A must read: Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy"

[Imran Siddiqui]

his decisions may have seemed rational at the time

Isn't that the point? How can you judge on the past without putting yourself in the shoes of the person at that time.

Laos is still communist today, as is Vietnam, and Cambodia emerged from the bloodiest most genocidal regime in this century

I'm not sure if Kissinger would say that is a bad thing. He didn't bomb Laos and Cambodia because they were Communist, he bombed them because that is where Vietnamese troops were going so they wouldn't get bombed by US forces in Vietnam. They went out of Vietnam and around and ended up in the South. THAT is why he bombed those countries.

It had nothing to do with them being communist (actually, I don't think Kissenger gave 2 ****s if they were communist or not... realists don't think in those terms).

[Graag]

Isn't that the point? How can you judge on the past without putting yourself in the shoes of the person at that time.

I think that's what Milosevic said.

It had nothing to do with them being communist (actually, I don't think Kissenger gave 2 ****s if they were communist or not... realists don't think in those terms).

*Ahem* Why did he start the war in Vietnam then?Remember the dominoes, Vietnam then the rest of the SE-Asia, then the world etc. etc.
The whole point of the war (purportedly at least) was to stop the spread of communism, and it achieved the exact opposite.
If his secret, realists plan was really to test the latest US weapons, waste a sh*tload of money, kill a bunch of kids, and prove US bombs and troops aren't worth **** in guerilla warfare, he did a damn fine job.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that's what Milosevic said.

Yeah, and?

Why did he start the war in Vietnam then?

You should learn your history. HE DIDN'T! Kennedy started the war, LBJ escalated it. Kissenger was trying to end it (along with Nixon, who said that his major goal).

The whole point of the war (purportedly at least) was to stop the spread of communism

No, the point of the war, was Kennedy doing a favor to the French and bailing them out in Indo-China. It escalated from there because LBJ and Nixon didn't want to be known as the first President to lose a war.

The stop the spread of communism was attached to it (even though Ho was merely a nationalist until the French and US came knocking). And if you look at your map. Communism ended in SouthEast Asia. It didn't go into Malaysia or Indonesia as the fear was. So if it was to stop the spread of communism, it actually worked well.

[TCO]

Well...you could say that it spread from NV to SV to Cambodia to Laos. Sure it stopped...but it spread quite a bit too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cambodia and Laos were basically already lost. Unless US troops were stationed at the border and occupying them, it wouldn't have mattered.

[Graag]

You should learn your history. HE DIDN'T! Kennedy started the war, LBJ escalated it. Kissenger was trying to end it (along with Nixon, who said that his major goal).

Quite right. This multi-thread arguement we seem to be having must have addled my mind.

No, the point of the war, was Kennedy doing a favor to the French and bailing them out in Indo-China

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the french well out of Vietnam when the bombs started dropping?

If Kissinger's objective was to win the war, he failed, if it was to stop the spread of communism, he failed (it spead, though not as much as feared).

Either way his actions killed or mutilated many millions of people.

Remember I am responding to your earlier post:

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.

Do you still agree with that statement? He lost all three wars in SE-Asia, they all ended up commies and he killed a f*ckload of peole. Good job?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the french well out of Vietnam when the bombs started dropping?

Not entirely. It was only a matter of years, before Kennedy decided to try to gain the colony back for the French.

If Kissinger's objective was to win the war, he failed, if it was to stop the spread of communism, he failed

Kissinger's objective was to slow the spread of communism and get the US out. Both of which were accomplished. The US had to get out, he knew that, Nixon knew that. They also knew that if they pulled out right then, the Communists would have been knocking on Australia before they knew what happened. So they bombed and fought some more and gradually pulled out and prevented a spread to only the vicinity of Vietnam.

Not a bad job at all.

Do you still agree with that statement?

Yes.

He lost all three wars in SE-Asia

Which three wars, we only fought one (Vietnam). Laos and Cambodia were expansions on Vietnam, to try to get the Vietnamese soldiers that were in those countries.

[monkspider]

Imran - By an extension of your reasoning in regards to Mr. Kissinger, can we therefore dismiss the attrocities that Hitler committed as "mere trivialities of no consequence" since he did a great deal of good in improving the living conditions of Germans in Germany? In other words, "a good job". Surely you are not serious. I have always lauded you as one of the basically decent human beings amongst Apoly's righties, please don't give me reason to retract that title.

[Graag]

It was only a matter of years, before Kennedy decided to try to gain the colony back for the French

Blatant nonsense.

Kissinger's objective was to slow the spread of communism and get the US out. Both of which were accomplished. The US had to get out, he knew that, Nixon knew that. They also knew that if they pulled out right then, the Communists would have been knocking on Australia before they knew what happened. So they bombed and fought some more and gradually pulled out and prevented a spread to only the vicinity of Vietnam.

How exactly did Kissinger slow the spead of communism?
Why did so many more Americans have to die than previously in the war in order to pull out?

Laos and Cambodia were expansions on Vietnam, to try to get the Vietnamese soldiers that were in those countries.

Balls. There were American troops in both countries and American bomber flying daily runs over both countries. How the hell else do you define a war?

Did Nixon do a good job too?

[Imran Siddiqui]

By an extension of your reasoning in regards to Mr. Kissinger, can we therefore dismiss the attrocities that Hitler committed as "mere trivialities of no consequence" since he did a great deal of good in improving the living conditions of Germans in Germany? In other words, "a good job". Surely you are not serious. I have always lauded you as one of the basically decent human beings amongst Apoly's righties, please don't give me reason to retract that title.

Hitler killed more people in wars that he directly started than he saved in improving the living conditions in Germany.

I still don't see which 'atrocities' Kissenger did. He overthrew governments and started civil wars? He didn't go ahead and directly order rounding people up and killing them, did he? He had a good end in mind by his government changes (namely eliminating communist threats from those countries). The ends justified the means. The worst thing he did was overthrow the Chilean government. That doesn't strike me as being similar to Hitler.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Kissinger's objective was to slow the spread of communism and get the US out. Both of which were accomplished. The US had to get out, he knew that, Nixon knew that. They also knew that if they pulled out right then, the Communists would have been knocking on Australia before they knew what happened. So they bombed and fought some more and gradually pulled out and prevented a spread to only the vicinity of Vietnam.

Knocking on Australia? About as likely to go communist as Japan, i.e. not at all!

It's all but proven that Kissinger stalled the peace talks to make LBJ look bad and get Nixon elected as the guy with the secret plan to win the war. What was the secret? Hey, guess what, no plan!

Then Kissinger kept Nixon in a war that he knew we wouldn't and couldn't win so Nixon wouldn't look bad before the next election.

Kissinger didn't slow the spread of communism in SE Asia at all. If anything he sped it up by years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Balls. There were American troops in both countries and American bomber flying daily runs over both countries. How the hell else do you define a war?

Did we try to kill Laotian and Cambodian troops there? Only those that joined up with the Vietnamese. It was part and parcel of the same war.

Did Nixon do a good job too?

In foreign policy? You bet he did. One of our better foriegn policy presidents.

And I wonder how you can possibly state that one of the primary motives for getting into the war was not to save face for the French.

How exactly did Kissinger slow the spead of communism?
Why did so many more Americans have to die than previously in the war in order to pull out?

You try pulling back in an all out retreat and see how much land the enemy takes. Since the election of '68, Nixon was talking about pulling out of Vietnam 'with honor'. You can't just up and leave.

And controlling Indonesia (which was a distinct possibility) is knocking on Australia.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm not sure if Kissinger would say that is a bad thing. He didn't bomb Laos and Cambodia because they were Communist, he bombed them because that is where Vietnamese troops were going so they wouldn't get bombed by US forces in Vietnam. They went out of Vietnam and around and ended up in the South. THAT is why he bombed those countries.

It had nothing to do with them being communist (actually, I don't think Kissenger gave 2 ****s if they were communist or not... realists don't think in those terms).

There's the error in Kissinger's method right there. He didn't care whether they were communist or not. They weren't communist! They didn't want to be communist!

Laos and Cambodia were not happy to have this war spread into their countries. But he bombs Cambodia, killing 500000 Cambodians. He bombs Laos killing 350000 Laotians. He destroys whatevers in the way. He totally destablized both countries to the point where both were easy pickings for the leftist guerillas.

What you're saying is that he is trying to prevent the spread of communism in South Viet Nam and SE asia in general. He failed! Peace in 68 would have prevented all this!

[monkspider]

You speak much sense Static, you ought to stick around these parts.

[Graag]

Oh dear.

Hitler killed more people in wars that he directly started than he saved in improving the living conditions in Germany

Is the formula that simple? As long as you kill less than you enrich, you're ok? How many did Kissinger save? Do you have any idea how many he killed?

I still don't see which 'atrocities' Kissenger did. He overthrew governments and started civil wars? He didn't go ahead and directly order rounding people up and killing them, did he?

Go read a book not from your high-school library. Find out what the illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos did to the villagers there. How many war-unrelated deaths there were. How many civillian, non-military targets were destoryed (against all international conventions). It is simply horrible, brutal, and indefensible.