A must read: Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Peace in 68 would have prevented all this!

If you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Peace in '68 would have merely been a cease-fire up until the Americans left town. Laos and Cambodia would have fallen to leftist guerrillas no matter what. It is silly to say that those countries, seeing the success Ho had in beating the French would not have turned that way.

It wasn't about communism for Kissinger. It was about stopping communism in SE Asia, and prolonging the region in such a bloody war that the USSR and China would think it was too much trouble to try to formet socialist terror groups in Indonesia, Malyasia, and Singapore. He knew they were going to lose Vietnam. Just cap it to that region and let other groups know we mean business.

[Static Universe]

I'd also like to point out that Kissinger won a Nobel prize in 73 for the peace talks with the North Vietnamese in 72. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what peace was arrived at here?

Henry, give that medal back!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?

Yes the formula is THAT simple. Saving people in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Latin America from Communism is a substantial number.

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.

So you'd be first on the soapbox to get Truman to be tried for war crimes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Lets not forget about Churchill and FDR for Dresden and Tokyo . Civilian casualties are a part of war now. It has been since Sherman rolled over the South in the American Civil War. Get over it.

I'd also like to point out that Kissinger won a Nobel prize in 73 for the peace talks with the North Vietnamese in 72. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what peace was arrived at here?

Great counter argument to the fact that Peace in 1968 would have led to no communism in SE Asia. After the peace of '72, the North invaded the South again and took the whole thing. They really respected that peace, didn't they?

[monkspider]

Imran, I'm certain that the millions of dead villagers that Henry is directly responsible for are extremely gracious for being "saved" by the US from the evil spectre of Communism.

[monkspider]

In regards to stopping the flow of Communism in Asia and beyond, Vietnam taught the USA an important lesson in how to stop a people's revolution: Kill the People.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I assume you are talking about Chile?

Like Lenin said, "Sometimes you need to break some eggs to make an omlet".

Freeing the world from Communism (which Kissinger played a part) is one of those things that people will be eternally grateful. Ask most people in Eastern Europe! Just like the people that took down Facism are lauded (even if they killed hundreds of innocent people in Dresden, Berlin, etc), the people that took down Communism will be lauded.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I assume you are talking about Chile?

Like Lenin said, "Sometimes you need to break some eggs to make an omlet".

Freeing the world from Communism (which Kissinger played a part) is one of those things that people will be eternally grateful. Ask most people in Eastern Europe! Just like the people that took down Facism are lauded (even if they killed hundreds of innocent people in Dresden, Berlin, etc), the people that took down Communism will be lauded.

Considering that a fifth of the world is still communist and seem likely to remain so for long, long time, this argument falls a little flat. The point many are trying to make here is that the people of Chile are not likely to thank Kissinger for saving them from Communism. They want to see him in the gallows.

The people of East Timor are not thanking Kissinger either.

Nor will the Indonesians when they finally get free from their brutal right wing dictatorship.

Ditto the Malaysians.

If and when Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia ever throw off the yoke, I doubt they'll appreciate all his efforts on their behalf.

[Shi Huangdi]

"So you'd be first on the soapbox to get Truman to be tried for war crimes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Lets not forget about Churchill and FDR for Dresden and Tokyo . Civilian casualties are a part of war now. It has been since Sherman rolled over the South in the American Civil War. Get over it."

Exactly. The Soviets were also pushing communism around the world and had they succeded, many more would have died then did in Kissinger's illegal bombing. The world is not a nice place and sometime you have to be brutal. The culmination of HK's brutal action and all the other US actions helped stop the spread of Soviet Power and increased ours, and ultimately with Reagan's wok freed Eastern Europe from the communists.

"Considering that a fifth of the world is still communist and seem likely to remain so for long, long time, this argument falls a little flat."

China is communist in name only, and there are no serious attempts to spread communism.

"The people of East Timor are not thanking Kissinger either.

Nor will the Indonesians when they finally get free from their brutal right wing dictatorship.

Ditto the Malaysians.

If and when Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia ever throw off the yoke, I doubt they'll appreciate all his efforts on their behalf."

The people of Russia aren't thanking us either, but that doesn't mean the fall of communist power wasn't a good thing.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It was only a matter of years, before Kennedy decided to try to gain the colony back for the French.

Ike set up Diem as an anti-communist pro-American puppet in the South. Kennedy inherited the Diem regime. Kennedy had no plans to reunite Vietnam with Franch.

BTW: It was the policy of the American govenment (including Kissinger) to support the corrupt, murdering bastards (like Thieu and Ky) who were oppressing the South Vietnamese people. When the American public realized that both sides were made up of murdering bastards, popular support for the war collapsed amidst the unanswerable question: "What are we fighting for?"

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Ike set up Diem as an anti-communist pro-American puppet in the South. Kennedy inherited the Diem regime. Kennedy had no plans to reunite Vietnam with Franch.

BTW: It was the policy of the American govenment (including Kissinger) to support the corrupt, murdering bastards (like Thieu and Ky) who were oppressing the South Vietnamese people. When the American public realized that both sides were made up of murdering bastards, popular support for the war collapsed amidst the unanswerable question: "What are we fighting for?"

Thank you, Zkribbler! That, Imran, is the definitive answer to your "You had to be there" assertion. People were there, and when they found out what was going on they did object, they did say "this is not how a civilized democracy behaves." And not just leftist protestors; Congressmen and Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, were there, and were capable of saying, "this is not what we should be doing."

What Kissinger did was by no means the only way, nor the best way, nor the historically inevitable way. It was the way of Kissinger and Nixon, quite possibly the two most amoral men ever to find themselves in high government service in the US. We know that now, but we also knew that then.

[Bereta_Eder]

Imran you crack me up

You're the best mass murder apologist there is

[Buck Birdseed]

Stop reffering to the man as Machiavellian, please. Machiavelli was certainly one of the most principled (though pragmatically principled) philosophers in political history. A passionate beiever in republicanism and that the people knew best on most issues.

He's been much maligned by conservative american political theorists, who feel threatened by his beief that Elite is not always right.

[Bereta_Eder]

[RGBVideo]

dp

[RGBVideo]

Cambodia would have fallen to leftist guerrillas no matter what. It is silly to say that those countries, seeing the success Ho had in beating the French would not have turned that way.

Pol Pot, an extreme stalinist who was responsible from the death of one-third of the Cambodia,
had well under 10 000 badly-equipped criminals before the bombing campaign.
Because of the total destroyment of the infastructure, the economy, et cetera,
the nation grew rebel towards the goverment, and Red Khmers won the public opinion,
now having about 70 000 fanatic guerrillas under their command.

I'm sure that this was one of your greatest foreign deeds, indeed.

Saving people in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Latin America from Communism

You SAVED them? A good one!