• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Henry Kissinger Dead

My response to the thread title?

Good. About 60 years too late but good.
Given American attitudes and priorities of the day, it's also quite possible that someone even worse would have done the job Americans wanted done.

I see Kissinger as more of a scapegoat than a super villian. He couldn't have done what he did if "We the People" hadn't elected his taskmasters.
Tom
What the hell kind of an argument is that? You could say the same about any elected official and any official action they take.
What do you think I'm arguing in favor or against?

I see Kissinger as rather a symptom. People seem inclined to view him as a disease.
Tom
 
He's been retired so long that you now have to be a history buff or have lived through his era to have an opinion. It would be like button-holing someone in Kissinger's government days and asking what they thought of Henry L. Stimson (one of Hoover's Secys. of State.)
I can't get out of my head this moment from an old SNL skit on The View.
Molly Shannon (as Meredith Vieira): Now, Barbara, what were you doing when Nixon resigned?
Cheri Oteri (as Barbara Walters) (with lusty enthusiasm): I was in a hot tub with Henry Kissinger and Juliet Prowse! We speculated about our nation's future...listened to some Harry Chapin...and made sweet love 'til the mornin' sun!
We're still fighting the damned wars he colluded in starting. People are always in such a hurry to "let the past be the past", even while the victims of the events in question are still breathing. Or not breathing, leaving their descendants to pick up the tab. No, you do not have to be "a history buff" or to have been alive at the time to wonder whether your nation might be better off without having been reduced to rubble or international peonage. The list of Kissinger-Nixon's planned interventions is a list of some of the poorest, most desperate nations in the world. That is not a coincidence or accident. The Tapes are full of conversations between the two men, casually discussing the deaths of thousands like they are only important relative to odds of re-election next term; pragmatic, never moral, considerations.

The very worst of my nation.

And Stimson had a lot to answer for, too. Are you seriously saying that no one now living has a reason to care about how World War freaking II ended? Or the Japanese concentration camps? Or the Stimson Doctrine, which is a major influence on our current policy, especially vis-a-vis Russia? Let alone the Nixon administration, which was actively trying to deal with the very literal wreckage Stimson had left behind. I would be appalled to learn that any American official lacked an opinion of Henry L. Stimson, even now, except that I've grown jaded by eight years of Trump appointees who seem to know nothing about history whatsoever and don't want anyone else too, either. Wonder why.
 
What do you think I'm arguing in favor or against?

I think you're arguing that
He couldn't have done what he did if "We the People" hadn't elected his taskmasters.
which is a terrible argument that leaves elected officials without accountability for the actions they take, even those who are unelected.
 
What do you think I'm arguing in favor or against?

I think you're arguing that
He couldn't have done what he did if "We the People" hadn't elected his taskmasters.
which is a terrible argument that leaves elected officials without accountability for the actions they take, even those who are unelected.

A terrible argument for what?

My point is that Kissinger couldn't have done anything important if the American people hadn't elected the top officials we did.
Tom
 
What do you think I'm arguing in favor or against?

I think you're arguing that
He couldn't have done what he did if "We the People" hadn't elected his taskmasters.
which is a terrible argument that leaves elected officials without accountability for the actions they take, even those who are unelected.

A terrible argument for what?

My point is that Kissinger couldn't have done anything important if the American people hadn't elected the top officials we did.
Tom
And I couldn't have shot up that bus full of nuns if the jerk at the gun store hadn't irresponsibly sold me a firearm. But that doesn't mean I'm not accountable for the mass murder as well.

How could "the American people" have made a rational decision about who to elect, who they would appoint, or what they would do about international situations that hadn't even developed yet, and the details of which were kept carefully secret from them for decades after?
 
How could "the American people" have made a rational decision about who to elect, who they would appoint, or what they would do about international situations that hadn't even developed yet, and the details of which were kept carefully secret from them for decades after?
Right?
Not like today, where if people elect Trump they know exactly what’s going to happen. They just don’t think it’s going to happen to them. Very much as the German people didn’t think the price of getting the trains to run on time was ever going to accrue to their account ca 1938.
 
He's been retired so long that you now have to be a history buff or have lived through his era to have an opinion. It would be like button-holing someone in Kissinger's government days and asking what they thought of Henry L. Stimson (one of Hoover's Secys. of State.)
I can't get out of my head this moment from an old SNL skit on The View.
Molly Shannon (as Meredith Vieira): Now, Barbara, what were you doing when Nixon resigned?
Cheri Oteri (as Barbara Walters) (with lusty enthusiasm): I was in a hot tub with Henry Kissinger and Juliet Prowse! We speculated about our nation's future...listened to some Harry Chapin...and made sweet love 'til the mornin' sun!
We're still fighting the damned wars he colluded in starting. People are always in such a hurry to "let the past be the past", even while the victims of the events in question are still breathing. Or not breathing, leaving their descendants to pick up the tab. No, you do not have to be "a history buff" or to have been alive at the time to wonder whether your nation might be better off without having been reduced to rubble or international peonage. The list of Kissinger-Nixon's planned interventions is a list of some of the poorest, most desperate nations in the world. That is not a coincidence or accident. The Tapes are full of conversations between the two men, casually discussing the deaths of thousands like they are only important relative to odds of re-election next term; pragmatic, never moral, considerations.

The very worst of my nation.

And Stimson had a lot to answer for, too. Are you seriously saying that no one now living has a reason to care about how World War freaking II ended? Or the Japanese concentration camps? Or the Stimson Doctrine, which is a major influence on our current policy, especially vis-a-vis Russia? Let alone the Nixon administration, which was actively trying to deal with the very literal wreckage Stimson had left behind. I would be appalled to learn that any American official lacked an opinion of Henry L. Stimson, even now, except that I've grown jaded by eight years of Trump appointees who seem to know nothing about history whatsoever and don't want anyone else too, either. Wonder why.
Jesus, you jumped over that anthill like it was an obstacle at Belmont. My comment applied only to the general lack of historical depth that people seem to have these days.
 
My response to the thread title?

Good. About 60 years too late but good.
Given American attitudes and priorities of the day, it's also quite possible that someone even worse would have done the job Americans wanted done.

I see Kissinger as more of a scapegoat than a super villian. He couldn't have done what he did if "We the People" hadn't elected his taskmasters.
Tom
Scapegoat? Malevolent architect of evil is much more accurate.

Does not absolve those who empowered him. Their hands are plenty dirty as well.
 
My response to the thread title?

Good. About 60 years too late but good.
Given American attitudes and priorities of the day, it's also quite possible that someone even worse would have done the job Americans wanted done.

I see Kissinger as more of a scapegoat than a super villian. He couldn't have done what he did if "We the People" hadn't elected his taskmasters.
Tom
What the hell kind of an argument is that? You could say the same about any elected official and any official action they take.
What do you think I'm arguing in favor or against?

I see Kissinger as rather a symptom. People seem inclined to view him as a disease.
Tom
Opportunistic infections are often fatal.
 
Does not absolve those who empowered him. Their hands are plenty dirty as well.
That's what I said.
He was empowered by the American electorate

Including me, I voted for Reagan-Bush in 1980.
Tom
 
Jacobin is a commie rag.
81629eae-efa3-4a70-92f6-3f7b8da11be4_text.gif

Hardly surprising they hate Kissinger.
 
My response to the thread title?
Good. About 60 years too late but good.
Why exactly?

Because if he had died in 1963, he would not have had the opportunity to kill at least 3 million people, and that number is from his biographer, He was a miserable, evil bastard who should have been tried at the Hague.

Who would have done it?
Would there have been more nukes?

Tom
 
Given American attitudes and priorities of the day, it's also quite possible that someone even worse would have done the job Americans wanted done.

I see Kissinger as more of a scapegoat than a super villian. He couldn't have done what he did if "We the People" hadn't elected his taskmasters.
It's easy to overlook that and I get what you're saying. I would still argue Kissinger thrived in such conditions because of who he was and as such was the worst possible choice in that particular climate. The man wasn't morally bankrupt - he was morally absent. That's about as close to cartoon evil as you can get. I mean we'll never know but I can't help but think there could have been anyone worse in that role at that time.
 
When Nixon ran for president, he did so on a platform that he had a “secret plan” to end the war. Had the public known that this “secret plan” involved expanding the war to Laos and Cambodia and carpet-bombing both countries, ultimately leading to the death of vast numbers of Cambodians under Pol Pot, perhaps they would have thought twice about voting for him. Indeed, had they known that NIxon treasonously sabotaged Johnson’s peace negotiations with the North so that he could win the election, they might have thought twice about voting for him. Indeed once more, had they known, years later, when Pol Pot was in power in Cambodia (because of the carpet-bombing that destabilized the country), that Kissinger would tell Thailand’s foreign minister: “You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way“ — had they known that, too, they might have had second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh thoughts about voting for Nixon.
 
My response to the thread title?
Good. About 60 years too late but good.
Why exactly?

Because if he had died in 1963, he would not have had the opportunity to kill at least 3 million people, and that number is from his biographer, He was a miserable, evil bastard who should have been tried at the Hague.

Who would have done it?
Would there have been more nukes?

Tom
No one?

Hopefully not.

I get that a lot of people buy into the hypermasculine pov that the only way to get someone to do what you want is to beat the shit out of them until they comply or die.
 
Back
Top Bottom