Kissinger in the Docket ?

[gnome]

One point, Amigo, where you and I are in complete agreement.

One of the reasons I object to anyone claiming that Oliver North is anything but a liar, a thief, and a cheat.

Allow me to press the point a little harder... I don't believe it's a straw man to suggest that the counter-argument to this is that there are some dirty deeds which must be done, and it is necessary to insulate the public from it, because they don't have the stomach for it.

I dare anyone who agrees with this to answer the question: have you ever claimed to hate "moral relativism" and "nanny government" offered by liberals?

 

[CapelDodger]

Personally, I think there was a real threat. That it never materialized was not a matter of a lack of will on the part of the Soviets, (particularly as we saw in much of the Third World, and their willingness to foment revolution simply for revolution's sake ...

Do you have examples of this? Late-imperial Wars of Liberation wouldn't fit, nor revolts against Latin American dictatorships. The US didn't assist in these - often quite the opposite - and the Soviets generally would.

That we overbuilt, and in the end, sacrificed our children and our parents for our own security is the real irony. All those things we were screaming that we were out to protect, and ultimately, we destroyed it.

There ought to be a lesson in it, but it doesn't seem to have been learnt, what with Notional Missile Defence and new nuclear weapons to combat the Terrorist Threat. If the US could present itself as a prosperous, happy, confident, united society it would promote itself and its values rather better than it's doing now.

 

[CapelDodger]

... while people are readily making the comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq and Japan and Germany, one thing that should be noted is that both Japan and Germany had very literate populations, and a strong industrial base which made the conversion to a Democratic society a lot easier.

Thoughts?

Germany already had a democratic past, and there was a democratic movement in Japan (that lost out to the militarists before '45). Democracy in Japan - one-party, effectively - is a little bit dodgy anyway, but German democracy is as sound as they come. Not so sure about Austria, though.

Neither Germany not Japan have significant minorities, they are more-or-less ethnically homogenous. That's not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan. In those case, rule by majority means rule by Shias and Pashtuns respectively. And the assumption is (quite reasonably) that the ruling group will favour its own. That makes for difficulties.

 

[CapelDodger]

Allow me to press the point a little harder... I don't believe it's a straw man to suggest that the counter-argument to this is that there are some dirty deeds which must be done, and it is necessary to insulate the public from it, because they don't have the stomach for it.

The people get as much democracy as they're capable of handling? Might it be these "dirty deeds" are kept secret because the people would be apalled by them, and start to question whether the objective is really worth abandoning the values they (communally) hold?

I dare anyone who agrees with this to answer the question: have you ever claimed to hate "moral relativism" and "nanny government" offered by liberals?

I hate moral relativism. The term "nanny state" I find to be mostly used by people in comfortable circumstances criticising measures to protect people who aren't. I love speed cameras, but I'm told that's an example of the "nanny state" - drivers are the ones best placed to judge safe speeds, apparently.

 

[Roadtoad]

Allow me to press the point a little harder... I don't believe it's a straw man to suggest that the counter-argument to this is that there are some dirty deeds which must be done, and it is necessary to insulate the public from it, because they don't have the stomach for it.

I dare anyone who agrees with this to answer the question: have you ever claimed to hate "moral relativism" and "nanny government" offered by liberals?

I would agree that there are times when "dirty deeds" are needed, but I have a serious problem with LYING about it, and making the claims that have been made, that the American people would not understand, or that we're somehow protecting our liberties in behaving in a manner that would otherwise never be tolerated, mainly because it's a direct violation of what we claim in the Constitution that we stand for. (So, no, I agree, it's not a strawman.)

But, I also would say I object to "nanny government," and to "moral relativism," mainly because they lead to this very same course of action which has been at the center of this debate.

 

[Roadtoad]

Do you have examples of this? Late-imperial Wars of Liberation wouldn't fit, nor revolts against Latin American dictatorships. The US didn't assist in these - often quite the opposite - and the Soviets generally would.

My thought on this (and it's only a thought) is that for a number of years, I lived too damn close to the Fulda Gap, where more than a few nuclear missles were aimed in the event someone threw a cigarette butt in the wrong direction.

There ought to be a lesson in it, but it doesn't seem to have been learnt, what with Notional Missile Defence and new nuclear weapons to combat the Terrorist Threat. If the US could present itself as a prosperous, happy, confident, united society it would promote itself and its values rather better than it's doing now.

Define your terms. How are you defining "prosperous?" Or, for that matter, "happy," "confident," or even "united?" We have money, we have amusement, we're relatively certain the sun will come up the next morning, and for the most part, the majority of us will call ourselves "Americans" if for no other reason, we can't think of what else to call ourselves.

For the majority, that seems to be sufficient. Personally, I call it sad.

 

[CapelDodger]

My thought on this (and it's only a thought) is that for a number of years, I lived too damn close to the Fulda Gap, where more than a few nuclear missles were aimed in the event someone threw a cigarette butt in the wrong direction.

Damned if I know from the Fulda Gap, but I was asking about commie-inspired revolutions "for their own sake".

Define your terms. How are you defining "prosperous?"

The way other people would like to be if they heard about it.

Or, for that matter, "happy," "confident," or even "united?"

Not pre-occupied with minor threats posed by the outside world while imprisoning vast numbers of people in order to feel safer at home.

We have money, we have amusement, we're relatively certain the sun will come up the next morning ...

But will the estimable RoadToad?

... and for the most part, the majority of us will call ourselves "Americans" if for no other reason, we can't think of what else to call ourselves.

It's not just for pedantic reasons I avoid the term "American". It has implications. As does "Yank". And in this arena, implications can lead to bruises.

For the majority, that seems to be sufficient. Personally, I call it sad.

WTF is wrong with hedonism? Why is life only worthwhile if it involves struggle? What is wrong with ordinary decent folk bringing up their families decently and getting from life what it offers? Show the world that, and offer to help them to the same state. Buyers will flock.

 

[Roadtoad]

Damned if I know from the Fulda Gap, but I was asking about commie-inspired revolutions "for their own sake".

Sorry, should have been a bit more specific, and in synch with the topic. I was thinking of Cuba, (though Fulgencio Batista brought a lot of that one on himself), and Nicaragua, (though, again, we have an SOB of a dictator who opened the can of gasoline and dumped in the fire).

 

[Roadtoad]

WTF is wrong with hedonism? Why is life only worthwhile if it involves struggle? What is wrong with ordinary decent folk bringing up their families decently and getting from life what it offers? Show the world that, and offer to help them to the same state. Buyers will flock.

Nothing is wrong with it. Sadly, that no longer seems to be a goal here in America. What you're calling hedonism is what we used to call decency. It's too bad it's only supposed to exist in sitcoms, or in the suburbs of Maryland and Virginia.

(Sorry, Rikzilla...)

 

[Frank Newgent]

"The Case of the Missing Letter in Foreign Affairs: Kissinger, Pinochet, and Operation Condor" by Kenneth Maxwell is here.

Don't know if anyone else has taken the time to read the link...

Briefly, the writer, Kenneth Maxwell (staff expert on Latin America at the Council on Foreign Relations and long-time book reviewer for Foreign Affairs (journal of the CFR), wrote a book review of The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability (author Peter Kornbluh) in the November 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs.

Longtime Kissinger associate William Rogers answered with a letter published in the January 2004 issue, denying allegations in the book of Kissinger's involvement with the murder of Chilean General Rene Schneider or with "Operation Condor", set up by Pinochet to silence critics of his regime (An opponent of Pinochet, Orlando Letelier, was killed by a car bomb in Washington, DC, in 1976).

Maxwell approached the editor of Foreign Affairs, James Hoge, with a reply to Rogers which included a call on Kissinger to answer for himself. That is "The Missing Letter" which was never published in FA.

Maxwell believes that Peter Peterson, the chair of the council's board of directors, and Maurice Greenberg, head of American International Group (world's largest commercial insurer) and honorary vice chair of the council - acting on pressure from Kissinger and Rogers - persuaded Hoge to shut down the published exchange of letters.

Out of indignation over the apparent loss of editorial independence at Foreign Affairs and of intellectual freedom at the CFR he quit.

Maxwell kept a diary of what happened throughout (this article).





William of Occam was never the victim of conspiracy.

 

[Dancing David]

Morality is only as good as your enemy's morality.

And was Salvadore Allende our enemy, or just the innocent citizens of Chile?

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Allow me to press the point a little harder... I don't believe it's a straw man to suggest that the counter-argument to this is that there are some dirty deeds which must be done, and it is necessary to insulate the public from it, because they don't have the stomach for it.

I dare anyone who agrees with this to answer the question: have you ever claimed to hate "moral relativism" and "nanny government" offered by liberals?

There's something funny about this statement. First you allege that, as far as I can tell, moral evaluations are irrelevant to governments -- otherwise there's no sense to saying that there are dirty deeds which must be done in secrecy. Surely if moral rules were applicable to governments there would be no sense in saying that morally indefensible things needed to be done. Then you claim that liberals (the ones who have historically though imperfectly tended to claim that moral rules do apply to governments - in theory (especially) and in practice) offer moral relativism.

You do realize that that's a nonsensical combination, right?

 

[gnome]

There's something funny about this statement. First you allege that, as far as I can tell, moral evaluations are irrelevant to governments -- otherwise there's no sense to saying that there are dirty deeds which must be done in secrecy. Surely if moral rules were applicable to governments there would be no sense in saying that morally indefensible things needed to be done. Then you claim that liberals (the ones who have historically though imperfectly tended to claim that moral rules do apply to governments - in theory (especially) and in practice) offer moral relativism.

You do realize that that's a nonsensical combination, right?

I see the problem. Allow me to clarify the situation. When I mentioned the argument that dirty deeds must be done in secret, I was not stating my position, but anticipating an argument that might be made by those in favor of "doing what must be done", and then refuting it.

I was then pointing out the contradiction with the same people arguing that liberals want a government that makes all your decisions for you, and promotes moral relativism.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nothing is wrong with it. Sadly, that no longer seems to be a goal here in America. What you're calling hedonism is what we used to call decency. It's too bad it's only supposed to exist in sitcoms, or in the suburbs of Maryland and Virginia.

(Sorry, Rikzilla...)

There's a lot of pleasure and satisfaction to be gained from being decent and being known as decent by our peers. For me, hedonism means living for the present and the joys thereof. The present including our lives, the lives of our families and their stories of people we never met, schoolfriends, workfriends, the detritus of personal history, new generations. Feeling happy about the way you do all that isn't bankable, but it has a value. Symbols like religion, nationality, cult or ideology that demand "struggle" and "sacrifice" have no such value.

That's my philosphy in a nutshell, and the solstice spirit is flowing in me STRONG, brothers and sisters, strong, like a fine, fine whisky. Which is what it is. The mushrooms wore off hours ago.

 

[Roadtoad]

That's my philosphy in a nutshell, and the solstice spirit is flowing in me STRONG, brothers and sisters, strong, like a fine, fine whisky. Which is what it is. The mushrooms wore off hours ago.

Hey! Next time, SHARE!

 

[Elind]

Wouldn't that be justice.

Augusto Pinochet has once again been placed in the court by a very brave judge who wishes to try him for the kidnap and murder of nine individuals in Chile.

Shouldn't Kissinger be tried for deposing a legaly elected democratic government and installing said dictator. What if some other government did that to us, would you want to arrest their Henry K.?

Did what to who? Yet another sorry apologist for sorry complainers.

 

[Roadtoad]

Re: Re: Kissinger in the Docket ?

Did what to who? Yet another sorry apologist for sorry complainers.

I find it helps if you read the thread first before you get into making snarky remarks.

Let's recap for the slower students in the class:

Kissinger was one of those who pulled the strings behind some of the worst right wing dictatorships in the Western Hemisphere, helping them remain in power, generally at the expense of innocent lives. This would include the military Juntas of Pinochet and Allende, and the one which introduced the word desaparecido to the world, courtesy of Argentina. Got it?

Most people in the world consider that sort of behavior beyond the pale, mainly because it's unjust, evil, cruel, heartless, meretricious, vile, monstrous, and sick. If you disagree, we'd enjoy hearing a reasoned response, instead of a snide aside, Clyde.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Kissinger in the Docket ?

Did what to who? Yet another sorry apologist for sorry complainers.

Are you aware of the person of Augusto Pinochet?

Is it good to trumpet democracy and then install a dictator?

 

[Roadtoad]

Re: Re: Re: Kissinger in the Docket ?

Are you aware of the person of Augusto Pinochet?

Is it good to trumpet democracy and then install a dictator?

Most people would say, "No," but others seem to think that might makes right.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hey! Next time, SHARE!

PayPal do what now?!