A must read: Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy"

[RGBVideo]

You are saying that Allende was a communist? Great, that will work, won't it?

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!

US has been supporting many cruel dictators in the 20th century just because of the
paranoid fear towards 'evil commies' - I really don't understand how Papa Doc helped
to fight against communism.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
US has been supporting many cruel dictators in the 20th century just because of the paranoid fear towards 'evil commies'

Correction. The US has supported many cruel regimes just to further its own interests too. Some times it didn't have anything to do with communism. They just labeled it as such.

The only difference now is that there is not a countering force. And that the US can no longer put forth its "to defeat communism" rhetorics when sponsoring juntas.


It has to think of something else...

[Bereta_Eder]

Also sometimes, the communist regimes that US was supposed to battle off were more humane that the juntas the US installed.

Also some states prospered more under communism than under US juntas.


So it's all relative and it boils down to real politik. Furthering the interests of the nation. Not necessairily caring about human rights.

Which makes Osama a national - liberation fighter.


It's all very sad really.

[Zkribbler]

I guess I shudda spelled "France" with a final "e" and not an "h." I can only hope nobody noticed.

[RGBVideo]

So it's all relative and it boils down to real politik. Furthering the interests of the nation. Not necessairily caring about human rights.

I've heard this many times, but I would like to hear what good happened to US
because of the 4 year terror in Cambodia by Red Khmers? What?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah Shi has said, and is absolutely correct, the fight to stave off communism was worth the price. Seeing that communism is all but eliminated (like China is really the same as the USSR... HA!), it worked. The ends justified the means.

And what is so wrong with being amoral anyway? That's how I want my Presidents to be.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just because someone has done some shady things doesn't mean you can't respect his opinions! Martin Luther King, Jr. was a womanizer, but he had some really good things to say, man!

MLK wasn't a war criminal, murderer, and traitor. Womanizing isn't even in the same league as Kissinger.

[monkspider]

So you're saying that the ability for American buisness interests to expand into the now non-closed market regions of Indochina is worth the lives of millions of innocents? I would say that it wasn't worth even a single innocent life. I suggest that you join us Commies Imran. We will show you that no lives, American or otherwise, are worth sacrificing for buisness interests.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah Shi has said, and is absolutely correct, the fight to stave off communism was worth the price. Seeing that communism is all but eliminated (like China is really the same as the USSR... HA!), it worked. The ends justified the means.

And what is so wrong with being amoral anyway? That's how I want my Presidents to be.

You mistake is that communism isn't dead. China is alive and kicking, still communist. So what if the general's all want to be CEO's? The basis of their power is that their whole economy is rule by slave labor that the military enforces, and they're not about to let go.

N. Korea is fully communist and militarily prepared to march into S. Korea, which they will do if Bush spreads us too thin. Many S. Koreans also hate us now. Russia just brought back the Red Star to appease it's military and is hanging on to free market ideology by a thread. A lot of their people are starting to get wistful about the "good old days" when standing in line all day for a roll of toilet paper was preferable to being shot or raped by roving gangs.

The hills in South and Central America are full of Marxist guerillas, poised to move in as soon as the US backed dictatorships begin to weaken, i.e. the U.S. Begins to weaken. Most of SE Asia is already communist or also has hills full of Marxist guerillas, same deal. Most African nations are also fighting off Marxist guerillas, same deal.

Our failure to instill the cream of Western ideals in these countries instead of our worst has been the United States biggest blunder, and this was the best Kissinger had to offer.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


MLK wasn't a war criminal, murderer, and traitor. Womanizing isn't even in the same league as Kissinger.

Kissinger was a womanizer also. The guy did say "Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac."

[chequita guevara]

It's rather low down on the list of his sins against the American people and the world.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's rather low down on the list of his sins against the American people and the world.

I don't know, being an horrendous mass-murderer and then bragging about how it enhances your virility is pretty sinful. Call it a capstone to a magnificent career, if you will.

[Ned]

Just for starters, I think Vietnam was totally FUBAR. The problems did not start with Nixon/Kissinger, they started with Kennedy. It was Kennedy who decided to take over the war in South Vietnam. It was Kennedy who decided to assassinate Diem. It was Kennedy who decided to take over the command structure of the army of the Republic of South Vietnam. It was Kennedy/Johnson who supported the corrupt military regimes that succeeded Diem. It was Johnson who built the American military presence in South Vietnam to 550,000 troops. It was Johnson who in 1965 told American troops that they could not fire into Cambodia even though the NVA were basing there and firing on them from Cambodia with heavy mortars and artillery.

In contrast, as soon as Nixon/Kissinger came to power they began to withdraw American troops and to build up the South Vietnamese army. By the end of 1972, United States had only 25,000 troops left in Vietnam.

The problem of Cambodia was simple. So long as Sihanók allowed the Communist to use Cambodia as a launching pad for its invasions of South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese kept the Khmer Rouge in check. In 1970 though, Sihanók essentially switched sides. He permitted America to go after the NVA inside Cambodia. When he did this, the Communists began to supply the Khmer Rouge with everything they wanted militarily. Eventually the Khmer Rouge won the war in Cambodia.

It is strange how Vietnam war turned out. Kennedy knew that the only way to win the war was to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnam people. But his actions were disasterous. The assassination of Diem was mistake one. The assumption of the responsibilities for the conduct of the war was mistake two. The introduction of U.S. combat troops was mistake three. All three actions contributed to losing the war for hearts and minds of the people of Vietnam.

But once the decision to introduce combat troops was made, Johnson's decision to deny our troops to right to defend themselves against cross-border attacks was a travesty. Johnson has to be utterly condemned by every American who breathes.

In contrast, Nixon's actions in withdrawing from South Vietnam and in allowing American troops to attack the NVA in Cambodia deserve nothing but praise. Bravo Nixon! Bravo Kissinger!

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Joseph -

Democratically elected and socialist.

OK!!!

These people own the hemisphere?

I would not cross them. Beside most of the world people don't even know who they are. I don't. If we did and was not part of their circle, we would just disappear one day never to be seen again or have heart attack.

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

I never said I did. However a communist is a communist and a enemy of the US and all of us.

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

No I don't defend OSL and would do thing to him if I had the chance.

2nd part. It depends on the situation.

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.

The problem is that we, meaning you and I are not privy to know all of the information that they do. Some of the info may be good or bad, but we will never know.

Cambodia, I seen to remember the NVA was using Cambodia as a staging ground to attack our troops in Nam and wasn't Pol Pot in power before the Khmer took over. I believe Pot took power just as we were leaving Nam. Of course he was killing at a high rate and then the Khmer Communist took over and kill at even a higher rate.

Kissinger, the US would never stand for Kissinger being arrested by anyone. Now if some group shot him, who knows what the US might do. It would depend on who's President at the time.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Graag
I think that's what Milosevic said.



*Ahem* Why did he start the war in Vietnam then?

He did not start Nam.
It started because the UN divided it into North and South Vietnam in 1956. Ho wanted the US to help him get the country going after W.W.II, but because he was a communist (Ike put Nixon at the chair on the commission to report back to Ike and the nation if we should help, Nixon said NO help!) we would not help. Ike sent the first troops there in 59 or 60. Kennedy added more but just before he was killed, some say he may have pulled out, but he was killed before any thing happen. He did not want Diem killed. He wanted him out but not killed.