I happen to agree that he's a great stateman, but he went too far, and history seems to judging him this way. His biggest concern seems to be holding off any investigation of his actions until he croaks from old age, so that his crimes, and they are crimes, will always have a queston mark after them in the history books.

Why do you think he backed off the 9-11 commission? It isn't just his client list, which I'm sure is full of interesting names. It's the fact that if he answers one question, he thinks he'll probably be expected to answer two. Answering questions is something he afford to do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, he was Machiavellian, but the question posed is 'so?'. Like joseph said, it is easy to look back and pose questions. What about when you were there?

[The Mad Monk]

I recall a passage in Diplomacy where the Pope of the time learned of Cardinal Richelieu's death; he said something like:

If there is a God, Richelieu has much to answer for; if there isn't a God...well, he's led a very successful life.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, he was Machiavellian, but the question posed is 'so?'. Like joseph said, it is easy to look back and pose questions. What about when you were there?

The 'so' here is that Kissinger's disastrous foreign policy decisions in Loas, Cambodia and Viet Nam made the people in the countries hate us so much that they wound up going Communist anyway, and there was nothing we could do about it. His failures set the dominoes in motion.

If Kissinger hadn't sabotaged the peace talks in 68, who knows, South Viet Nam might be free today. If he hadn't authorized wholesale slaughter in Cambodia and Loas, those countries might be free today. I don't even want to get into East Timor and Chile.

It's much easier for you to say 'oh, you weren't there, he was fighting communism, he made the best decisions he could, you can't judge.' That's a total cop-out. Kissingers actions gave more power to the communist movement than it ever took from them, in terms of propoganda all over the third world. We're still dealing with it today, and it represents an enormous threat to our security. If history is to mean anything, we must judge him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And in judging him, I don't think he made wrong decisions. He made rational dicisions in war against Vietname, and his policy in Chile were ALSO for the best in the international fight against communism.

I don't think he has anything to answer for. He did a good job.

[Sava]

I don't care what Kissinger has to say, he's a war criminal and should be at The Hague. The difference between him and Milosevic is there's actually proof Kissinger did something.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Static23
If Kissinger hadn't sabotaged the peace talks in 68, who knows, South Viet Nam might be free today.

May I have what you are smoking?

[Graag]

And in judging him, I don't think he made wrong decisions. He made rational dicisions in war against Vietname

Imran - his decisions may have seemed rational at the time, even now if have trouble reading a history book, but ultimately look at what happened to all of the countries he pushed for the bombing of - Laos is still communist today, as is Vietnam, and Cambodia emerged from the bloodiest most genocidal regime in this century (including old Adolf and pals) into a sham of utterly corrupt democracy backed by murder.

If Kissinger got it right I hate to think what would have happened if he ****ed up.

The difference between him and Milosevic is there's actually proof Kissinger did something

LMAO