Pretty brutal but accurate recounting of his direct contribution to over 3 million deaths.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/henry-kissinger-war-criminal-dead-1234804748/
Well, it's good to read something quite so blunt and unvarnished; even The Guardian's editorial is incredibly mealy-mouthed.
Yes, really horrible that he unapologetically based his advice on the interests of the nation and her allies.
shareExcept that he failed to help the interests of his nation and its allies. What was gained from prolonging the Vietnam war and having it spill over to two other countries resulting in millions of extra deaths and destablizing another county to the point where mass executions took place? Remember, his purpose in scuttling the 1968 peace deal was to help Richard Nixon get elected.
shareThe article assumes much, like Ho Chi Minh would be open to LBJ's peace plan.
In fact, the article doesn't even mention Ho Chi Minh's point of view (total victory) at all.
A strong argument can be made that the destabilizing factor in Cambodia was not the bombing, but actually the USA's exit of a military presence in the region.
The problem is we shouldn't have been involved in that war to begin with, though admittedly it wasn't Kissinger's fault that we entered it. Still, he prolonged the war when the moral thing to do would have been to end it as quickly as possible.
shareWell, nobody is saying that about the Korea War.
...and that was the hope and promise of South Vietnam in the early 1960's. To have a stable, vibrant democracy (like South Korea) where the standard of living meets the West. (South Korea actually exceeded it)
Unfortunately the legacy of French colonialism, some really poor choices of leadership in South Vietnam and the rise of Ho Chi Minh made this impossible.
"Well, nobody is saying that about the Korea War." I am. We shouldn't have been involved in that war either.
shareI don't believe the South Koreans think the same.
shareSo what? Contrary to popular notions, the legitimate purpose of the U.S. military is NOT to sacrifice our young men and women for the benefit of OTHER nations. Our military should serve our interests only.
shareThe rub in your last sentence is the interest of the U.S.A.
Includes supporting democratic governments that have a rule of law.
Sometimes supporting them means not only money/technology but a U.S. troops.
By chance I heard one of the last interviews with Kissinger, he feared that an isolationist stance would make America not only weaker as a world power player, but obsolete.
There was a peace plan that the north and south agreed to. Kissinger went back channel to Thieu of South Korea telling him that if he rejected the plan, he get a better deal once Nixon was President of the US. It was South Vietnam that rejected the peace plan.
shareHo Chi Minh wouldn't have been satisfied with a split Vietnam or any American presence in the country.
Minh didn't live in a bubble, he watched the U.S. news broadcast of the demonstrations against the war and had no reason to sue for peace, as his people were united. He would use the plan simply stall the U.S. bombing so his forces could regroup.
The article is so focused on Kissinger that it doesn't take the point of view of the other players. This is what good historians do, the author is a journalist, not a historian.
And yet you are trying to impose your thoughts while the reality was totally different. It is documented.
shareNot my thoughts.
An excellent book that I suggest is Embers of War (2012). It won the Pulitzer prize for history and gives and excellent analysis of Ho Chi Minh, his rise and his dealings with the West.
After you read this book, you realize that he is essentially the George Washington of Vietnam, and any peace deal that involves American presence in the country would be folly.
Well, a year after that book came out phone calls made by Lyndon Johnson were declassified in which he discussed the revelation that Nixon had negotiated with Thieu to walk away from the Paris peace talks. Nixon had done this because Kissenger's sources told him that Minh was wiling to make major concessions that could lead to a quick end to the war. Nixon had based a lot of his campaign on his plans to end the war and that would be ruined if Johnson succeeded in doing it. Johnson's declassified phone calls indicated he would keep Nixon's dealings secret because to let it out would be too politically explosive, severely damaging Thieu's standing and would appear to be politically motivated on Johnson's part. But the truth did come out 45 years later.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/
They didn't call him "Tricky Dick"for nothing 😃.
But damning his administration for the assumption that the peace process would have worked with LBJ (if he ran) is a stretch.
LBJ didn't not want to be the first president in history to turn tail, so any peace plan would have had to have a American presence in Vietnam. This is directly opposed to Ho Chi Minh's goal of uniting Vietnam and shedding the yoke of White rule.
I am still waiting for Robert Caro's last book on LBJ. which should shed more light on this subject.
LBJ : Master of the Senate is the best biography that I have ever read.
And yet, there was a plan that Mihn agreed to that Kissinger and Nixon thought would go through and they decided to scuttle it. I'm pretty sure Johnson had declared he wasn't running at that point.
shareWho in the world takes Rolling Stone seriously?
shareWhat are conservatives saying? You know they love everyone the left hates and viceversa.
shareHas the Rolling Stone EVER had a hit piece like this on a commie who pushed terrorism or revolutions that killed hundreds of thousands or millions in the service of an ideology that has done nothing but oppress and terrorize people for generations?
shareWhy does that matter? Can you refute what they wrote about Kissinger?
shareWhy does it matter? Good question. Why did it matter for the rolling stone to publish the piece on the deaths they blame on Kissenger? What was teh point of that?
And it needs to be a "point" that you CAN'T also apply to the commies, because then it is not the REAL POINT, because for some reason the Rolling Stone loves to publish shit about AMERICAN leaders and AMERCIAN policy, but not about our leftists enemies...
There is somethign wrong with our society. We are wallowing in self recriminations and self hate. It is not healthy.
That's a lot of words to say you can't refute the article.
shareRefute?
The question was, what was the point of the rolling stone article. I mean we can see that whining about human suffereing is not the point, because they ignore the vast majority of such suffering.
You asked me and I can guess, but I am not a lefty like the rolling stone writers. You are certainly closer to them than I am, yet you just evaded the question.
So, FUCK IT. No one can say what the article is really about. It certainly didn't say, did it?
At a time when Henry Kissinger is being lauded for his career this article is a reminder of the million of deaths he caused. It's important to remember history, especially when it's glossed over because someone was viewed as charismatic or brilliant in some way or because Americans would rather forget the shitty things we've done.
shareSo, Remembering history to YOU is all about remembering "the shitty things WE'VE done".
That would explain why Rolling Stone never has shit to say about our enemies bad deeds...
And thus, my "refutation" is that history is NOT just about wallowing in some sort of self hate a thon, beating ourselves up about "the shitty things we've done", but about learning about the way that people and nations behave and act over time, so that we can try to do better in the future.
Our enemies have done a lot of bad shit we want to avoid. We have done a lot of good shit we want to build on.
YOUR way on doing "history" fails at both of those aspects of history.
You could counter act that and say history is not all about highlighting the good we have done either. It is a balance. Plenty of people will gladly want to omit the negative this country has done. History can not be sugarcoated. We have done good but if we acknowledge the good we also must acknowledge the bad. Also pointing out history is not self hate it is teaching history. I could counter that and say that highlighting the good is us just boasting about how great we are.
shareYou could say that, if this was pre-vietnam era America. But since then the hippies and their brainwashed children have made whole industries out of focusing on only the negative this country has done.
Doing that, IS wallowing in self hate.
This world would be a DYSTOPIA is the commies had won the Cold War. Our winning it, led to an explosion of freedom and democracy. It is worth keeping that in mind.
So then what you are saying is there has been an attempt at course correction. So back then tons has no issues with only highlighting America. Aren't doing both things wrong? I remember anytime someone points out flaws it was because you hated America. You should be able to criticize America and not be considered anti-American. Same thing the other way.
60 years of it is beyond "course correction" and well into wallowing in self hatred, as I said.
I asked you if Rollingstone EVER slams our enemies for the bad shit they do. You did not answer, becasue you know that they don't. We only attack our own.
That is an unhealthy culture. Very unhealthy.
No you asked the other person that question not me. I responded to a claim you made. My point stands you should be able to praise or criticize America. Praise where it is deserved and criticism where it is deserved. I've seen people try to silence someone on either end. Which is wrong. I can praise the things here I like without being a blind worshipper and I can criticize this place and not be anti-American.
sharePeople like the Rolling Stone magazine will criticize America till the cows come home while ignoring worse behavior from our enemies,
And NOT praise US when it is deserved.
AND if someone like say, I, do praise US, they attack us. And even moderates are conditioned to agree, but then IMMEDIATELY make teh point "we are not perfect" and we "need to do better", blah, blah, blah.
No other nation or heritage is required to NEVER have a single moment of unblemished Triumph. It is just US.
It is unhealthy and dishonest and wrong.
And there are sources which will praise America and are incapable of criticizing it. This goes both ways.
There are sources or people who will call someone anti-American if they criticize this country.
I disagree with that also. You act as if all sources do this. No only ones that unfair do that. Same way that some sources will swear this is the best country in the world despite the fact that we are not the best at everything. There are other countries which rank higher in education and have better healthcare than us.
I agree being biased both ways is unhealthy. You can praise America without worshipping it and being blind to it's faults. Someone can criticize it without being anti-American and being blind to it's successes.