Kissenger is dead

[GenMarshall]

Hardly has a man more been unjustly maligned and vilified as Kissinger for being as pragmatic and realistic as hundreds if not thousands of others in high office affecting foreign policy. I think his real sin was his tendency to actually say what he thought, not just do it and cover it in flowery language.

I’ve only known about him in history segments that revolves around the Nixon Administration, The Vietnam War, and the Cold War of the 1970s.

 

[Estebonrober]

I’ve only known about him in history segments that revolves around the Nixon Administration, The Vietnam War, and the Cold War of the 1970s.

You'd love him. He murdered hundreds of thousands directly and millions indirectly to stop the spread of SoCiAlIsM! Definitely your kind of hog.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[GenMarshall]

You'd love him. He murdered hundreds of thousands directly and millions indirectly to stop the spread of Socialism! Definitely your kind of hog.

"If there's a single word I'd apply to Kissinger, it's 'overrated.' He was overrated as a scholar. He was overrated as a strategist. He was even overrated as a villain – the 'Christopher Hitchenses' of the world loved to call him a 'war criminal,' but this was a fundamentally unserious charge. The Defense Department, not the State Department, prosecutes wars, and the president oversees it – but the Hitchenses preferred to go after Kissinger than Mel Laird or James Schlesinger or even Nixon.'". - Historian David Greenberg

Your assumptions that I'd "love" Kissinger is flawed to it's core. Being anti-communist does not automatically means that I'd have unconditional support for the likes of Augusto Pinochet and other right-wing dictators. I have my own distaste & dislike for Pinochet (I'd be oxymoronic being both a liberal and anti-authoritarian, to support a dictator like Pinochet) and his infamous free helicopter rides I would describe as appalling. The effort to spell out "SoCiAlIsM" as it is just shows me how disingenuous and bad faith you are when it comes to anti-communism. If you actually took the time and not resort to petty bickering, you'd find that I'm opposed to communist dictatorships and their leaders the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

But sure, do go ahead and dance on Kissinger's grave as the conservatives did when Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicked the bucket. Again, the man was before my time and I have no attachment to the man except for the brief time he was rubbing elbows with George W. Bush. Speaking of, Given that Kissinger had some connections with George W. Bush in relation with the Iraq War (and I have been quite vocal about opposing Bush and his misadventures in Iraq), he's definitely NOT my kind of dog.

 

[saamohod]

He murdered hundreds of thousands directly and millions indirectly to stop the spread of SoCiAlIsM!

This is still an order of magnitude less than commie's idols like Stalin or Pol Pot achievements. But I won't hold my breath for you to say any bad words at those characters (aside from "yeah yeah Stalin bad" mockery).

 

[Crezth]

This is still an order of magnitude less than commie's idols like Stalin or Pol Pot achievements. But I won't hold my breath for you to say any bad words at those characters (aside from "yeah yeah Stalin bad" mockery).

Pol Pot was an ally of the U.S. Actually Kissinger particularly spoke up for them:

In November 1975, U.S. NSA and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Thai foreign minister: "You should tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs but we won't let that stand in our way."[24] In a 1998 interview, Kissinger said: "some countries, the Chinese in particular supported Pol Pot as a counterweight to the Vietnamese supported people and We at least tolerated it." Kissinger said he didn't approve of this due to the genocide and said he "would not have dealt with Pol Pot for any purpose whatsoever." He further said: "The Thais and the Chinese did not want a Vietnamese-dominated Indochina. We didn't want the Vietnamese to dominate. I don't believe we did anything for Pol Pot. But I suspect we closed our eyes when some others did something for Pol Pot."[25]

 

[aelf]

"If there's a single word I'd apply to Kissinger, it's 'overrated.' He was overrated as a scholar. He was overrated as a strategist. He was even overrated as a villain – the 'Christopher Hitchenses' of the world loved to call him a 'war criminal,' but this was a fundamentally unserious charge. The Defense Department, not the State Department, prosecutes wars, and the president oversees it – but the Hitchenses preferred to go after Kissinger than Mel Laird or James Schlesinger or even Nixon.'". - Historian David Greenberg

Your assumptions that I'd "love" Kissinger is flawed to it's core. Being anti-communist does not automatically means that I'd have unconditional support for the likes of Augusto Pinochet and other right-wing dictators. I have my own distaste & dislike for Pinochet (I'd be oxymoronic being both a liberal and anti-authoritarian, to support a dictator like Pinochet) and his infamous free helicopter rides I would describe as appalling. The effort to spell out "SoCiAlIsM" as it is just shows me how disingenuous and bad faith you are when it comes to anti-communism. If you actually took the time and not resort to petty bickering, you'd find that I'm opposed to communist dictatorships and their leaders the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

But sure, do go ahead and dance on Kissinger's grave as the conservatives did when Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicked the bucket. Again, the man was before my time and I have no attachment to the man except for the brief time he was rubbing elbows with George W. Bush. Speaking of, Given that Kissinger had some connections with George W. Bush in relation with the Iraq War (and I have been quite vocal about opposing Bush and his misadventures in Iraq), he's definitely NOT my kind of dog.

Which article did you read that gave you this opinion to adopt?

 

[amadeus]

I would say that it is hard to position Kissinger historically among the titan class like Talleyrand or Bismarck—their accomplishments were bigger relative to the respective power of their countries. The USA in 1970 was the world’s largest economy with the second-largest army after the Soviet Union. What was France in 1815, or Germany in 1860?

I don’t know if he was overrated as a scholar: I’ve never read anything academic by him, though his PhD thesis on the Congress of Vienna (I think it was) sounds interesting.

Overrated as a villain, I want to say that comes with the territory that he enjoyed as the world’s foremost celebrity diplomat. Who from the past 40 years really jumps out as a personality? Jim Baker? He’s probably the most prominent but about as exciting to the tabloids as a wet towel.

 

[Kyriakos]

I've read that his idol was Metternich. Who also had a few diplomatic losses, despite representing one of the major powers (to be fair, tied for the least major of the group ^^ ).

 

[amadeus]

I've read that his idol was Metternich. Who also had a few diplomatic losses, despite representing one of the major powers (to be fair, tied for the least major of the group ^^ ).

Metternich appears less capable now that we have the benefit of hindsight, as least as far as Austria ultimately becoming the second fiddle player to Germany and then to its dissolution some 80-odd years later.

I think it could be argued that the Nixon-era overtures to Maoist China could be in retrospect considered a strategic blunder, but I don’t think Kissinger was the spearhead behind them.

 

[Kyriakos]

One important loss, for the local area, was to then imperial Russia's foreign minister, Kapodistrias, regarding the greek war of independence. Kapodistrias was himself a very capable diplomat. More than likely his assassination was orchestrated by France/Britain, because they feared he would be tied to Russia in perpetuity as leader of Greece. 200 years later, the british foreign office files on that still haven't been made public= admission of guilt.

 

[Estebonrober]

"If there's a single word I'd apply to Kissinger, it's 'overrated.' He was overrated as a scholar. He was overrated as a strategist. He was even overrated as a villain – the 'Christopher Hitchenses' of the world loved to call him a 'war criminal,' but this was a fundamentally unserious charge. The Defense Department, not the State Department, prosecutes wars, and the president oversees it – but the Hitchenses preferred to go after Kissinger than Mel Laird or James Schlesinger or even Nixon.'". - Historian David Greenberg

Your assumptions that I'd "love" Kissinger is flawed to it's core. Being anti-communist does not automatically means that I'd have unconditional support for the likes of Augusto Pinochet and other right-wing dictators. I have my own distaste & dislike for Pinochet (I'd be oxymoronic being both a liberal and anti-authoritarian, to support a dictator like Pinochet) and his infamous free helicopter rides I would describe as appalling. The effort to spell out "SoCiAlIsM" as it is just shows me how disingenuous and bad faith you are when it comes to anti-communism. If you actually took the time and not resort to petty bickering, you'd find that I'm opposed to communist dictatorships and their leaders the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.

But sure, do go ahead and dance on Kissinger's grave as the conservatives did when Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicked the bucket. Again, the man was before my time and I have no attachment to the man except for the brief time he was rubbing elbows with George W. Bush. Speaking of, Given that Kissinger had some connections with George W. Bush in relation with the Iraq War (and I have been quite vocal about opposing Bush and his misadventures in Iraq), he's definitely NOT my kind of dog.

It's hog. I did not mistype it. And your sig betrays the lie of the post here. Your sig is rabidly anti-progressive and your posts and consistently anti-progressive and by extension anti-human. I think you meant to claim liberal positioning here, but liberals don't bother themselves with the culture war on gender and such or if they do they are on the humanist side of the argument. I'm not a liberal because I think a free market leads to situations worse than Stalin and Mao. So, there it is...

I will dance on his grave; I disagree with your historian...btw I went and found his post and I find it curious that you would leave of the last sentence in that paragraph...

Ironically, his critics tended to let him off the hook for what was obviously his worst crime: his involvement in Watergate.

‘My Mother Told Me Not to Speak Ill of the Dead’: Political Experts on Henry Kissinger’s Legacy

Historians, academics and political thinkers examine the life and legacy of the controversial statesman.

www.politico.com

The last sentence gives away his silliness. He is a liberal, only a lib could look at the career of this man and be most concerned with his messing around about their perceived realities on democracy (I bet he loathes Trump but cannot describe any problems with the systems that brought him to the fore of American politics). Another strong indicator that this historian is behind the reality of the times. He feels stuck in 2005. Like Politico in general actually.

 

[Estebonrober]

This is still an order of magnitude less than commie's idols like Stalin or Pol Pot achievements. But I won't hold my breath for you to say any bad words at those characters (aside from "yeah yeah Stalin bad" mockery).

Stalin was a petty, paranoid, and vindictive dictator. Pol Pot was a nightmare.


That clear enough for you? I know you guys like to make every leftist and automatic tankie or whatever but that's not the case...

Pol Pot was an ally of the U.S. Actually Kissinger particularly spoke up for them:

Yea, how did this guy always do the worst thing?

When Stalin was Koba he was cool...

 

[GenMarshall]

It's hog. I did not mistype it. And your sig betrays the lie of the post here. Your sig is rabidly anti-progressive and your posts and consistently anti-progressive and by extension anti-human. I think you meant to claim liberal positioning here, but liberals don't bother themselves with the culture war on gender and such or if they do they are on the humanist side of the argument.

Full stop. The content of my signature and my posts outside of this thread has no bearing on what I posted and you're only erecting a straw man at this point.

I will dance on his grave;

As I said, no better when conservatives did the same when Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicked the bucket. But you do you, but to suggest that I would "love" Kissinger when I have no interest in the man is downright disingenuous.

 

[Estebonrober]

Full stop. The content of my signature and my posts outside of this thread has no bearing on what I posted and you're only erecting a straw man at this point.


As I said, no better when conservatives did the same when Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicked the bucket. But you do you, but to suggest that I would "love" Kissinger when I have no interest in the man is downright disingenuous.

A sig always has bearing on the post above it. You can disagree with me and believe it is a strawman but having bloody Ayn Rand in your sig means you have a radical anti-socialist position. It makes you a good Red Scared American though...

I do not care about RBG. She has nothing to do with this and I was never a fan. I thought conservatives danced on her grave because they got to put in a young 19th century reactionary in her place. I didn't realize she was loathed to such an extent? Did she sign off on 4000 bombings of Cambodia? Did she help reactionary authoritarian dictators overthrow democratic regimes as a hobby? No? Then it is not the same at all...

If you claim to loathe authoritarians then it would only make logical sense that you would loathe Kissinger since he propped so many of them up in his time.

 

[Farm Boy]

That clear enough for you? I know you guys like to make every leftist and automatic tankie or whatever but that's not the case...

Were you worried they were feeling lonely?

 

[GenMarshall]

A sig always has bearing on the post above it. You can disagree with me and believe it is a strawman but having bloody Ayn Rand in your sig means you have a radical anti-socialist position. It makes you a good Red Scared American though...

As @Valka D'Ur would say, never tell me what to think or feel or believe. Never assume you know what I think or feel or believe, or that I'm not being truthful when I tell you. Never assume that I'm not being truthful if my view doesn't match your view. Don't make me tap her signature.

I do not care about RBG. She has nothing to do with this and I was never a fan. I thought conservatives danced on her grave because they got to put in a young 19th century reactionary in her place. I didn't realize she was loathed to such an extent? Did she sign off on 4000 bombings of Cambodia? Did she help reactionary authoritarian dictators overthrow democratic regimes as a hobby? No? Then it is not the same at all...

You may not see it, but I do. It's the same manner of speaking ill of the recently deceased. If Biden kicked the bucket, I'm not going to open the champagne bottle and post in the raves thread. George W. Bush....I'd be a waste of time to celebrate his death given that he'd wouldn't be relevant by the time he kicks the bucket. You only loathe him because he was connected with an administration that dismantled socialist regimes that would have had friendly relations to Moscow. I'm certainly not in the mood to argue and bicker with you about the authoritarianism of Communism found in the USSR, especially when you're just acting in bad faith.

If you claim to loathe authoritarians then it would only make logical sense that you would loathe Kissinger since he propped so many of them up in his time.

Full Stop, Kissinger did not hold the seat of president and disagree with the assessment that Kissinger is an "authoritarian". May I remind you that he was the secretary of state, not the director of the CIA. Secondly, loathing Kissinger is at the very bottom of my priorities since I have a full understanding that 1. he only held the position of secretary of state. 2. He has little bearing on what goes on in the present day post George W. Bush, thus not actively in the limelight which leads to. 3. It came as a surprise to me that he was still around. As I stated before, I don't place Kissinger up to the same level as Richard Nixon or George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: CFC is not the venue for posters to tear each apart. Thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889