28-12-2002 05:07									#31
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: his decisions may have seemed rational at the time

Isn't that the point? How can you judge on the past without putting yourself in the shoes of the person at that time.

quote: Laos is still communist today, as is Vietnam, and Cambodia emerged from the bloodiest most genocidal regime in this century

I'm not sure if Kissinger would say that is a bad thing. He didn't bomb Laos and Cambodia because they were Communist, he bombed them because that is where Vietnamese troops were going so they wouldn't get bombed by US forces in Vietnam. They went out of Vietnam and around and ended up in the South. THAT is why he bombed those countries.

It had nothing to do with them being communist (actually, I don't think Kissenger gave 2 shits if they were communist or not... realists don't think in those terms).

	28-12-2002 05:38									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Isn't that the point? How can you judge on the past without putting yourself in the shoes of the person at that time.

I think that's what Milosevic said.

quote: It had nothing to do with them being communist (actually, I don't think Kissenger gave 2 shits if they were communist or not... realists don't think in those terms).

*Ahem* Why did he start the war in Vietnam then?Remember the dominoes, Vietnam then the rest of the SE-Asia, then the world etc. etc.
The whole point of the war (purportedly at least) was to stop the spread of communism, and it achieved the exact opposite.
If his secret, realists plan was really to test the latest US weapons, waste a sh*tload of money, kill a bunch of kids, and prove US bombs and troops aren't worth **** in guerilla warfare, he did a damn fine job.

	28-12-2002 05:47									#33
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I think that's what Milosevic said.

Yeah, and?

quote: Why did he start the war in Vietnam then?

You should learn your history. HE DIDN'T! Kennedy started the war, LBJ escalated it. Kissenger was trying to end it (along with Nixon, who said that his major goal).

quote: The whole point of the war (purportedly at least) was to stop the spread of communism

No, the point of the war, was Kennedy doing a favor to the French and bailing them out in Indo-China. It escalated from there because LBJ and Nixon didn't want to be known as the first President to lose a war.

The stop the spread of communism was attached to it (even though Ho was merely a nationalist until the French and US came knocking). And if you look at your map. Communism ended in SouthEast Asia. It didn't go into Malaysia or Indonesia as the fear was. So if it was to stop the spread of communism, it actually worked well.

	28-12-2002 05:59									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well...you could say that it spread from NV to SV to Cambodia to Laos. Sure it stopped...but it spread quite a bit too.

	28-12-2002 06:07									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Cambodia and Laos were basically already lost. Unless US troops were stationed at the border and occupying them, it wouldn't have mattered.

	28-12-2002 06:14									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: You should learn your history. HE DIDN'T! Kennedy started the war, LBJ escalated it. Kissenger was trying to end it (along with Nixon, who said that his major goal).

Quite right. This multi-thread arguement we seem to be having must have addled my mind.

quote: No, the point of the war, was Kennedy doing a favor to the French and bailing them out in Indo-China

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the french well out of Vietnam when the bombs started dropping?

If Kissinger's objective was to win the war, he failed, if it was to stop the spread of communism, he failed (it spead, though not as much as feared).

Either way his actions killed or mutilated many millions of people.

Remember I am responding to your earlier post:

quote: And in judging him, I don't think he made wrong decisions. He made rational dicisions in war against Vietname, and his policy in Chile were ALSO for the best in the international fight against communism. I don't think he has anything to answer for. He did a good job.

Do you still agree with that statement? He lost all three wars in SE-Asia, they all ended up commies and he killed a f*ckload of peole. Good job?

	28-12-2002 06:19									#37
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the french well out of Vietnam when the bombs started dropping?

Not entirely. It was only a matter of years, before Kennedy decided to try to gain the colony back for the French.

quote: If Kissinger's objective was to win the war, he failed, if it was to stop the spread of communism, he failed

Kissinger's objective was to slow the spread of communism and get the US out. Both of which were accomplished. The US had to get out, he knew that, Nixon knew that. They also knew that if they pulled out right then, the Communists would have been knocking on Australia before they knew what happened. So they bombed and fought some more and gradually pulled out and prevented a spread to only the vicinity of Vietnam.

Not a bad job at all.

quote: Do you still agree with that statement?

Yes.

quote: He lost all three wars in SE-Asia

Which three wars, we only fought one (Vietnam). Laos and Cambodia were expansions on Vietnam, to try to get the Vietnamese soldiers that were in those countries.

	28-12-2002 06:35									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Imran - By an extension of your reasoning in regards to Mr. Kissinger, can we therefore dismiss the attrocities that Hitler committed as "mere trivialities of no consequence" since he did a great deal of good in improving the living conditions of Germans in Germany? In other words, "a good job". Surely you are not serious. I have always lauded you as one of the basically decent human beings amongst Apoly's righties, please don't give me reason to retract that title.

	28-12-2002 06:42									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: It was only a matter of years, before Kennedy decided to try to gain the colony back for the French

Blatant nonsense.

quote: Kissinger's objective was to slow the spread of communism and get the US out. Both of which were accomplished. The US had to get out, he knew that, Nixon knew that. They also knew that if they pulled out right then, the Communists would have been knocking on Australia before they knew what happened. So they bombed and fought some more and gradually pulled out and prevented a spread to only the vicinity of Vietnam.

How exactly did Kissinger slow the spead of communism?
Why did so many more Americans have to die than previously in the war in order to pull out?

quote: Laos and Cambodia were expansions on Vietnam, to try to get the Vietnamese soldiers that were in those countries.

Balls. There were American troops in both countries and American bomber flying daily runs over both countries. How the hell else do you define a war?

Did Nixon do a good job too?

	28-12-2002 06:43									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: By an extension of your reasoning in regards to Mr. Kissinger, can we therefore dismiss the attrocities that Hitler committed as "mere trivialities of no consequence" since he did a great deal of good in improving the living conditions of Germans in Germany? In other words, "a good job". Surely you are not serious. I have always lauded you as one of the basically decent human beings amongst Apoly's righties, please don't give me reason to retract that title.

Hitler killed more people in wars that he directly started than he saved in improving the living conditions in Germany.

I still don't see which 'atrocities' Kissenger did. He overthrew governments and started civil wars? He didn't go ahead and directly order rounding people up and killing them, did he? He had a good end in mind by his government changes (namely eliminating communist threats from those countries). The ends justified the means. The worst thing he did was overthrow the Chilean government. That doesn't strike me as being similar to Hitler.

	28-12-2002 07:11									#41
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Kissinger's objective was to slow the spread of communism and get the US out. Both of which were accomplished. The US had to get out, he knew that, Nixon knew that. They also knew that if they pulled out right then, the Communists would have been knocking on Australia before they knew what happened. So they bombed and fought some more and gradually pulled out and prevented a spread to only the vicinity of Vietnam.

Knocking on Australia? About as likely to go communist as Japan, i.e. not at all!

It's all but proven that Kissinger stalled the peace talks to make LBJ look bad and get Nixon elected as the guy with the secret plan to win the war. What was the secret? Hey, guess what, no plan!

Then Kissinger kept Nixon in a war that he knew we wouldn't and couldn't win so Nixon wouldn't look bad before the next election.

Kissinger didn't slow the spread of communism in SE Asia at all. If anything he sped it up by years.

	28-12-2002 07:26									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Balls. There were American troops in both countries and American bomber flying daily runs over both countries. How the hell else do you define a war?

Did we try to kill Laotian and Cambodian troops there? Only those that joined up with the Vietnamese. It was part and parcel of the same war.

quote: Did Nixon do a good job too?

In foreign policy? You bet he did. One of our better foriegn policy presidents.

And I wonder how you can possibly state that one of the primary motives for getting into the war was not to save face for the French.

quote: How exactly did Kissinger slow the spead of communism? Why did so many more Americans have to die than previously in the war in order to pull out?

You try pulling back in an all out retreat and see how much land the enemy takes. Since the election of '68, Nixon was talking about pulling out of Vietnam 'with honor'. You can't just up and leave.

And controlling Indonesia (which was a distinct possibility) is knocking on Australia.

	28-12-2002 07:35									#43
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I'm not sure if Kissinger would say that is a bad thing. He didn't bomb Laos and Cambodia because they were Communist, he bombed them because that is where Vietnamese troops were going so they wouldn't get bombed by US forces in Vietnam. They went out of Vietnam and around and ended up in the South. THAT is why he bombed those countries. It had nothing to do with them being communist (actually, I don't think Kissenger gave 2 shits if they were communist or not... realists don't think in those terms).

There's the error in Kissinger's method right there. He didn't care whether they were communist or not. They weren't communist! They didn't want to be communist!

Laos and Cambodia were not happy to have this war spread into their countries. But he bombs Cambodia, killing 500000 Cambodians. He bombs Laos killing 350000 Laotians. He destroys whatevers in the way. He totally destablized both countries to the point where both were easy pickings for the leftist guerillas.

What you're saying is that he is trying to prevent the spread of communism in South Viet Nam and SE asia in general. He failed! Peace in 68 would have prevented all this!

	28-12-2002 07:38									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

You speak much sense Static, you ought to stick around these parts.

	28-12-2002 07:38									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Oh dear.

quote: Hitler killed more people in wars that he directly started than he saved in improving the living conditions in Germany

Is the formula that simple? As long as you kill less than you enrich, you're ok? How many did Kissinger save? Do you have any idea how many he killed?

quote: I still don't see which 'atrocities' Kissenger did. He overthrew governments and started civil wars? He didn't go ahead and directly order rounding people up and killing them, did he?

Go read a book not from your high-school library. Find out what the illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos did to the villagers there. How many war-unrelated deaths there were. How many civillian, non-military targets were destoryed (against all international conventions). It is simply horrible, brutal, and indefensible.

	28-12-2002 07:38									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Peace in 68 would have prevented all this!

If you believe that I have a bridge I want to sell you.

Peace in '68 would have merely been a cease-fire up until the Americans left town. Laos and Cambodia would have fallen to leftist guerrillas no matter what. It is silly to say that those countries, seeing the success Ho had in beating the French would not have turned that way.

It wasn't about communism for Kissinger. It was about stopping communism in SE Asia, and prolonging the region in such a bloody war that the USSR and China would think it was too much trouble to try to formet socialist terror groups in Indonesia, Malyasia, and Singapore. He knew they were going to lose Vietnam. Just cap it to that region and let other groups know we mean business.

	28-12-2002 07:42									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I'd also like to point out that Kissinger won a Nobel prize in 73 for the peace talks with the North Vietnamese in 72. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what peace was arrived at here?

Henry, give that medal back!!!

	28-12-2002 07:46									#48
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Is the formula that simple? As long as you kill less than you enrich, you're ok? How many did Kissinger save? Do you have any idea how many he killed?

Yes the formula is THAT simple. Saving people in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Latin America from Communism is a substantial number.

quote: Find out what the illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos did to the villagers there. How many war-unrelated deaths there were. How many civillian, non-military targets were destoryed (against all international conventions). It is simply horrible, brutal, and indefensible.

So you'd be first on the soapbox to get Truman to be tried for war crimes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Lets not forget about Churchill and FDR for Dresden and Tokyo . Civilian casualties are a part of war now. It has been since Sherman rolled over the South in the American Civil War. Get over it.

quote: I'd also like to point out that Kissinger won a Nobel prize in 73 for the peace talks with the North Vietnamese in 72. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but what peace was arrived at here?

Great counter argument to the fact that Peace in 1968 would have led to no communism in SE Asia. After the peace of '72, the North invaded the South again and took the whole thing. They really respected that peace, didn't they?

	28-12-2002 07:51									#49
	Tired of ads?

Imran, I'm certain that the millions of dead villagers that Henry is directly responsible for are extremely gracious for being "saved" by the US from the evil spectre of Communism.

	28-12-2002 07:54									#50
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

In regards to stopping the flow of Communism in Asia and beyond, Vietnam taught the USA an important lesson in how to stop a people's revolution: Kill the People.

	28-12-2002 07:54									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I assume you are talking about Chile?

Like Lenin said, "Sometimes you need to break some eggs to make an omlet".

Freeing the world from Communism (which Kissinger played a part) is one of those things that people will be eternally grateful. Ask most people in Eastern Europe! Just like the people that took down Facism are lauded (even if they killed hundreds of innocent people in Dresden, Berlin, etc), the people that took down Communism will be lauded.

	28-12-2002 08:26									#52
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I assume you are talking about Chile? Like Lenin said, "Sometimes you need to break some eggs to make an omlet". Freeing the world from Communism (which Kissinger played a part) is one of those things that people will be eternally grateful. Ask most people in Eastern Europe! Just like the people that took down Facism are lauded (even if they killed hundreds of innocent people in Dresden, Berlin, etc), the people that took down Communism will be lauded.

Considering that a fifth of the world is still communist and seem likely to remain so for long, long time, this argument falls a little flat. The point many are trying to make here is that the people of Chile are not likely to thank Kissinger for saving them from Communism. They want to see him in the gallows.

The people of East Timor are not thanking Kissinger either.

Nor will the Indonesians when they finally get free from their brutal right wing dictatorship.

Ditto the Malaysians.

If and when Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia ever throw off the yoke, I doubt they'll appreciate all his efforts on their behalf.

	28-12-2002 08:33									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"So you'd be first on the soapbox to get Truman to be tried for war crimes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Lets not forget about Churchill and FDR for Dresden and Tokyo . Civilian casualties are a part of war now. It has been since Sherman rolled over the South in the American Civil War. Get over it."

Exactly. The Soviets were also pushing communism around the world and had they succeded, many more would have died then did in Kissinger's illegal bombing. The world is not a nice place and sometime you have to be brutal. The culmination of HK's brutal action and all the other US actions helped stop the spread of Soviet Power and increased ours, and ultimately with Reagan's wok freed Eastern Europe from the communists.

"Considering that a fifth of the world is still communist and seem likely to remain so for long, long time, this argument falls a little flat."

China is communist in name only, and there are no serious attempts to spread communism.

"The people of East Timor are not thanking Kissinger either.

Nor will the Indonesians when they finally get free from their brutal right wing dictatorship.

Ditto the Malaysians.

If and when Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia ever throw off the yoke, I doubt they'll appreciate all his efforts on their behalf."

The people of Russia aren't thanking us either, but that doesn't mean the fall of communist power wasn't a good thing.

	28-12-2002 09:01									#54
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It was only a matter of years, before Kennedy decided to try to gain the colony back for the French.

Ike set up Diem as an anti-communist pro-American puppet in the South. Kennedy inherited the Diem regime. Kennedy had no plans to reunite Vietnam with Franch.

BTW: It was the policy of the American govenment (including Kissinger) to support the corrupt, murdering bastards (like Thieu and Ky) who were oppressing the South Vietnamese people. When the American public realized that both sides were made up of murdering bastards, popular support for the war collapsed amidst the unanswerable question: "What are we fighting for?"

	28-12-2002 13:40									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler Ike set up Diem as an anti-communist pro-American puppet in the South. Kennedy inherited the Diem regime. Kennedy had no plans to reunite Vietnam with Franch. BTW: It was the policy of the American govenment (including Kissinger) to support the corrupt, murdering bastards (like Thieu and Ky) who were oppressing the South Vietnamese people. When the American public realized that both sides were made up of murdering bastards, popular support for the war collapsed amidst the unanswerable question: "What are we fighting for?"

Thank you, Zkribbler! That, Imran, is the definitive answer to your "You had to be there" assertion. People were there, and when they found out what was going on they did object, they did say "this is not how a civilized democracy behaves." And not just leftist protestors; Congressmen and Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, were there, and were capable of saying, "this is not what we should be doing."

What Kissinger did was by no means the only way, nor the best way, nor the historically inevitable way. It was the way of Kissinger and Nixon, quite possibly the two most amoral men ever to find themselves in high government service in the US. We know that now, but we also knew that then.

	28-12-2002 15:58									#56
	Increase Your PM Length

Imran you crack me up

You're the best mass murder apologist there is

	28-12-2002 16:22									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Stop reffering to the man as Machiavellian, please. Machiavelli was certainly one of the most principled (though pragmatically principled) philosophers in political history. A passionate beiever in republicanism and that the people knew best on most issues.

He's been much maligned by conservative american political theorists, who feel threatened by his beief that Elite is not always right.

	28-12-2002 17:00									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

dp

Last edited by VJ on 28-12-2002 at 17:06

	28-12-2002 17:01									#60
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Cambodia would have fallen to leftist guerrillas no matter what. It is silly to say that those countries, seeing the success Ho had in beating the French would not have turned that way.

Pol Pot, an extreme stalinist who was responsible from the death of one-third of the Cambodia,
had well under 10 000 badly-equipped criminals before the bombing campaign.
Because of the total destroyment of the infastructure, the economy, et cetera,
the nation grew rebel towards the goverment, and Red Khmers won the public opinion,
now having about 70 000 fanatic guerrillas under their command.

I'm sure that this was one of your greatest foreign deeds, indeed.

quote: Saving people in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Latin America from Communism

You SAVED them? A good one!