A must read: Henry Kissinger's "Diplomacy"

[Nubclear]

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

Reminds me of a propaganda poster I once saw for a country....

"ONE SACTIONED LAW, ONE SACTIONED IDEAL"

Carry on with your discussion...

[Imran Siddiqui]

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!

I suggest that you join us Commies Imran.

Never. Nothing I hate more than Commies (except Fascists). And yes, sometimes lives need to be spared to protect national interests.

It is telling that you intepret it as expanding 'business interests'. Communists just can't look past that, can they?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Static23



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.

That is not true about the stall talks.
A man name Wallace took more vote in Calif. than the Demo. and Rep. though they would and gave Nixon a lead over Humphrey and sense Nixon won Calif. he was elected. That year Calif. was the tie breaker. Who ever won between Humphrey and Nixon was going to be Pres. Nixon won. I was a Humphrey supporter big time. I got a major headache over that election that I was put in the Hosp for a night.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Static23

Laos

Laos had a three way government since 58. 1/3 was communist, 1/3 was Nationalist and 1/3 was ? (can't remember) We had no troops there at that time. Later in 60 or so we had CIA only. Later 62, 63, 64 we had some people going in and out doing what was needed to be done.
The communist element of the government was pushing the entire time to become a communist nation.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Static23


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.

I belived your number are a bit high by about 480,000 or so. Pol Pot was killing a lot of people there. The communist in Laos was killing a lot of people there also.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by 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. . . . 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!

The problems actually began when Ike divided the country in two and imposed a Catholic pro-West regime in the South. The South was 90% Buddist, neutralist and pacifist.

It was this American-installed regime which insisted upon fighting. When Buddist priests began burning themselves alive in protest of the war, they were declare to be in sympathy with the Viet Cong. Those who resisted the oppression of the Diem brothers were imprisoned and tortured. Diem's brother (Diem Ngo [?]), the head of the secret police, was a bloody butcher, who the Kennedy administration tried in vain to curb. Kennedy did not plan nor want the Diems to be killed, but he knew they were disasters and whated them out. So when he learned of the plans of the South Vietnamese generals to oust them, he acquiested.

The tragedy of the Diem ouster and killing was that there was no one to replace them except more corrupt, oppressive generals.

Years later, Nixon was elected based upon his "secret plan" to end the war. His "secret plan" turned out to be to widen the war. He bombed and invaded Laos, which destablized it, and it fell to the communists. He bombed and invaded Cambodia, which distablized it, and it too fell to the communists.

There was an attempt to have elections in the South, but Generals Ky and Thieu so corrupted the process that all candidates but those two pulled out in protest. So when Ford finally inherited the mess, the Thieu-Ky regime in the South was so unpopular that when the North invaded, the Army of South Vietnam collapsed, and the people of the U.S. were so disillusioned, they refused to spend anymore blood and money to prop it up.

Moral of the story: Real Politik is counter productive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It worked for the USSR until the 80s. And it seems to work for the US (well up until Bush basically abandoned a lot of it). Realpolitik is a very good way to run a foreign policy. The only problem is that you end up having people that can't do it well trying to do it.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Joseph
I belived your number are a bit high by about 480,000 or so. Pol Pot was killing a lot of people there. The communist in Laos was killing a lot of people there also.

According to Human Rights Watch, that number is low.

http://www.hrw.org/community/bookreviews/hitchens.htm

I've seen it elsewhere as 450-500k and went with an average of sorts. Pol Pot didn't start killing in earnest until the later.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


The problems actually began when Ike divided the country in two and imposed a Catholic pro-West regime in the South. The South was 90% Buddist, neutralist and pacifist.

It was this American-installed regime which insisted upon fighting. When Buddist priests began burning themselves alive in protest of the war, they were declare to be in sympathy with the Viet Cong. Those who resisted the oppression of the Diem brothers were imprisoned and tortured. Diem's brother (Diem Ngo [?]), the head of the secret police, was a bloody butcher, who the Kennedy administration tried in vain to curb. Kennedy did not plan nor want the Diems to be killed, but he knew they were disasters and whated them out. So when he learned of the plans of the South Vietnamese generals to oust them, he acquiested.

The tragedy of the Diem ouster and killing was that there was no one to replace them except more corrupt, oppressive generals.

Years later, Nixon was elected based upon his "secret plan" to end the war. His "secret plan" turned out to be to widen the war. He bombed and invaded Laos, which destablized it, and it fell to the communists. He bombed and invaded Cambodia, which distablized it, and it too fell to the communists.

There was an attempt to have elections in the South, but Generals Ky and Thieu so corrupted the process that all candidates but those two pulled out in protest. So when Ford finally inherited the mess, the Thieu-Ky regime in the South was so unpopular that when the North invaded, the Army of South Vietnam collapsed, and the people of the U.S. were so disillusioned, they refused to spend anymore blood and money to prop it up.

Moral of the story: Real Politik is counter productive.

On Ike, yes he did agree to a division of Vietnam - a communist North and a democratic South. Diem was a catholic and was suppressing the buddists, as you say. In Kennedy's opinion, he was "losing" the hearts and minds of the people of SV because of it. But what Kennedy did was then was to take over the war entirely. He did away with Diem, took command of the AVRN, and introduced American troops. What he should have done instead is simply cut Diem off unless he stopped suppressing the buddists. By taking over the war, it was easy for the communists to win politically even while they were losing militarily.

Of course, Kennedy himself was assassinated only weeks after he had Diem assassinated. Is there a connection? Regardless, had Kennedy lived, he might have realized his mistake and done something to fix it. Johnson, though, was totally inept and clueless. He really screwed up.

On Laos, that struggle had been ongoing well prior to Kennedy taking office. It, and not Vietnam, was his top priority when he took office. Nothing Nixon did destabalized anything in Laos. The communists simply won.

On Cambodia again, no one "bombed Cambodia." We attacked the NVA bases in Cambodia with the consent of Sihanók. We did not attack the Cambodian military. We were allied with them against the communists.

[TCO]

Originally posted by 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.

I think the reasons for taking action in those countries were justified. But they were not totally lost. By the same token, you could say SV was "lost". But it wasn't...and if we had had a firmer hand in 1975...we would not have had the backstab that killed SV and sent millions of boat people onto the waves.

[Berzerker]

Joseph -

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 don't understand why you defend their assassination of a Chilean general who would not support a coup only to paint them as evil now.

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

The general was not a communist and Allende was a democratically elected socialist. And you did defend the murder of the general. Btw, Kissinger is an enemy of the US Constitution, so I don't know why you value him over an alleged communist and a Chilean general who were not our enemies. Chile was not about to invade the US under Allende nor is there evidence he was going to invite the Soviets in to conquer S America.

2nd part. It depends on the situation.

Situational ethics is not inherently flawed, but it sure doesn't justify murdering the innocent.

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.

I know enough thanks to Christopher Hitchins.

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.

Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer which took power because of US bombing in Cambodia. It was those evil N Vietnamese who went into Cambodia after the war to get rid of Pol Pot's regime.

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.

Then Henry shouldn't need to consult with lawyers about extradiction laws before leaving the country. And the US already knows there are countries with Henry on their list of wanted criminals...

[The Mad Monk]

Regardless of what Kissenger did or did not do, Diplomacy paints an accurate picture of world affairs, and as such, is a valuable read.

[RGBVideo]

Realpolitik is a very good way to run a foreign policy.

I hope you realise that this will be held against you.

[Berzerker]

How do you know you're reading the truth from Kissinger?

[Az]

but it is, tuomerehu. actually I can't name a country that hasn't used it, at all times.

Imran, I think Bush is very realpolitik. why would you say he's not?