>When you do things right, people won't be sure you have done anything at all.
>>1428048
>implying he did nothing wrong
Daily reminder that he is a war criminal of the lowest order, and should be executed for his crimes.
>>1428048
So by virtue he's a total fuck up because his finger prints are all over the fucking place?
>>1428063
This.
>>1428065
Stopping socialist imperialism is a fuck up now?
>>1428102
I'd might agree with that statement if you were talking about a poor kid who stole an apple, but we are talking about a person who is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths.
>>1428127
You can't just look at one side of the story. He also effectively stopped socialist expansionism and set up a world order based on Westphallian principles.
>>1428141
He single-handedly set up a trade imbalance between China and the US.
>>1428150
He also supplied Muslim mercenaries in Indonesia with arms so they could genocide the civilian population of East-Timor.
>>1428150
And lifted millions of the poorest people on earth out of unimaginable poverty while doing it.
>>1428156
And maintained a balance of power that ensured stabillity and order within South-East Asia.
>>1428185
Genocide isn't stability and order.
But I can see how it is, for someone with a deranged might is right worldview.
>>1428200
How is supporting an invasion to strengthen an ally the same as supporting a genocide again?
I highly doubt and please prove how Kissinger had any knowledge or idea of East Timor genocide. He did however approve of the East Timor invasion which was against our treaty to only supply weapons when in self defense. Either way though Kissinger was an excellent secretary of state, despite his bad viewing he did a monolithic task as Secretary of State
>>1428260
First of all, he has no business giving weapons or helping anyone for any reason whatsoever.
The intrinsic arrogance of Americans to think they have any right to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, is what causes situations like East-Timor.
Do you really think I give a flying fuck if he didn't know that was going to happen? The fact is he helped them, and because he helped them, he is complicit in the genocide, deal with it you faggot fanboi.
>>1428266
Really because that actually is his job... A secretary of state is supposed to dictate and manage foreign policy. Helping solidify an ally in important geopolitical area is within the interests of the United States, especially a rising and industrious one like Indonesia
By your same logic every gun manufacturer contributes to every death with a firearm
You're a fucking joke
>>1428283
It doesn't fucking matter if he solidified a ally or aided the US. That's just irrelevant. He was fucking immoral and should have been more fucking ethical and put morals on a higher priority than the interests of the US.
>>1428283
>muh interests of the United States
Yeah, it's also in your interest to nuke all your enemies, but you're not going to do that are you?
I wonder why.
>>1428305
Because it's not in your interests?
>>1428294
Immorality doesn't constitute into governing, maybe you should go over some basics and read some Machiavelli.
He aided a long term economic ally for the United States, they did the genocide not us, we had no knowledge about it. We're just as responsible as glock is for the numerous gang shootings.
>>1428305
bingo>>1428355
>>1428355
>Completely annihilating your enemies isn't in your interests
yeah ok
>>1428383
Nuking all of your enemies is definitely not in your interests. If you can't work out a single reason why, then you just stoopid.
>>1428385
>Nuking all of your enemies is definitely not in your interests
Really? Why not?
>>1428383
>Getting nuked is in your interest
Yeah, ok.
>>1428389
Damage to international relations.
Removal of many trade opportunities/partners.
Removal of many resources/produce the US relies on.
Damage to the economy.
Damage to the Earth, leading to great health risks to US citizens.
>>1428361
>Immorality doesn't constitute into governing, maybe you should go over some basics and read some Machiavelli.
Shut the fuck up you edgelord teenager.
Stop projecting your psychopathy on the world.
>>1428383
>completely rendering a large chunk of land uninhabitable disrupting trade and natural resources is in your interest as a nation
Anon please
>>1428389
Not him, but the target you're talking about wasn't exclusively populated with "enemies". The goal wasn't to blindly swat at anything red, it was to support people willing to wear and promote blue, no?
>>1428399
read up kiddo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
>>1428404
What does that have to do with anything?
You said "it's...in your interest to nuke all your enemies"
Not "why shouldn't the US nuke japan"
>>1428409
It was in the US's interest to nuke Japan.
Does something being in your interest mean it is correct behavior?
Does invading and killing 100000 Iraqis become good behavior, because you get oil resources?
Does assassinating Moussadegh after he was democratically elected by his country, and installing a dictator, become intrinsically correct behavior, simply because it's in your interest?
No it doesn't you fucking faggot.
>>1428361
>and read some Machiavelli
He was probably just kidding lad. That was a puff piece for assholes barely if at all constrained by 16th century concepts of Christian goodness.
Hell, in my opinion it was more of a reflection of italian politics than a guide.
>>1428399
>y-you disagree with me, you f-f-fucking aut-t-tist edgy nerd!
That's not an argument, please contribute some substantive opprobriums other than invective personal attacks
>>1428404
Those aren't related. Nuking a trade interest versus forcing an end to a conflict are vastly different scenarios.
>>1428414
The debate was whether nuking all of your enemies was in your interests or not. I argued that it was not. You now start speaking about irrelevant things.
But anyway:
>Does something being in your interest mean it is correct behavior?
Morally correct? Depends on your ethical system.
>Does invading and killing 100000 Iraqis become good behavior, because you get oil resources?
Depends on your ethical system.
>Does assassinating Moussadegh after he was democratically elected by his country, and installing a dictator, become intrinsically correct behavior, simply because it's in your interest?
Depends on your ethical system.
>No it doesn't you fucking faggot.
Depends on your ethical system.
>>1428424
>Nuking a trade interest versus forcing an end to a conflict are vastly different scenarios.
What trade interest?
I haven't even mentioned a "trade interest", I simply said it was in America's interest to nuke it's enemies.
You are just trying to move the goalposts you retard.
>>1428427
>You now start speaking about irrelevant things.
They aren't irrelevant at all you mongoloid because they are literally examples of Realpolitik in action, e.g using coercive force against other sovereign nations when it doesn't serve your own interest.
>>1428429
No he's not.
If a state nuked all of its enemies, trade (amongst many other things) would be damaged. I fail to see how you don't understand this.
>>1428433
It's not in my interests to debate with you over the relevancy of what you posted.
>>1428433
Sorry. The Second Gulf War was fought primarily for ideological, I.E. ethical reasons.
By your moving of the goalposts, and framing of the debate, I guess this means:
Does this mena invading and killing 100,000 Iraqis become good behavior, because PURE IDEOLOGY.
>>1428434
Lets see here.
If America nuked the entire Middle-East, this would mean there would be no people there, and they could safely go in and start drilling for oil with no one stopping them.
Seems like a good deal to a proponent of Realpolitik.
>>1428449
If the U.S. did this, they would expend their nuclear arsenal, and there would be many very frightened nuclear powers who have every reason to stop them.
>>1428449
You've gotta be baiting at this point if you don't see how that course of behavior would make every other country react to the United States and how that would not be in the interest of the US Gov.
>>1428449
They aren't bombs, they're weapons that make land nearly inhospitable for 20+ years and globally contaminate the world with radioactive material. That aside, it also destroys vital manpower to man such things, nuking people does not make any sense versus supporting cooperative factions.
Using a nuke isn't like killing a person with a gun, it's a double edged sword that affects everyone
>>1428449
>nuked the entire Middle-East
>safely go in
I'm not sure if you realise what nuclear weapons do.
But anyway, you're either stupid or a cheeky baiter. It's not in my interests to debate right now so I'll see ya later.
>>1428464
It would be in the interest of the US Gov if they made deals with everyone else.
Imagine every nuclear weapons state just making a deal to throw 2 nukes each in the ME, and then it would be ripe for drilling, and everyone could have a share of the oil profits.
I think Kissinger would've been proud of my exposition. After all morality is just something that weighs you down, the only thing that really matters is your nation's self-interest.
>>1428480
>Imagine every nuclear weapons state just making a deal to throw 2 nukes each in the ME
That's not in the interest of every (or any) nuclear weapons state.
>>1428488
It would be if they could get massive oil profits, as I said later in the post if you actually read it through.
The point I'm trying to make is that if you can get massive amounts of profit for your own nation while doing very little work, this means that it is morally good, which is why nuking the ME is a good idea right.
Realpolitik is really fun, I mean, you don't even have to care about people, it's great.
>>1428480
The worlds interests for the middle east aren't united enough for that to be realistic in the slightest. Why would Russia or China agree if they've their own goals for the region?
Why would we endanger allies we've made in the region?
Nuking the region would invite massive backlash from the arab and muslim populations against the US if not the west the world over, so we'd be dealing with that.
The application of realpolitik that you keep bringing up is seen in America's alliance with the oil producing states of the region. Although Saudi Arabia's behavior and attitudes run opposite the US's professed ideals, we work with them because it's politically convenient to do so.
What you suggesting is dumbpolitik.
>>1428498
>Realpolitik is really fun, I mean, you don't even have to care about people, it's great.
You're baiting. Alright. Hope you've had your fun pretending to be retarded.
>>1428498
It wouldn't. Your argument is based on an outlandish fantasy.
>The point I'm trying to make is that if you can get massive amounts of profit for your own nation while doing very little work, this means that it is morally good, which is why nuking the ME is a good idea right.
Trying to get every nuclear power to join a deal in which they drop two nukes on the ME would be impossibly hard work. I mean, how are you going to convince Ukraine to join a deal in which they cause radioactive damage to the Black Sea?
>>1428498
It's not in your interest to render completely annihilate billions of square miles and eliminate ALL life though.There would be no way to actually reap profits if you'd have to wait set amount of years, cleanse of radiation, rebuild, then repopulate. That's the difference.
Supporting an trade partner by supplying weapons on expansionism solidifying a relationship is completely different. Is it unfortunate they committed atrocities, sure, is it wrong, yes, but it works in line with American interests by having a stronger Indonesian economy.
>>1428518
Woops used the wrong source. Ignore the part about Ukraine lol.
>>1428512
I'm not "baiting", i'm doing something called a reductio ad absurdum, to show how retarded you are.
But of course, expecting some teenager on a Mongolian tapestry folding board to know that was stupid of me.
>>1428480
>Imagine every nuclear weapons state just making a deal to throw 2 nukes each in the ME, and then it would be ripe for drilling, and everyone could have a share of the oil profits.
So...you'd destroy the only useful infrastructure in the region, still leave all the Jihadists in tact, and then go in to get the oil profits...from selling it to yourself, after you pacify the region using oil guzzling vehicles for 20 years?
>>1428466
>Using a nuke isn't like killing a person with a gun, it's a double edged sword that affects everyone
The bigger problem is that it IS like using a gun. The suggestion is "Why don't I just run into a bank and start shooting everyone. Then I could have all the money. If the cops object, I'd just offer them some of the money. How could this POSSIBLY be in anything but my best-interest?"
Even in GTA, if you go waving a gun in everyone's face, they get pissed off.
>>1428532
>still leave all the Jihadists in tact
wut
>>1428529
>i'm doing something called a reductio ad absurdum, to show how retarded you are.
How ironic, all you succeeded in doing was demonstrating your own retardedness.
>>1428538
I didn't do that at all.
It's just your failure to comprehend that if you accept the basic premise of Realpolitik, situations like the one I tried to show tongue in cheek, could happen, but you're more interested in moving the goalposts around so you don't have to answer my criticism with any valid retort.
So I guess we're done.
>>1428433
>They aren't irrelevant at all you mongoloid because they are literally examples of Realpolitik in action, e.g using coercive force against other sovereign nations when it doesn't serve your own interest.
And that's Kissingers whole fucking point. Nations SHOULDN'T use force against each other. They do only when there isn't a regional balance of power i.e. when one part of the region (Veitnam) becomes stronger than another (Indonesia).
>>1428550
They couldn't, because they're not in any states
>So I guess we're done.
We can agree on one thing.
>>1428556
state's *interest*
>>1428552
>Nations shouldn't use force against each other, but they should when I, Henry Kissinger, decide where and when
Ok fanboi.
>>1428537
2 nukes from each nuclear powers gives you 18 nukes (assuming you can get DPRK to cough up 2, and Russia to decrease the price of oil further, and Pakistan). A conservative understanding of 'the middle east' gives you 15 countries. Since you seem to be going for a 'kill em all' approach, that means nuking the capital cities, and a few big ones, like Istanbul, Alexandria, and Mecca.
Great! That means exactly zero of ISIS's currently held territory is hit. It also means None of Hezbollah is hit. Or the Sinai insurgency. Or the Houthis.
So yes, every major Jihadist movement in the region would be untouched.
>>1428560
Not an argument, stop posting, you're an uneducated faggot
You literally are just bringing up unrelated anecdotes and your "I don't agree" rhetoric.
>>1428560
So it's morally rehensible to allow Indonesia to invade a fomer colonial neighbor but acceptable to allow Vietnam attempt to create a indochinese federation whose main goal is worldwide revolution?
For Indonesia, the issue of East Timor was simply an extension of its domestic security policies. For Vietnam, East Timor was about strengthening their position for the imperialist aim of worldwide socialist revolution.
>>1428294
>He should have put MY morals on a higher priority than the interests of the US.
Have you ever considered growing up?
