4 ms·

Kissinger is polarizing, but it’s hard to claim that he should be on a list of worst advisers. Half of the USA (well, half of those that know who he is) think

by parsimo2010 6y ago

Kissinger is polarizing, but it’s hard to claim that he should be on a list of worst advisers. Half of the USA (well, half of those that know who he is) think he’s the greatest statesman who ever lived. He wasn’t perfect, but he probably kept the USA and Soviet Union from nuking each other, and Walmart might not exist without him because trade between the USA and China wouldn’t be the same without him.

whatshisface 6y ago
Walmart was around long before China was the biggest US trade partner.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  Okay, Walmart might not exist as we know it because their main business model is to sell products at the lowest prices possible, which has caused most of their suppliers to manufacture in China. If it weren’t for Kissinger opening up relations with China then Walmart might not have become as huge as they are today or they would look very different.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    In the universe without Kissinger, the lowest price would simply be a higher price... China didn't even invent low cost labor, it was Japan, Tiwan and Mexico, and if you go back far enough America itself, before them.
thundergolfer 6y ago
> think he’s the greatest statesman who ever lived. But a significant amount of human rights lawyers maintain that he's a war criminal on a large-scale. When I've looked the facts myself, it seems undeniable that he's a war criminal. What are we to make of the praise for him from those half of Americans who know him? Would appreciate any links to what you think is the best case that Kissinger isn't a war criminal. The main defence provided in Kissinger's wikipedia is essentially "many other important people have done things just as bad as Kissinger", which is an offensively stupid defence.
- readarticle 6y ago
  Being a “war criminal” isn’t mutually exclusive with being “the greatest statesman who ever lived”, one doesn’t require the negation of the other, especially among the fans of a realist, balance of power type. Indeed, many would probably argue it’s a requirement.
  - thundergolfer 6y ago
    If we were having a conversation, I think I'd say "do you hear what you're saying here?" People who genuinely think that being a war criminal is a requirement for great statesmanship are functionally supporting psychopathy. What nutcase political realist is going to say enacting atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing is a requirement for greatness in political affairs?
    - readarticle 6y ago
      For context, war crime includes everything from sinking merchant ships to My Lai, my statement (mostly) leaned toward the former. Generally, it’s deviation from the agreed upon rules, and you’ll find no shortage of people with boats named Richelieu believing greatness synonymous with the successful pursuit of interest, ideally done intelligently within the rules of course, ideally.
    - parsimo2010 6y ago
      This is not my actual viewpoint but for arguments sake: a realist would argue that Kissinger’s responsibility was to the citizens of the USA only, not to anyone else in the world. If he thought he could make the USA more powerful by killing foreigners, then he should. Any foreigner’s life is less valuable than America, even if they are innocent. He acted according to his responsibilities. Not holding him accountable should be seen as a failure of the federal government, and possibly the international community. If the government wants their leaders to also follow a moral code, they could do so with a few laws and would stop shielding people from international prosecution. But the government shows that they are okay with people like Kissinger because he produced good results for the country (most of the time). This is similar to people that claim a company’s responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, and if do that by polluting, operating sweatshops, or treating employees unfairly, then they should. It should be seen as a failure of the regulatory system if they are allowed to get away with it. I’m not in agreement with the argument I just made, but I understand that people who have an “America first/only” mentality can overlook some pretty bad things. I don’t think that war crimes are a prerequisite for being an effective statesman, but I would say that war crimes might be tolerable for leaders trying to project strength. Other countries are less likely to call a bluff if the lives of innocent people aren’t a an effective shield.

whatshisface 6y ago

Walmart was around long before China was the biggest US trade partner.

parsimo2010 6y ago
Okay, Walmart might not exist as we know it because their main business model is to sell products at the lowest prices possible, which has caused most of their suppliers to manufacture in China. If it weren’t for Kissinger opening up relations with China then Walmart might not have become as huge as they are today or they would look very different.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  In the universe without Kissinger, the lowest price would simply be a higher price... China didn't even invent low cost labor, it was Japan, Tiwan and Mexico, and if you go back far enough America itself, before them.

thundergolfer 6y ago

> think he’s the greatest statesman who ever lived. But a significant amount of human rights lawyers maintain that he's a war criminal on a large-scale. When I've looked the facts myself, it seems undeniable that he's a war criminal. What are we to make of the praise for him from those half of Americans who know him? Would appreciate any links to what you think is the best case that Kissinger isn't a war criminal. The main defence provided in Kissinger's wikipedia is essentially "many other important people have done things just as bad as Kissinger", which is an offensively stupid defence.

readarticle 6y ago
Being a “war criminal” isn’t mutually exclusive with being “the greatest statesman who ever lived”, one doesn’t require the negation of the other, especially among the fans of a realist, balance of power type. Indeed, many would probably argue it’s a requirement.
- thundergolfer 6y ago
  If we were having a conversation, I think I'd say "do you hear what you're saying here?" People who genuinely think that being a war criminal is a requirement for great statesmanship are functionally supporting psychopathy. What nutcase political realist is going to say enacting atrocities like the Rape of Nanjing is a requirement for greatness in political affairs?
  - readarticle 6y ago
    For context, war crime includes everything from sinking merchant ships to My Lai, my statement (mostly) leaned toward the former. Generally, it’s deviation from the agreed upon rules, and you’ll find no shortage of people with boats named Richelieu believing greatness synonymous with the successful pursuit of interest, ideally done intelligently within the rules of course, ideally.
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    This is not my actual viewpoint but for arguments sake: a realist would argue that Kissinger’s responsibility was to the citizens of the USA only, not to anyone else in the world. If he thought he could make the USA more powerful by killing foreigners, then he should. Any foreigner’s life is less valuable than America, even if they are innocent. He acted according to his responsibilities. Not holding him accountable should be seen as a failure of the federal government, and possibly the international community. If the government wants their leaders to also follow a moral code, they could do so with a few laws and would stop shielding people from international prosecution. But the government shows that they are okay with people like Kissinger because he produced good results for the country (most of the time). This is similar to people that claim a company’s responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, and if do that by polluting, operating sweatshops, or treating employees unfairly, then they should. It should be seen as a failure of the regulatory system if they are allowed to get away with it. I’m not in agreement with the argument I just made, but I understand that people who have an “America first/only” mentality can overlook some pretty bad things. I don’t think that war crimes are a prerequisite for being an effective statesman, but I would say that war crimes might be tolerable for leaders trying to project strength. Other countries are less likely to call a bluff if the lives of innocent people aren’t a an effective shield.