Kissinger most disgraceful 20thC U.S.statesman?

Originally posted by FMF
Paris peace negotiations 1968. Indochina. Bangladesh. Chile. Cyprus. East Timor.

If he doesn't get the nod as the Most Disgraceful 20thC U.S. Statesman, then who does?

why are we debating US statesmen?
Lets debate world leaders, you always want to step on the US?
Maybe it's that Obama statue thing in Indonesia?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No idea if any. He was just an unpleasant individual.

He did declare WWII won for the Germans in 1940, which got him relieved of whatever post he was in.

just think ... a world where FMF is unable to post in English ...

not worth the cost, but just think about it!

Originally posted by adam warlock
Don't dodge the questions please.

Do you know what Kissinger planned and thought about what happened to the Indonese civilians?

Edit: Educate yourself regarding Kissinger and the "Vietnam" War:
http://hnn.us/articles/3073.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

As those questions are irrelevant my post that you criticized me for, I politely decline to answer. I said that Kissinger negotiated to the end of the war, with which the Nobel Peace Prize commission apparently agreed. Whether Kissinger's other actions and policies relevant to Southeast Asia were reprehensible or magnificent is irrelevant to that point.

In addition, posting a question followed by 2 links to what you perceive to be the answers to that question seems to me to indicate that the question is rhetorical; which is further reason that an answer is unnecessary.

Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you...

Originally posted by FMF
Paris peace negotiations 1968. Indochina. Bangladesh. Chile. Cyprus. East Timor.

If he doesn't get the nod as the Most Disgraceful 20thC U.S. Statesman, then who does?

Could have been worse.

Originally posted by FMF
No. I am not ignoring anybody. I made my choice. I posed a question in the OP. So your choice is Johnson, is it? He's the most disgraceful U.S. statesman of the 20thC?

So. So far we have Henry Kissinger, Joe Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

I wonder who else people will come up with?

And what does it really matter? Look ahead, the past is done, gone.

Originally posted by sh76
As those questions are irrelevant my post that you criticized me for, I politely decline to answer. I said that Kissinger negotiated to the end of the war, with which the Nobel Peace Prize commission apparently agreed. Whether Kissinger's other actions and policies relevant to Southeast Asia were reprehensible or magnificent is irrelevant to that point.

In a ...[text shortened]... r reason that an answer is unnecessary.

Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you...

What is negotiate to you? Is it to sabotage things from beginning to end? That's what Kissinger did.

Seriously: check those links and see the what the great Kissinger did for peace in Indochina.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
And what does it really matter? Look ahead, the past is done, gone.

Then why post in this thread?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
why are we debating US statesmen?

Because it's this thread's topic.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Don't dodge the questions please.

Do you know what Kissinger planned and thought about what happened to the Indonese civilians?

Edit: Educate yourself regarding Kissinger and the "Vietnam" War:
http://hnn.us/articles/3073.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

First article starts:

Richard M. Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger's accounts of the Vietnam War were self-serving, incomplete, and obfuscatory. In addition, their legal and administrative steps delayed the release of relevant documentary evidence about their policies, strategies, and motives.

Gee, there's a guy who's nice and objective.

What has the Wikipedia article on the Pentagon Papers have to do with anything? It doesn't even mention Kissinger or his role.

Originally posted by sh76
First article starts:

Richard M. Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger's accounts of the Vietnam War were self-serving, incomplete, and obfuscatory..

Gee, there's a guy who's nice and objective.

If you read Kissinger's "The White House Years", "Years of Upheaval" and "Years of Renewal" you will come to the same conclusion. I assure you. It also goes some way to explain why Kissinger gets only reluctant or damningly faint support from people on the 'right' of the specturm - let alone from the 'left'. He is a fascinating creature and his books, quite frankly, could act as prompts for a psychiatrist or as exhibits in a perjury trial!

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
why are we debating US statesmen?
Lets debate world leaders, you always want to step on the US?
Maybe it's that Obama statue thing in Indonesia?

Maybe because it's not so clear-cut if you just talk about the U.S. If you want to discuss the most disgraceful statesman in world history, surely people would just come up with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or whoever, and there would not be much to discuss.

Originally posted by peanutpicker61
Barack Obama is a good start.....as a congressman/senator in the 20th-century and now as POTUS in the 21-st century; throw his administration into the toilet as well..just don't forget to flush..

Yeah... comparing Ombama to Kissinger...

Sort of like comparing Mother Theresa with Satan.

Originally posted by sh76
First article starts:

Richard M. Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger's accounts of the Vietnam War were self-serving, incomplete, and obfuscatory. In addition, their legal and administrative steps delayed the release of relevant documentary evidence about their policies, strategies, and motives.

Gee, there's a guy who's nice and objective.

What has the ...[text shortened]... the Pentagon Papers have to do with anything? It doesn't even mention Kissinger or his role.

Are you aware of what the pentagon papers are about?

Download the pdf's and just browse to them. You'll be horrified. And they don't even mention JFK's role in the two Indochina wars.

"Gee, there's a guy who's nice and objective."
If you'd know the relevant documentation you'd know that he's being pretty objective. Everything that you quote is backed up by facts.
I'm prety sure you know about the Freedom Information Act. just browse through some of the declassified documents on the "Vietnam" war and be horrified.
Here you go just for a brief glimpse: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB263/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB263/index.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/PolPotKissinger_Herman.html


And not related to Vietnam but related to the barbaric monster that is Kissinger:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/165/29637.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/165/29464.html
http://www.icai-online.org/45365,Index.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/
http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,2932312,full.story

Edit:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB263/19720415-1130-Nixon.pdf

Do you know the story being the Island of Diego Garcia? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB263/19740124-rush.pdf

And a nice text of Hitchens too: http://www.spectacle.org/0501/kissinger.html

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or whoever, and there would not be much to discuss.

All of them got support from the USA one time or the other. Stalin was even Time's man of the year two times.

Originally posted by adam warlock
All of them got support from the USA one time or the other. Stalin was even Time's man of the year two times.

What's your point? They were jolly good fellas but were corrupted by U.S. influence?