OT: RIP Henry Kissinger
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
I see a lot of irony ITT
I see posts ripping HK meanwhile they support current pols and well known figureheads that are even worse
soros is truly a pos and amazing how the dems suck up to him
And throw in Gates & Fauci for good measure
dead at 100
he dated some hot tail
Kissinger dated actresses Jill St. John, Shirley MacLaine, Marlo Thomas, Candice Bergen and Liv Ullman.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger dead at 100
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger died Wednesday at the age of 100 at his home in Connecticut, according to a statement released by Kissinger Associates.www.foxnews.com
A line from a former fling in his NY Times obituary said his apartment wasn’t very romantic because there was always laundry piled up on his bed. Who knew someone so powerful could have such a relatable trait as laundry piled up on their bed!? Deep down we’re all still our teenage selves.
no stop lol
Clinton gave them the keys to the economic world
Clinton wanted their support to be head of UN so he did things to garner favor
Pat Buchanan ?
You're kidding, right.
Guy is a POS who wouldn't know his a-hole from a hole in the ground. Arrogance and stupidity is a bad combination.
There is about as much chance of me reading a book by Buchanan as there is me reading a book about coaching a college football team by Terry Shea or Chris Ash.
Soulless POS.
OK. Well, my comment was about the book. I'm not sure how we can have a discussion if you haven't read it. Unless, of course, you'd like to try?
you are a smart guy and your approach here is the least smart thing I've seen you say/do
I'd rather stick pencils in my eyes to read oblunder's autobiography but would to challenge both sides of the coin
Henry Kissinger was a short-sighted thinker. He recently stated that he admires India's approach to foreign relations: pragmatic and self-serving--and amoral. Basically a return to the bad old days, balances of power and huge wars when those balances broke down. The postwar American-led arrangement, where countries work together towards common VALUES, though it hasn't always been perfect or consistent, has worked far better than any previous dynamic. The great challenge today is regressive powers like China and Russia trying to bring back tyranny and big power politics, where large countries bully their neighbors and carve out regional chunks of humanity. Kissinger didn't seem to think that was a critical problem but rather something to be accepted and a game to be won.
You're entitled to your opinion.
I'm very familiar with Buchanan's work and not the least bit interested in his writings or frankly anything he has to say. Although your use of "oblunder" seems to indicate that you would be very sympathetic to his bullchit.
India is right and America could learn from it. We need to do what is best for us always, enough with sacrificing for other countries. We don't want a rehash of Victorian England
We aren't sacrificing for other countries. We're sacrificing for a system that works for us, as well as others. We've prospered more than anyone else under that system, but they have too. The Victorians were totally selfish and it didn't end well.
It started with Nixon through Kissinger. All subsequent presidents were seemingly convinced of the great lie, that dealing with China would cause them to move towards democracy. More likely though, it was greed and corruption.
He was a controversial figure.
Some liked what he was part of, others condemned him for the same reason.
But it seems like his policies looked good at the time, but wound up with not so good results.
He did make China become less of an outcast and helped that country be accepted by the Western world which led to it become an economic power.
Some liked what he was part of, others condemned him for the same reason.
But it seems like his policies looked good at the time, but wound up with not so good results.
He did make China become less of an outcast and helped that country be accepted by the Western world which led to it become an economic power.
The US needs to practice enlightened self interest. The answer isn’t to turn inward in some kind of isolationist short sighted way. We all wish the world was a less complicated, less interdependent, more stable, more peaceful place. It is not. The US needs to be engaged in the world for not only security reasons but economic reasons as well. The world has become a very small, interdependent place due to the incredible technological advancement of recent decades. Foreign aid constitutes less than 1% of the Federal budget. We live in a very precarious time and democracy and democratic ideals are being threatened not only in other parts of the world but here in the US. Some of the historical comparisons to the 1930s Europe and elsewhere are very concerning. The US needs to support democratic ideals around the world.
Good write up, and I think you are bang on with your sentiment on enlightened self interest and what that means for engagement.
I'll counter with this question because I'm curious on your take -- how does the US lead and create "interdependence" when the places that most need it (despotic regimes in South east asia, the middle east, and africa) don't want it?
You can't force these societies to accept our culture and our values. And, what's proven true time and again in the post 9/11 world is, even when we essentially start from scratch in these places (see Iraq and Afghanistan) they don't want to import our values or our culture. Not in an enduring way.
Where does that leave us then? Economic globalization to prop up these regimes with trade and outbound dollars, never to be returned to us? We run HUGE current account deficits every year b/c we import far more than we export. If all they want is our money, how exactly does that ensure a long term peace and prosperity?
