RIP Henry Kissinger

[Herman Cain]

Was a big factor in the 1970s Global affairs .


Also was quite the ladies man.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/five-things-about-henry-kissinger-dominant-figure-global-affairs-1970s

[MU82]

Did a hell of a job of needlessly getting tens of thousands of young American men killed by delaying the departure from Vietnam by several years purely for appearance sake.

[Goose]

His power has been felt around the world for over a half century and truly a remarkable life. I believe that his recent trip to China in July set the stage for the recent meeting in San Fran with President Xi and President Biden. While several appointed officials visited China in 2023, nothing was accomplished. Kissinger's visit allowed President Xi to look for help from the USA and slowdown de-coupling, economic woes and military showdowns.


Love him or hate him, the man carried a very big stick in global affairs for my entire lifetime. He was someone that was a bigger than life force to me and the world lost one of the last great living statesman. I was talking this morning and I believe Angela Merkel now holds the title of greatest living statesperson in the world.

[Uncle Rico]

War criminal that should have been tried for his crimes.  World is a better place without him

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Since we have been on the topic of the worrisome antisemitism problem on other threads.

"During a meeting of the Washington Special Actions Group,  Kissinger said, "If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be antisemitic. Any people who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong." "

If there is a hell, this man is most certainly in it. No amount of good offsets what he has done to directly cause the suffering of millions. He and Nixon hopefully share a cell.

[Jockey]

War criminal that should have been tried for his crimes.  World is a better place without him

I agree. He left a ltrail of death in many places in the world.

[Scoop Snoop]

Your thoughts on this opinion piece?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/opinions/henry-kissinger-vietnam-american-power-suri/index.html

[jficke13]

I'm sure Scoop will manage this discussion well.

If you're looking for some color on the how and the why he advocated the things he advocated over the course of his career, the 6-part podcast series on Behind the Bastards was quite a listen.

on the other hand there will probably be several hagiographies forthcoming to present the opposite interpretation of the man's life and career.

[MU82]

Your thoughts on this opinion piece?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/opinions/henry-kissinger-vietnam-american-power-suri/index.html

Well-written, detail-filled, and I think a reasonable explanation of the good and bad of the man. Like most important historical figures, there's no one "right" or "wrong" look at him.

As I said earlier, my main problem with him was the way he and Nixon let tens of thousands of American soldiers get slaughtered because they wanted to save face about U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Some might even argue that was a war crime against Americans. He obviously had some great achievements, as well.

He also was a beneficiary of a kind of affirmative action, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[The Sultan]

Your thoughts on this opinion piece?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/opinions/henry-kissinger-vietnam-american-power-suri/index.html

People are complicated. This piece captured his complications quite nicely.

[Uncle Rico]

He was a very complicated for a war criminal, I suppose

[The Sultan]

He was a very complicated for a war criminal, I suppose

I think he had good basic instincts. I think he often played those out to an extreme.

[Heisenberg]

He was a very complicated for a war criminal, I suppose

I tend to agree with this ...

He often avoided the worst-case scenario by choosing the second worst-case scenario.

[JWags85]

Its no surprise that the majority of people turning cartwheels yesterday/today on social media are the people who, if you look into their posting history, abhor the idea or premise of American exceptionalism or idealism.  Thus Kissinger, who tempered much of his strategy with that American ideal in mind, is the devil to them.

He absolutely did some heinous things.  And history judging him harshly as such is not off base.  But its so interesting the swing in the pendulum to revisionist history to glow up some of Kissinger's adversaries/opposing forces.  The same kind of people who act like Castro and Gaddafi were actually cool guys and benevolent leaders just because the US opposed/deposed them and screw the tyrannical US.  The people who endlessly talk s*** about the US and be like "oh X country is so much better/safer/mah dreeaamm" based on flimsy logic and no action to back it up.

Kissinger was a force of nature, an exceptional and intuitive statesman, and magnetic personality.  He was also incredibly flawed, a victim of his own arrogance and hubris, and too often could minimize foreign civilian populations to numbers or pieces on a chessboard in sacrifice to greater strategy.  Both sides can be true at once.

[Pakuni]

Its no surprise that the majority of people turning cartwheels yesterday/today on social media are the people who, if you look into their posting history, abhor the idea or premise of American exceptionalism or idealism.  Thus Kissinger, who tempered much of his strategy with that American ideal in mind, is the devil to them.

One could make a case that Kissinger's belief in American exceptionalism was at the heart of his worst behaviors.
His justification for helping to orchestrate the Chilean coup and put a monster like Pinochet in power?
"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be allowed to decide for themselves."

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

I don't think that the fact that he was a shrewd and savvy statesmen but also carpet bombed Laos into medieval times is really fair to say "take the good with the bad". I think you're being a bit disingenuous when you cast a wide blanket of "the same people celebrating his death also celebrate Castro and Gaddaffi".

Maybe there are just a lot of people who think that his ultra extreme interpretation of "the ends justified the means" was unequivocally bad when it came to the deaths of millions. You can both sides a lot of things but I don't think you need to try and cast American twitter far leftism as the majority opinion on why he isn't someone we need to celebrate the life of.

[Uncle Rico]

I don't think that the fact that he was a shrewd and savvy statesmen but also carpet bombed Laos into medieval times is really fair to say "take the good with the bad". I think you're being a bit disingenuous when you cast a wide blanket of "the same people celebrating his death also celebrate Castro and Gaddaffi".

Maybe there are just a lot of people who think that his ultra extreme interpretation of "the ends justified the means" was unequivocally bad when it came to the deaths of millions. You can both sides a lot of things but I don't think you need to try and cast American twitter far leftism as the majority opinion on why he isn't someone we need to celebrate the life of.

There's no nuance with Kissinger, he was a war criminal

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

There's no nuance with Kissinger, he was a war criminal

I'm sure the people who disagree with you would willingly ingest agent orange for their country.

[lawdog77]

One could make a case that Kissinger's belief in American exceptionalism was at the heart of his worst behaviors.
His justification for helping to orchestrate the Chilean coup and put a monster like Pinochet in power?
"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be allowed to decide for themselves."

Here's an interesting read about Kissinger/Nixon and Chile:
https://www.commentary.org/articles/mark-falcoff/kissinger-chile-the-myth-that-will-not-die/

[JWags85]

One could make a case that Kissinger's belief in American exceptionalism was at the heart of his worst behaviors.
His justification for helping to orchestrate the Chilean coup and put a monster like Pinochet in power?
"The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be allowed to decide for themselves."

Right, and I don't disagree with that.  But I don't think that him using that belief to terrible or extreme ends makes that belief wrong or proves that its a falsehood.

I don't think that the fact that he was a shrewd and savvy statesmen but also carpet bombed Laos into medieval times is really fair to say "take the good with the bad". I think you're being a bit disingenuous when you cast a wide blanket of "the same people celebrating his death also celebrate Castro and Gaddaffi".

Maybe there are just a lot of people who think that his ultra extreme interpretation of "the ends justified the means" was unequivocally bad when it came to the deaths of millions. You can both sides a lot of things but I don't think you need to try and cast American twitter far leftism as the majority opinion on why he isn't someone we need to celebrate the life of.

I never said you take the good with the bad.  I think he was a tremendously skilled and intelligent political figure who lost the plot and took things too far whilst operating in an ivory tower.  I didn't justify or excuse anything in my post.

And there are plenty of reasonable people who can criticize or negatively assess his life and legacy.  But those people aren't posting on social media with the same enthusiasm like their team just won a Super Bowl or they got engaged.  Ive seen various well written posts and articles that aren't favorable to him.

But none of them are in the REST IN PISS SATAN type vein like the above that I mentioned, who have whole personas seemingly rooted in retroactively condemning American history and vilifying all its leaders and thus finding ways to side with others.

Im not some gung ho American Pollyana who "would ingest Agent Orange" but I also am not gonna be like "Lol America sucks, Cuba is actually amazing their healthcare is so incredible, Id live there if not for American oppression"

[Pakuni]

Here's an interesting read about Kissinger/Nixon and Chile:
https://www.commentary.org/articles/mark-falcoff/kissinger-chile-the-myth-that-will-not-die/

I'll give a deeper read at some point, but what I've read is wholly unpersuasive, based on an exceptionally generous reading of cherry-picked information that flies in the face of multiple other historical accounts.
And it's kinda hard to take seriously someone who vomits out sentences like this:

Those who mourn the loss of a Marxist regime in Chile are free to denounce the adversarial efforts undertaken by Nixon, Kissinger, and the CIA, as are the legions of marchers with their placards equating American officials with Nazis and mass murderers. Those, like the editorialists of the New York Times, who are indifferent to the uses of anti-Americanism are likewise free to join the chorus.

The essential argument being, "if you think Kissinger and Nixon behaved poorly, you must be a Marxist who hates America."

And of course, he offers nothing in regards to the assassination of Rene Schenider, beyond claiming that his sons are upset about it because they've  been "egged on by political sympathizers in Europe and the United States." So, their dad was murdered, but they're only upset because someone egged them on? Interesting take.

[jesmu84]

Once you've been to Cambodia, you'll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia — the fruits of his genius for statesmanship — and you will never understand why he's not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milosevic

[lawdog77]

I'll give a deeper read at some point, but what I've read is wholly unpersuasive, based on an exceptionally generous reading of cherry-picked information that flies in the face of multiple other historical accounts.
And it's kinda hard to take seriously someone who vomits out sentences like this:

Those who mourn the loss of a Marxist regime in Chile are free to denounce the adversarial efforts undertaken by Nixon, Kissinger, and the CIA, as are the legions of marchers with their placards equating American officials with Nazis and mass murderers. Those, like the editorialists of the New York Times, who are indifferent to the uses of anti-Americanism are likewise free to join the chorus.

The essential argument being, "if you think Kissinger and Nixon behaved poorly, you must be a Marxist who hates America."

And of course, he offers nothing in regards to the assassination of Rene Schenider, beyond claiming that his sons are upset about it because they've  been "egged on by political sympathizers in Europe and the United States." So, their dad was murdered, but they're only upset because someone egged them on? Interesting take.

yeah, you want want to read deeper. The crux of the article is that Kissinger called of the coup, but it still went on.
There's this:
The chief obstacle to Track II was General René Schneider, commander-in-chief of the Chilean army. His view, simply stated, was that since the politicians had gotten the country into the mess in which it found itself, the politicians would have to find a way out. This position he maintained sturdily throughout September and October in the face of almost daily representations by retired officers, politicians, and businessmen begging him to "save the country" either by supporting a constitutional coup or by some other means. As General Carlos Prats, his second in command, has reported Schneider's words to him at the time, "the politicians are maneuvering to push the army into an adventure. They should understand that we are not so stupid as to not realize that they want to 'use' us, some to preserve their political unity, others as a 'trampoline' for Viaux." When Schneider proved intransigent, the intermediaries tried to persuade Prats, again to no effect. The architects of Track II then focused on circumventing Schneider by kidnapping him and sending him to neighboring Argentina for a season while the political situation was adjusted.

As far as Kissinger (and, for that matter, the White House) was concerned, Viaux had been told to stand down, and that was presumably the end of active American coup-plotting. As Kissinger told Nixon by telephone on October 15, reporting on a meeting with Thomas Karamassines of the CIA's Western Hemisphere division, "This looks hopeless. I turned it off. Nothing would be worse than an abortive coup." The President responded, "Just tell him to do nothing." The next day, CIA headquarters cabled its station in Santiago that although "we are to continue to generate maximum pressure" toward a coup, "a Viaux coup . . . would fail" and Viaux should be warned "against precipitate action." The message was delivered through an intermediary, leaving the CIA with the pious hope that once its wishes had been made known, Viaux would respect them.

Unfortunately, the cashiered Chilean general was pursuing agendas of his own. The kidnapping itself, which took place early on the morning of October 22, was badly bungled. Schneider resisted by extracting a handgun from his briefcase, provoking his abductors—mostly young and inexperienced—into shooting first, wounding him in four vital areas. Viaux's people panicked and took flight, some discarding their arms near the scene of the crime. The general was rushed to the capital's military hospital, where he died three days later.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Right, and I don't disagree with that.  But I don't think that him using that belief to terrible or extreme ends makes that belief wrong or proves that its a falsehood.

I never said you take the good with the bad.  I think he was a tremendously skilled and intelligent political figure who lost the plot and took things too far whilst operating in an ivory tower.  I didn't justify or excuse anything in my post.

And there are plenty of reasonable people who can criticize or negatively assess his life and legacy.  But those people aren't posting on social media with the same enthusiasm like their team just won a Super Bowl or they got engaged.  Ive seen various well written posts and articles that aren't favorable to him.

But none of them are in the REST IN PISS SATAN type vein like the above that I mentioned, who have whole personas seemingly rooted in retroactively condemning American history and vilifying all its leaders and thus finding ways to side with others.

Im not some gung ho American Pollyana who "would ingest Agent Orange" but I also am not gonna be like "Lol America sucks, Cuba is actually amazing their healthcare is so incredible, Id live there if not for American oppression"

I didn't mean to accuse you of Jingoism but; I just think that you are coming up with a little bit of a strawman that people condemning Kissinger are also condemning american history and supporting authoritarian regimes. I guarantee that a majority of people who feel similarly to how I do about the man do not think like that. I know of the voices that you speak of on the internet very much and those are very much an echo chamber of the loudest voices, much like the other end of the political spectrum.

Though to be honest a lot of people don't have that strong of an opinion on him either way, given the average American's knowledge of history after WWII.

Call me anti-american or whatever but I do not think it is inappropriate to voice your relief/satisfaction that someone whose direct actions has caused untold human misery is no longer with us. I think that demonstrates empathy for your fellow man more than anything. The more we attempt to bind his atrocities with his "brilliance and skill", the more likely we are to further justify and downplay similar actions in the future.

Very extreme historical example but to my above statement, I see some similarity to people who say "Hitler was bad but I respect him as a brilliant military strategist" when in reality he was a lunatic with a highly capable military. Patently false but an attempt to humanize a monster contributes to attributing merit where there isn't. When you soften someone's persona like that, you are, no matter how lightly, enabling it. Now Kissinger was more provably capable than that, but in no way should that excuse an immense sociopathic disregard for life.

[Pakuni]

yeah, you want want to read deeper. The crux of the article is that Kissinger called of the coup, but it still went on.

I've read it. Again, wholly unpersuasive, especially in light of all the evidence the author chooses to ignore or dismiss.
The best defense he offers of Kissinger is essentially that he plotted and set in motion a coup, but tried to call off one particular co-conspirator who didn't get the message.
So, even his defender here says he plotted and set in motion a coup.

And again, this flies in the face of tons of scholarly work on the subject.
To which Falcoff responds, "Yeah, but those guys are Marxists who hate America."

What do you think about this. As the article notes, after Kissinger supposedly called off the coup, the CIA sent out a message stating a "firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. . . . [E]fforts in this regard will continue vigorously. . . . We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource."

Falcoff's response is "well, maybe Kissinger never saw this."
Does that sound credible to you? That the guy who was both the head of NSA and the State Department would be totally unaware of the the intelligence service's "firm and continuing policy?"