Henry Kissinger: Nobel peace prize winner?

worldrepublic

What do people think of Christopher Hitchens article on Kissinger:

http://www.slate.com/?id=2074678

Apparently several judges have tried to indite the former Advisor to two US presidents for "crimes against humanity"? How can someone like that have won a Nobel peace prize? The judges must be lying.

Kissinger is just an old man trying to help save the world. Leave him alone!

Nodin

worldrepublic wrote: »

What do people think of Christopher Hitchens article on Kissinger:!

Its 7 years old.

worldrepublic wrote: »

Apparently several judges have tried to indite the former Advisor to two US presidents for "crimes against humanity"? How can someone like that have won a Nobel peace prize? :!

.

Because it was given as a gesture to help along the negotiations in the Vietnam war. The vietnamese were also awarded it, but refused to accept on the grounds there was no peace. Henry felt no such obligation.

worldrepublic wrote: »

Kissinger is just an old man trying to help save the world. Leave him alone!

Kissinger is not only responsible for some of the mass slaugher in Vietnam, but also in part for Pinochets regime, the excesses of the Suharto regime, crimes against the Kurds etc. Had he been dealt with at the time, it would have perhaps prevented Reagans support of nefarious regimes in the 1980's and Bush's adventurism in Iraq.

worldrepublic

Where is the evidence that Kissinger committed any crime?? In fact he is a remarkable man. For example, he has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize (they're rather hard to get!) and he was appointed to head the 9/11 commission, which is just one of the ways he has tried to bring truth to the world. He also recently met the Pope to discuss globalisation as a way forward, is Pro-European Union, and speaks very highly of Obama, and his policies of change and hope. He is still welcomed to make regular media appearances so we can listen to his point of view.

I am just shocked at accusations here.

worldrepublic

reply to: "and Bush's adventurism in Iraq."

What is that supposed to mean? The international community, the UN, NATO, the US have all made so many efforts to bring peace and democracy to the middle-east. Saddam Hussein and other Al Queda types just try to keep all the oil for themselves instead of sharing it with the USA and Europe.

ChocolateSauce

Hitchens' political views are often radical and downright malevolent. I may be wrong, but wasn't he a communist when he wrote that article? I know he was one 10 years ago, and when you have the far left claiming the EU is bad because it is economically liberal, I wouldn't find it surprising to see a communist (particularly one as scathing as Hitchens) trying to sully the name of a right-winger.

Not that I know too much about Kissinger.

Nodin

worldrepublic wrote: »

Where is the evidence that Kissinger committed any crime?? In fact he is a remarkable man. For example, he has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize (they're rather hard to get!) and he was appointed to head the 9/11 commission, which is just one of the ways he has tried to bring truth to the world. He also recently met the Pope to discuss globalisation as a way forward, is Pro-European Union, and speaks very highly of Obama, and his policies of change and hope. He is still welcomed to make regular media appearances so we can listen to his point of view.

I am just shocked at accusations here.

To be honest, meeting the pope is hardly proof of sanctity.

And Obamas slogans are about change and hope. His policies are about a slight shift to the left.

Henry decided to get a bit more cosy with Saddam in Iraq. As a result he cut funding to the Kurdish groups and had Turkey close the border to them, allowing Saddam to trap them, kill thousands and transport a quarter of a million.

Henry, as mentioned before, was involved with Pinochet, and the Argentinian dictators, Suharto and the invasion of East Timor. Possibly one of his more notorious episodes was his involvment with the "no fixed structure" bombing campaign against Cambodia. One of his worst episodes is where he and Nixon breached the embargo on weapons to Pakistan, thus aiding it in its genocide of Bangladeshi hindus.

This is all well recorded - even some of the actual transcripts of conversations with Nixon are available on the net. I'd suggest you read up on the man you're defending.

worldrepublic

I'm not seeing any evidence.

Plus, he headed the 9/11 commission. Why would he be appointed unless he was beyond approach. The accusations against him all sound like some kind of anti-semite conspiracy theory, sorry to say. Very sad.

Nodin

worldrepublic wrote: »

I'm not seeing any evidence..

I'm beginning to think this is a wind up.

The United States supported Pakistan both politically and materially. Nixon, backed by Henry Kissinger, feared Soviet expansion into South and Southeast Asia. Pakistan was a close ally of the People's Republic of China, with whom Nixon had been negotiating a rapprochement and where he intended to visit in February 1972. Nixon feared that an Indian invasion of West Pakistan would mean total Soviet domination of the region, and that it would seriously undermine the global position of the United States and the regional position of America's new tacit ally, China. In order to demonstrate to China the bona fides of the United States as an ally, and in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan, routing them through Jordan and Iran,[23] while also encouraging China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan.
The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the 'genocidal' activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram. When Pakistan's defeat in the eastern sector seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a move which was a nuclear threat. The Enterprise arrived on station on December 11, 1971. On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 into the Indian Ocean from 18 December 1971 until 7 January 1972. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean.[24]

(my bold and underline)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#American_and_Soviet_involvement

The events outlined above can be checked against any history of the period and area.

The various archived conversations relating to some other matters can be found here.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/

worldrepublic wrote: »

Plus, he headed the 9/11 commission...

No, he did not, nor did he eventually head the 9/11 committee, having resigned due to conflict of interest. For the second time, I suggest you actually gain some idea of the man you are defending.

worldrepublic wrote: »

. The accusations against him all sound like some kind of anti-semite conspiracy theory, sorry to say. Very sad.

Should you make another remark like that without back up, I'm afraid I'll have to report the post. They like things polite around here, and my responses thus are limited.

Sand

Kissinger was a realist. His view was that the US should accept the reality of regimes and just deal with them. In such a way he was very similar to Obama. If anything he did an immense amount to reduce tension with the Soviets and the Chinese at a time when WW3 was not a remote possibility. And when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Kissinger is hated for dealing with dictators and being a realist. Bush is hated for deposing dictators and being a damned idealist. Obama is loved for dealing with Iran and being a realist. Doesnt seem logical does it? I mean, yeah, Saddam was an asshole. But will the same people moan about Obama should he meet the Iranian regime that just recently beat, shot and intimidated its people into submission? No, he will be praised for his calm and realistic approach, and not getting worked up about it. Give it 40 years and maybe Obama will be the war criminal.

With guys like the above, its not about reasoned examination of their views and polices. Its just about the person being a figurehead for directed hatred or worship as appropriate. Kissinger became a hate figure for the left in the US, and by extension (laughably so) became a hate figure for the international left who resent the influence of the US. It doesnt matter what he actually did. Hes the devil. End of.

Kama

Saddam Hussein and other Al Queda types just try to keep all the oil for themselves instead of sharing it with the USA and Europe.

This made my night, thank you!

jank

worldrepublic wrote: »

I'm not seeing any evidence.

Plus, he headed the 9/11 commission. Why would he be appointed unless he was beyond approach. The accusations against him all sound like some kind of anti-semite conspiracy theory, sorry to say. Very sad.

LOL, I stopped taking you seriously when I read that post....

You give out when there is no "evidence" (here is a hint use google) and then out of nowhere think it must by anti semitism against him when there is no evidence of that fact. Way to go to distort an arguement.

jank

Sand wrote: »

Kissinger was a realist. His view was that the US should accept the reality of regimes and just deal with them. In such a way he was very similar to Obama. If anything he did an immense amount to reduce tension with the Soviets and the Chinese at a time when WW3 was not a remote possibility. And when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Kissinger is hated for dealing with dictators and being a realist. Bush is hated for deposing dictators and being a damned idealist. Obama is loved for dealing with Iran and being a realist. Doesnt seem logical does it? I mean, yeah, Saddam was an asshole. But will the same people moan about Obama should he meet the Iranian regime that just recently beat, shot and intimidated its people into submission? No, he will be praised for his calm and realistic approach, and not getting worked up about it. Give it 40 years and maybe Obama will be the war criminal.

With guys like the above, its not about reasoned examination of their views and polices. Its just about the person being a figurehead for directed hatred or worship as appropriate. Kissinger became a hate figure for the left in the US, and by extension (laughably so) became a hate figure for the international left who resent the influence of the US. It doesnt matter what he actually did. Hes the devil. End of.

In fairness what he was involved with in Latin America is a disgrace. I dont need to go on about it here as we all know the history of Chile and Argentina. Vietnam well thats history as well but again the US comes out badly here again. I dont know how anyone could defend the US actions to invade veitnam to impliement regime change in the 60's. Kissinger as you say was a figure head in these times and a realist but unfortunately his realism and medeling cost millions of lives. Of course JFK, Johnson, Nixon and others like Robert McNamara are just as guilty in the Vietnam debacle.

He will always be remembered for vietnam and the waste of life on both sides hence why people dont think too much of him.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Kissinger is hated for dealing with dictators and being a realist. Bush is hated for deposing dictators and being a damned idealist. Obama is loved for dealing with Iran and being a realist. Doesnt seem logical does it? I mean, yeah, Saddam was an asshole. But will the same people moan about Obama should he meet the Iranian regime that just recently beat, shot and intimidated its people into submission? No, he will be praised for his calm and realistic approach, and not getting worked up about it.
.

Somewhere along the line you seem to have confused "dealing with" and "actively supporting". There is no comparison between Obama and Clinton being less confrontational with Iran and Nixon/Kissinger exporting arms to a regime hellbent on massacre,or supporting a coup and dictatorship over the Chilean people.

worldrepublic

Nodin wrote: »

Somewhere along the line you seem to have confused "dealing with" and "actively supporting". There is no comparison between Obama and Clinton being less confrontational with Iran and Nixon/Kissinger exporting arms to a regime hellbent on massacre,or supporting a coup and dictatorship over the Chilean people.

None of this happened it's all lies and distortion. Next you'll be saying Kissinger and Obama are in league with the aliens to take control of the pyramids. Yeah, right.

jank

worldrepublic wrote: »

None of this happened it's all lies and distortion. Next you'll be saying Kissinger and Obama are in league with the aliens to take control of the pyramids. Yeah, right.

Eh? So what do you suggest happened in Chile during these times?

Gully Foyle

The Noble Peace Prize was an almost brilliant piece of Postmodernist Satire, I must say.

Bush was a very funny "idealist" I must say.

Also no-one has mentioned East Timor? Or the blatant support he got and he gave the Greek Military Junta of 1967-1974 (there is a reason why Greece is the most Anti-American country in Europe)?

mcgarnicle

Gully Foyle wrote: »

The Noble Peace Prize was an almost brilliant piece of Postmodernist Satire, I must say.

Bush was a very funny "idealist" I must say.

Also no-one has mentioned East Timor? Or the blatant support he got and he gave the Greek Military Junta of 1967-1974 (there is a reason why Greece is the most Anti-American country in Europe)?

How about the fact that while the Paris Peace Conference was taking place before the 1968 election Kissinger, as part of Lyndon Johnson's team at the negotiations sent info about proceedings to the Nixon camp. Thereby keeping both Nixon and Johnson onside thus guaranteeing himself a nice position with whoever would win the subsequent election.

Kissinger's realism went beyond international real politic. His number one concern was his own power and position. He has no moral scruples. This can be seen by his attempted refutation of Hitchens by simply slandering him as an anti-Semite on tv. He was later forced, via his lawyers, to withdraw this false and pathetic slur.

tlev

I like this quote relating to the Chile coup d'etat

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger

Reminds me a bit of the Irish situation...people not knowing what is best for them

Kissinger was involved with Pinochet rising to power. The US didn't want a communist regime in Chile, so they took action.

Sand

Well in fairness to Worldrepublic, he is trying *very* hard.

Nodin

worldrepublic wrote: »

None of this happened it's all lies and distortion. Next you'll be saying Kissinger and Obama are in league with the aliens to take control of the pyramids. Yeah, right.

If I'd noticed this piece earlier......

Saddam Hussein and other Al Queda types just try to keep all the oil for themselves instead of sharing it with the USA and Europe

....I probably wouldn't have bothered answering you at all, at all.

Nodin

Gully Foyle wrote: »

The Noble Peace Prize was an almost brilliant piece of Postmodernist Satire, I must say.

Bush was a very funny "idealist" I must say.

Also no-one has mentioned East Timor? Or the blatant support he got and he gave the Greek Military Junta of 1967-1974 (there is a reason why Greece is the most Anti-American country in Europe)?

I mentioned Suharto, but left out the Greeks (Sorry Greeks). Oul Henry was nothing if not prolific.

worldrepublic

Nodin wrote: »

I mentioned Suharto, but left out the Greeks (Sorry Greeks). Oul Henry was nothing if not prolific.

I cannot accept the "conspiracy theories" everyone here is talking about. Kissinger speaks very highly of Obama. Kissinger and Obama had an important meeting in which Kissinger advised Obama as to the Nuclear capabilities of Pakistan -or had you all forgotten about that? Great people like Kissinger and Obama are trying to stop the terrorists and protect us and make sure that there is fair trading in oil between us and middle-eastern countries. All heads of state with the European Union have also spoken of the need to fight the ever increasing problem of terrorism and terrorists. Sky News have been running stories about the fact that Britain may be in Afganistan for atleast another 40 years. The War on Terror is not going anywhere... in fact is is getting bigger, and bigger. And we need good people like Obama and Kissinger to protect us. We can only hope that Obama will continue to form such good policies that bring democracy and peace to the world (in the long run -we must be very patient) and I have no doubt he will also get a Noble Peace Prize.

I would encourage people to think about facts not "conspiracy theories". Obama's idea of a civilian force will also find application within the European Union, and then at least we will have the means to monitor all these people promoting baseless conspiracy theories.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

I cannot accept the "conspiracy theories" everyone here is talking about. Kissinger speaks very highly of Obama. Kissinger and Obama had an important meeting in which Kissinger advised Obama as to the Nuclear capabilities of Pakistan -or had you all forgotten about that? Great people like Kissinger and Obama are trying to stop the terrorists and protect us and make sure that there is fair trading in oil between us and middle-eastern countries. All heads of state with the European Union have also spoken of the need to fight the ever increasing problem of terrorism and terrorists. Sky News have been running stories about the fact that Britain may be in Afganistan for atleast another 40 years. The War on Terror is not going anywhere... in fact is is getting bigger, and bigger. And we need good people like Obama and Kissinger to protect us. We can only hope that Obama will continue to form such good policies that bring democracy and peace to the world (in the long run -we must be very patient) and I have no doubt he will also get a Noble Peace Prize.

I would encourage people to think about facts not "conspiracy theories". Obama's idea of a civilian force will also find application within the European Union, and then at least we will have the means to monitor all these people promoting baseless conspiracy theories.

No you don't seem to accept anything really. Any evidence we give you, you just brush off and start talking about Obama and the civilian peace force. It is fact that the US were involved with Chile and Cambodia etc. There are RECORDED TRANSCRIPTS of Kissinger talking to Nixon abou it. Right or wrong it DID HAPPEN.

Nodin

tlev wrote: »

No you don't seem to accept anything really. Any evidence we give you, you just brush off and start talking about Obama and the civilian peace force. It is fact that the US were involved with Chile and Cambodia etc. There are RECORDED TRANSCRIPTS of Kissinger talking to Nixon abou it. Right or wrong it DID HAPPEN.

Don't mind him.

Kama

On the occasion of Kissinger being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a noted satirist said that he was hanging up his pen, that satire had become impossible in such a world.

I'll admit I entertain a 'baseless conspiracy theory' that worldrepublic may be proving him wrong by continuing in this noble satiric tradition

jank

worldrepublic wrote: »

I cannot accept the "conspiracy theories" everyone here is talking about. Kissinger speaks very highly of Obama. Kissinger and Obama had an important meeting in which Kissinger advised Obama as to the Nuclear capabilities of Pakistan -or had you all forgotten about that? Great people like Kissinger and Obama are trying to stop the terrorists and protect us and make sure that there is fair trading in oil between us and middle-eastern countries. All heads of state with the European Union have also spoken of the need to fight the ever increasing problem of terrorism and terrorists. Sky News have been running stories about the fact that Britain may be in Afganistan for atleast another 40 years. The War on Terror is not going anywhere... in fact is is getting bigger, and bigger. And we need good people like Obama and Kissinger to protect us. We can only hope that Obama will continue to form such good policies that bring democracy and peace to the world (in the long run -we must be very patient) and I have no doubt he will also get a Noble Peace Prize.

I would encourage people to think about facts not "conspiracy theories". Obama's idea of a civilian force will also find application within the European Union, and then at least we will have the means to monitor all these people promoting baseless conspiracy theories.

I think you need to get out more and stop being so gullible. Stop living in fear.

War is merely a continuation of politics

Have you heard of this quote..?

worldrepublic

jank wrote: »

I think you need to get out more and stop being so gullible. Stop living in fear.



Have you heard of this quote..?

You are just trying to trick me with emotive words like "war". I would say that:

"peace-keeping" is a continuation of politics.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

You are just trying to trick me with emotive words like "war". I would say that:

"peace-keeping" is a continuation of politics.

No one is trying to trick you. That is a real quote by a real person - Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz. jank didn't make it up. So the word 'peace-keeping' isn't emotive? It is neutral?

worldrepublic

tlev wrote: »

No one is trying to trick you. That is a real quote by a real person - Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz. jank didn't make it up. So the word 'peace-keeping' isn't emotive? It is neutral?

Honey bunnies, you are all soooo innocent. It's not a "quote", it's just a "selective extract."

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

Honey bunnies, you are all soooo innocent. It's not a "quote", it's just a "selective extract."

Please don't be so patronising. I am quoting what von Clausewitz said. Really none of your rebuttals make any sense.

(based on Clausewitz's argument that "war is a continuation of politics by other means"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

OP..what?..really?..Are you related to him or something?..Are you on drugs?

The Trials of Henry Kissinger Documentary

Maybe watching something visual, so you dont have to engage your brain as much might help..

The man should be immersed in napalm..

worldrepublic

Deleted User wrote: »

OP..what?..really?..Are you related to him or something?..Are you on drugs?

The Trials of Henry Kissinger Documentary

Maybe watching something visual, so you dont have to engage your brain as much might help..

The man should be immersed in napalm..

Nice try -this is not a documentary, it's a hit piece.

LostinKildare

My favorite HK quote:

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." (October 28, 1973, New York Times Magazine)

For sheer depravity, this one's good too:

"[Soldiers are] dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." (Woodward and Bernstein, The Final Days)