Is Henry Kissinger, guilty of comitting war crimes?

[b.scheller]

Incredibly, Henry Kissinger—the man who rivals Pol Pot for the dubious honor of being the person responsible for the death of the largest number of innocent people in South East Asia (and far surpasses Pol Pot in criminality when one factors in Kissinger's various levels of responsibility for wholesale slaughter and repression in other parts of the world)—still wields significant power in the United States; but his role as eager facilitator of mass murder, totalitarian repression and other atrocities is never discussed in polite society. Although Kissinger is a frequent guest on Nightline, where he is treated as a harmless and venerable elder statesman, his friend Ted Koppel has never brought up the topic of Kissinger's responsibility for the horrifying deaths of so many in Asia, Latin America and other areas of the world. It is safe to assume that Koppel has no intention of doing so in the future.

[Source (http://www.eclipse.net/~tgardnet/kiss/kisskill.html)]

As one of the most influential, political advisors of the twentieth century, American history, Kissinger, is seen by some as a war criminal (personified through idiots like Chomsky), for his role, in advising Nixon on the carpet bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia, along with other policies, that has lead to death of thousands and millions, while by others, he is seen as a man of peace, for helping to graft the ceasefire, that ended the Yom Kippur war.

I'm actually unsure, of what to believe, although I'm strongly opposed to labelling one of the biggest and most influential political advisors, as a cold blooded murderer, simply on the basis, that Noam Chomsky is a moron. At the same time, I have no doubt, that alot of controversial policies, had been made under Nixon, but in the end, doesn't the buck stop at the top?

The recent debate, about bringing Kissinger to a War Crimes tribunal, is on the matters that Nixon is now dead, and cannot be summoned to be convicted of war crimes. I personally, think, that these groups, are wasting their time, attempting to convict Kissinger for the controversial policies of the United States, while dictators are still killing millions around the world. No one, seems to care about the current murder of millions, in North Korea, China or Africa.

The source, which was quoted and refrenced, is very biased, seems to contain passionate speech and is attempting to get at the passionate side of an individual. I did not, mean for this article to be taken seriously, in fact, all opinions are welcome, I do not support this article as, I've stated in the earlier sentances.

-b.scheller

[ArmedPacifist]

He has quite a bit to answer for if that's what your asking.

[b.scheller]

Well, no doubt about that, but who is truly more accountable, the advisor or the leader? The advisor, is meant to be the voice of reason, while the leader choses in the end, of what is to be done.

-b.scheller

[WarriorMonk]

Advisor - simply because he's the one that thought of the bastard idea in the first place.

In most cases.

Most Vietnamese people (like my parents) don't like him for screwing up our war...hence many call him "Fork Tongue" for all the broken promises and wheeling dealing.

[rocket13]

I don't know much of his actions but is carpet bombing illegal or something? I know that at the end of the vietnam war, Nixon stepped up the bombing of the north. Could someone explain.

[maw]

read "the trial of henry kissinger" by christopher hitchens, it's quite the eye opener.

nixon and kissinger sabotaged the paris peace talks between north vietnam and johnson's administration, essentially, telling the north vietnamese that they should walk because they'd get a better deal from nixon after he won the presidency. johnson lost, failing to reach a peace accord was a factor. subsequently, the war continued for i believe another three years, 20,000 more american and unknown amounts of vietnamese died, ultimately nixon settled with on the same terms that johnson had offered. kissinger ran interference for whole deal.

eqaully troubling was kissinger's role in condoning suharto's program of genocide in east timor. apparently, he met with suharto on the apron at jakarta airport the day before the military action started. there is documented evidence that gives approval to suharto, even after the slaughter started, kissinger approved arms sales to the indonesian government. apparently the m16's in the deal have blood on them and as such so do kissinger's hands.

there's a lot more in the book. it's a quick read but full of dirt. apparently, there's enough in there to indict kissinger. i suspect we'll never see the day.

I don't know much of his actions but is carpet bombing illegal or something? I know that at the end of the vietnam war, Nixon stepped up the bombing of the north. Could someone explain.

[rocket13]

read "the trial of henry kissinger" by christopher hitchens, it's quite the eye opener.

nixon and kissinger sabotaged the paris peace talks between north vietnam and johnson's administration, essentially, telling the north vietnamese that they should walk because they'd get a better deal from nixon after he won the presidency. johnson lost, failing to reach a peace accord was a factor. subsequently, the war continued for i believe another three years, 20,000 more american and unknown amounts of vietnamese died, ultimately nixon settled with on the same terms that johnson had offered. kissinger ran interference for whole deal.

eqaully troubling was kissinger's role in condoning suharto's program of genocide in east timor. apparently, he met with suharto on the apron at jakarta airport the day before the military action started. there is documented evidence that gives approval to suharto, even after the slaughter started, kissinger approved arms sales to the indonesian government. apparently the m16's in the deal have blood on them and as such so do kissinger's hands.

there's a lot more in the book. it's a quick read but full of dirt. apparently, there's enough in there to indict kissinger. i suspect we'll never see the day.


Thank you for taking the time. I'm behind a few books in reading. But ill put that on my future read list.

[olowy]

I don't know much of his actions but is carpet bombing illegal or something? I know that at the end of the vietnam war, Nixon stepped up the bombing of the north. Could someone explain.

I don't have my soucre book that I use when I look up the laws of war, so I am doing this from memory and some web surfing. The laws of war doesn't make every civilian death a war crime. Intentional targeting of civilians is a war crime. But if a civilian died in a military action, this comes under the now un-PC term, colleteral damage. Attacks on military targets that could be expected to cause civilian suffering disproportionate to the specific military goals to be acheived can be against the laws of war. Whether carpet bombing and the casualities from it are proportional or not is probably up to international attorneys to argue.

WHat is happening over time (and I believe this started come out of Europe) is that people are trying to change the laws of war to be more like law enforcement rules where any civilian casualities are bad and therefore any action that causes any civilians casulities is therefore iullegal.

[HooyahCQB]

There's a good video called "The trial of Henry Kissigner". It's really well done.

[nognig]

WHat is happening over time (and I believe this started come out of Europe) is that people are trying to change the laws of war to be more like law enforcement rules where any civilian casualities are bad and therefore any action that causes any civilians casulities is therefore illegal.

Good post.

NN

[Lokos]

where any civilian casualities are bad

Which ones are good?

Lokos

[rocket13]

WHat is happening over time (and I believe this started come out of Europe) is that people are trying to change the laws of war to be more like law enforcement rules where any civilian casualities are bad and therefore any action that causes any civilians casulities is therefore iullegal.

But that is impossible. As most fighting now and in the future will involve urban dwellings. So to avoid civilians is impossible. Unless we change the way we fight and select a neutral , empty arena to do battle in a control fashion. But that then goes against the notion of war and it chaotic ways. Look at Iraq, the enemy flourishes in an urban enviroment where they can mix and blend with the civilian population. If one side decides to hide behind those that have nothing to do with fighting then this will happen.

I wouldn't want to kill or hit a civilian, but if they stood between me and the enemy and I felt that the hesitation would cost the lives of one of my collegues then I wouldn't hesitate.

[M1A2U2]

Rivals Pol Pot? I didnt know kissenger intentionally killed 2.5 million civilians. Maybe i should read the World Workers Journal more often.

[U-S-S-R]

Henry Kissinger is a subhuman culturedestroyer only polluting air with his breath. Here is one of his famous speeches:



The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike

deep into their cultural roots: Perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean,

of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their cultural and historical reserves,

so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail;

thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the

Mediterranean, and the Middle East

http://grecoreport.com/get_christodoulos.htm

Raus.

[U-S-S-R]

Well, no doubt about that, but who is truly more accountable, the advisor or the leader? The advisor, is meant to be the voice of reason, while the leader choses in the end, of what is to be done.

-b.scheller

According to this logic only Hitler should be held accountable for the atrocities commited on behalf of the Third Reich.

[rocket13]

According to this logic only Hitler should be held accountable for the atrocities commited on behalf of the Third Reich.

No he talking about who is more accountable. Of course the advisor is still acountable but it is the leader who has more accountablility because he is the one the authorizies it.

[sir-chimp]

Henry Kissinger is a subhuman culturedestroyer only polluting air with his breath. Here is one of his famous speeches:



The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike

deep into their cultural roots: Perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean,

of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their cultural and historical reserves,

so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail;

thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the

Mediterranean, and the Middle East

http://grecoreport.com/get_christodoulos.htm

Raus.


Can you do us a favor and provide a 2nd link? For some reason this 1) Kissinger, who, according to journalist Christopher Hitchins in his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, is prone nowadays to traveling only within the jurisdiction of the United States in order to avoid being subpoenaed for the ongoing investigations into the mass murders he allegedly instigated, said these words while addressing a group of Washington, D.C. businessmen in September 1974 (Oikonomikos Tachydromos, 14 August 1997).

There have been those who've questioned the veracity of this statement. To such people, our argument has been "whether he said it or not is irrelevant. What matters is that everything in this statement is actually happening in the real world." This is precisely the argument we use to those who question the legitimacy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Anyone reading this book -- if he wishes to be fair -- has to admit that the strategies laid out in the Protocols are being implemented worldwide almost exactly to the letter.


doesnt put much faith for me in your source there champ

[U-S-S-R]

Can you do us a favor and provide a 2nd link? For some reason this

doesnt put much faith for me in your source there champ

You can use google to find more sources, although most sites are scared of mindpolice. Anyway, nothing wrong with the source, just cause you don't like what it says.

[sir-chimp]

You can use google to find more sources, although most sites are scared of mindpolice. Anyway, nothing wrong with the source, just cause you don't like what it says.

yes, so many authorities sources must result to statements like this to back their claims

There have been those who've questioned the veracity of this statement. To such people, our argument has been "whether he said it or not is irrelevant. What matters is that everything in this statement is actually happening in the real world." This is precisely the argument we use to those who question the legitimacy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Anyone reading this book -- if he wishes to be fair -- has to admit that the strategies laid out in the Protocols are being implemented worldwide almost exactly to the letter.


its all so clear now

[U-S-S-R]

yes, so many authorities sources must result to statements like this to back their claims



its all so clear now

Lol, I love the sarcasm... :) Really... laughing out laud... Are you British?

[Limeyfellow]

I still like how Kissinger managed to convince Argentina to invade the Falkland Islands and drag Britain into a war. Thanks alot arsehole for screwing over even your allies and your own people.

That man is as crooked as they come.

[olowy]

But that is impossible. As most fighting now and in the future will involve urban dwellings. So to avoid civilians is impossible. Unless we change the way we fight and select a neutral , empty arena to do battle in a control fashion. But that then goes against the notion of war and it chaotic ways. Look at Iraq, the enemy flourishes in an urban enviroment where they can mix and blend with the civilian population. If one side decides to hide behind those that have nothing to do with fighting then this will happen.

I wouldn't want to kill or hit a civilian, but if they stood between me and the enemy and I felt that the hesitation would cost the lives of one of my collegues then I wouldn't hesitate.

No arguments here, but sometimes it seems those who are engaged in modifying the laws don't seem to have a clear picture of what war is really lilke.