A war-criminal comes to London


by Guest    
6:37 pm - November 8th 2009

      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Ben Six

So, on Tuesday, Liam Fox, the man who’s likely to be our next Defence Secretary, will step onto a platform somewhere in London and celebrate one of the 20th Century’s most notorious war criminals: Henry Kissinger, a man whose bloody footprints trail through Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and East Timor.

He even had a hand in Iraq, talking to Cheneyprobably…more than just about anybody else“.

The event’s organised by The Atlantic Bridge, “a policy organization that seeks to promote a special security relationship between the U.S. and U.K.“. As relationships go, that’s one of the most wholly unhealthy since Caligula first hit puberty.

Fox, Gove, Osborne, Hague and Grayling all sit on the Bridge’s advisory board, along with US belligerents like Joe Lieberman. It operates largely through dinners and discussions, the low profile of which belie the standing and influence of those involved.

They bring together some of the most hawkish figures in US politics, the media and even banking – Lehman Bros. high-ups made a number of appearances.

The Bridge is currently being investigated, after complaints that its affiliations conflict with its charitable status. It is, indeed, almost overwhelmingly Conservative, but what’s interesting is who those Conservatives choose to consort with, not just for their ideas, but for their records and, on Tuesday, their crimes.

It’s depressing, isn’t it, that Kissinger can’t even step foot in some countries for fear of arrest, and yet here he’ll be feted – given the “Margaret Thatcher Medal of Freedom” – by some of the men who, in all probability, will make up our government next year.

The location remains a secret, presumably to stave off the protestors that have dogged his steps in recent times. It’s “invitation only“, but if you’ve got the stomach for the noxious affair you could email infoATtheatlanticbridgeDOTcom.

————–
Ben Six blogs here.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Foreign affairs ,Realpolitik ,United States ,Westminster


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Sense_&_Sensibility

Sunny, it amazes me that you call your blog as ‘centre-left’ politics when it’s very clearly radical left/commie in nature.

Sunny, what is your vision of the world. Complete communist takeover or Islamic takeover? It’s clearly one of the two. Just curious now…

He’s caught you out, Sunny. Karl Marx and Allah were both notorious for their views on Kissinger.

Complete communist takeover or Islamic takeover?

Both! At the same time, obviously. And if we can combine that with some Sikh take-over then my parents would be happy too. Hope that’s ok with you :)

“Sunny, it amazes me that you call your blog as ‘centre-left’ politics when it’s very clearly radical left/commie in nature.”

Try this:
http://www.spectacle.org/0501/kissinger.html

And this illuminating documentary by Bob McNamara: The Fog of War (2004)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War

Wot!? Is Kissinger still alive? God help us!!
Wasn’t he in Dr Strangelove?
It’s odd that some people just can’t seem to move on specially considering that tomorrow is the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. HK was notorious for seeing Communist conspiracies everywhere and some people still look for the same but nowadays with the added novelty of the Islamic threat. So if Bin Laden borrows a copy of the Communist Manifesto from his local library there’ll be a lot of happy people.
HK was also famous for his ability to mangle the English language – an example which the later neo-Cons made their own. His special gift to the world of State terror was the phrase “plausible deniability”. Any other gems?

I think we’re missing the most important question here, which is: Will the Tories provide the pile of human skulls for Dr. Hank to sit on, or will he bring his own?

Nice to see that the Tories are every bit as much of a bunch of wide-eyed, starfucking groupies as Labour are though. It’s a shame Pol Pot and Ho are dead – they, Dr. Kissinger and the Tories could all reminisce together about Operation Rolling Thunder and the Madman Theory, then go for a nice relaxing swim in an ocean of human misery.

Atlantic Bridge? So it’s for charidee!

“here he’ll be…given the “Margaret Thatcher Medal of Freedom”

Seriously? Does that seriously exist?

Strategist

Yup – previous winners include Rudi Giuliani (presumably for shouting “TERRORISM” with such endearing volume and frequency).

Complain to your friend Mr Brown. He accepted the statesman of the year award from the good Doctor recently.

Think before you post, John. As wonderful a gotcha as that may have seemed, I’m no fan of Gordon Brown.

@8: “Seriously? Does that seriously exist?”

Probably not but possibly someone is working urgently on a new proposal for a Margaret Thatcher Award for Accord and Harmony.

So Ben Six, tell us, how many ‘war criminals’ have Labour cuddled up next to or had running their party over the past decade?

how many ‘war criminals’ have Labour cuddled up next to or had running their party over the past decade?

Lots, I would’ve thought.

What, are the main parties now openly playing War Crimes Top Trumps? It’s a bit of a drag if they’ve both got Kissinger in their decks though, since Dr. Hank on his own beats almost every other card on Industrialisation of Murder, Death Toll, Ludicrousness of Justification and The Horror, The Horror Factor.

I suppose Labour could always play Vladimir Putin against him, what with the epic nightmare bloodbath that was Chechnya but then, Putin is at least still in politics – there’s some vague excuse to meet him at the G8 or wherever. Dr. Kissinger is just a has-been opportunist scurrying from country to country picking up fat cheques from right wing thinktanks, always one step ahead of the arrest warrants that would compel him to provide an excuse for the mile-high pile of smouldering bodies upon which he built his career.

Nice to see BenSix bringing the Atlantic Bridge hate to Lib Con, it is a cunt of an organisation with its Margaret Thatcher Medal of Freedom for mass murderers.

http://danielhg.blogspot.com/2009/10/atlantic-bridge.html

And nice to see LFAT managing a grand bit of LOOK OVER THERE and BUT THEY DO IT AS WELL

Also, for the best dissection of Kissinger, you need to Get Your War On…

LFAT

So Ben Six…

Hello!

…tell us…

Okay!

…how many ‘war criminals’ have Labour cuddled up next to or had running their party over the past decade?

Or, in other words, “How many other Emperors have been ‘naked’“. Not sure what the sneer quotes are doing – do bears ‘shit’ in woods? – but if we’re talking about war criminals, well – quite a few, actually. As I’m not a supporter I feel no compulsion to defend them.

How do you feel about the actual post, LFAT?

Ben,

It would seem to me that any politician who actively participates in a government at a time of war is liable to be called a ‘war criminal’ by one interest or another.
The more violent and far reaching the war – the more likely some international war will be broken.

Leaving aside Kissinger’s pivitol role in bringing about the reconciliation between the USA and China (an achievement that dwarf’s the fall of the Berlin Wall) going down the well trodden path that holds him is such high regard is a bit like hearing an adult talking student union politics.

Whilst we are at it could we extend the definition of ‘war criminal’ to include the dead as well as living? That way people could dig up Churchill and send his remains over to the Hague for a trial and conviction.

Kojak, the logic you use here is stretched to the very point of breaking and like many in this thread, utterly ducks the point, which is that Kissinger has quite a bit of blood on his hands.

Kojak

The cheek of it! I’m a student conducting student union politics doncha know. If you really doubt that Kissinger’s a criminal, though, I recommend Christopher Hitchens’s fine book The Trial Of Henry Kissinger. A preview can be found under the second link of this article.

That way people could dig up Churchill and send his remains over to the Hague for a trial and conviction.

Way ahead of you, bro. What sort of bag should I use?

DHG re: Comment 20,

I’m not overlooking the decisions Kissinger took which had quite awful consequences for the civillians on the ground (death) – merely pointing out that warfare (including the strategy and administration) is by it’s very nature destructive. He had much ‘blood on his hands’ but so too did Ho Chi Min and I don’t hear any talk of elderly Vietnamese politicians being ‘war criminals’.

It brings to mind talk of ‘ethical’ fishing whereby dragging nets along the seabed is ‘wrong’ whereas fishing with smaller less invaisive nets is ‘right’. Meanwhile, if we are honest with ourselves (vegitarians aside) we all eat the fish, only care when prices go up or there’s less coral to swim through on holiday.

Ben,

I’ve read Hitchen’s writings regarding Kissenger – but whilst they are comprehensive they seems to ignore the far larger game that was being played at the time. It was a ‘high stakes’ time.

War is horrid. It should always be the last resort. Whatever the ‘rules of engagement’ are, they are prone to be broken willfully and accidentally. It’s as inevitable as water running downhill.

In considering the magnitude of a ‘war crime’ can you consider ‘blanket bombing’ to be the same as locking up civillians in farm buildings and setting them alight? I don’t know, the former is distant and contains a large element of chance whereas the latter is active and definate.

I don’t hear any talk of elderly Vietnamese politicians being ‘war criminals’.

What, have Atlantic Bridge invited them too?

Plus – shorter “War is Hell” guff @22: Let he who has not saturation-bombed a tiny agrarian southeast asian nation into a blighted moonscape swimming in poison for no sane reason cast the first stone.

Flying Rodent has you down pat Kojak, seriously, Ho Chi Min?

You miss the point by a royal mile.

DHG re: Comment 24,

Although Ho Chi Min died in 1969 he was ‘up to his neck in it’ so to speak – as were his colleagues who followed up the peace treaties with the invasion and destruction of South Vietnam. But hey, that couldn’t constitute a ‘war crime’ could it – what with it being a Vietnamese matter? Or could it? Milosovic + Karadzic have gone on trial at the Hague.

The problem with the label of ‘war criminal’ is that accepting who is and who isn’t one can be a subjective matter and not free of political influence. If we were to be honest with ourselves, all of war is a crime – albeit one we permit to achieve/defend our objectives.

Although Ho Chi Min died in 1969 he was ‘up to his neck in it’

Sure, and if these Tories ever invite the reanimated corpse of Ho Chi Minh along to one of their shindigs, I’ll be sure to cuss them out for that too.

On the other hand, as you’ve noted, Ho Chi Minh has been dead for forty years while Kissinger is alive and kicking, and about to pick up a fat cheque as chief chicken-choker at this upcoming Tory circle-jerk. Call me Sherlock if you will, but I reckon that’s probably why Ben wrote a post about the latter rather than the former.

If NV hadn’t invaded SV and in addition if NV hadn’t crossed through into Laos and Cambodia to smuggle weapons down into SV – there wouldn’t have been any need for the Rolling Thunder campaign and no need for associated human misery.

@ Bob B -the documentary The Fog of War is excellent.

FlyingRodent re: Comment 26,

“On the other hand, as you’ve noted, Ho Chi Minh has been dead for forty years while Kissinger is alive and kicking”

That’s why my comment 22 also included “elderly Vietnamese politicians” as well as Ho Chi Min. At the very least the “elderly” compatriots of Minh are alive like Kissinger, and not dead like Ho Chi Minh.

Call me Watson but I think it’s more about the left’s opposition to a war which finished over 35 years ago than about who is a “war criminal”.

Call me Watson but I think it’s more about the left’s opposition to a war which finished over 35 years ago than about who is a “war criminal”.

I’m quite inclined to call you Deliberately Obtuse, and I think this is far more about you deliberately pretending that you don’t see the difference between some Vietnamese pensioners doing whatever it is they do on their own dime in Vietnam and a wagonload of Tories paying hard currency to French kiss Dr. Henry Kissinger’s blood-stained bahookie in Britain.

The second you hear about NVA Airlines flying in a load of Mint Imperial-sucking, octogenarian ex-tunnel fighters and former pyjama clad guerilla warriors, you just step right up to the plate and be all like, Hey Dawg, what kind of political party sucks up to mass murderers this fellatiously? and we’ll be like, Dude, you’re totally right and shit.

Flying Rodent 8 Kojak 0

Kojak

War is horrid. It should always be the last resort. Whatever the ‘rules of engagement’ are, they are prone to be broken willfully and accidentally. It’s as inevitable as water running downhill.

Come to that, the laws of the land are “prone to be broken wilfully and accidentally“. That doesn’t mean that, if they are broken, the guilty shouldn’t be held responsible. And if they’re broken consistently, with a blithe disregard for any consequences, and yet the guilty party isn’t arraigned, but celebrated as a model citizen, something’s uppppp!

The problem with the label of ‘war criminal’ is that accepting who is and who isn’t one can be a subjective matter and not free of political influence.

That’s true for any ethical system. Do you agree that, if wars must be fought, there should be boundaries to minimise unnecessary suffering?

That’s why my comment 22 also included “elderly Vietnamese politicians” as well as Ho Chi Min. At the very least the “elderly” compatriots of Minh are alive like Kissinger, and not dead like Ho Chi Minh.

Then again, those bastards are skulking in Vietnam, not being feted by our political establishment. When Fox, Gove, Grayling et al start singing the praises of Vietnamese collectivization, get back to me – I’ll be easy to spot, I’ll be riding an airborne pig, whilst eating my hat.

Call me Watson but I think it’s more about the left’s opposition to a war which finished over 35 years ago than about who is a “war criminal”.

No, it’s about leading members of our next government snuggling up to a man who, over the years, has been complicit in many atrocities. It’s about their apparent belief that he represents a model of good statesmanship. It’s about their seeming disregard for immorality on a massive scale. It’s about the apparent influences on their foreign policy…

And, yeah, it’s about Dr K being a right bastard.

I am kind of amused by the assumption underlying much of Kojak’s argument in this thread: that wars just… happen. They are not started, escalated or directed in more or less bloody and horrific ways by actual living people such as Kissinger who can be held morally responsible for the deaths they bring about. Nope, wars just happen and lots of people die then poor saps like good old Henry have to navigate those tricky moral mazes.

But then people such as Kojak often portray Bush and Blair as poor chaps who just had to make that tough decision to send hundreds of thousands of people to terrible deaths. Yep, it is George and Tony and Henry we should feel sorry for, not the millions of victims of their despicable decisions.

On a further note I don’t suppose I should be surprised that there are still people who seem to think that our leaders not sending troops halfway across the world to kill a lot of poverty-stricken foreigners who pose no threat to us is some kind of utopian left-wing pipe dream.

@ frolix 31
Yes – wars are started eg by the north vietnamese when they invaded south vietnam and yes wars are escalated eg by the north vietnamese when they broke the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

Of course HK was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts to bring peace to south east asia in the face of communist aggression but refused to accept it – Obama could learn something….

Frolix22 re: Comment 31,

Wars don’t just happen – but they do happen.

The start of the Vietnam War happened some many years before Kissinger became Secretary for State so he can hardly be accused of starting it. He was party to the escalation of the warand the ending of the war – but that’s another matter.

War is fighting and inevitably people get killed. Don’t try and pretend they are condemned to death by only one side and not the other. And the people in charge are not ‘war criminals’ just because they are in charge.

I feel no sorrow for the leaders who are in charge of a war – it come’s with the territory (often comes with someone else’s territory in the process). However I do think I’d rather be ‘lead’ by a politician prepared to prosecute a war than by a quibbleling ditherer unable to accept that particular part of the ‘pay grade’.

PS: Surely it is of no moral bearing whether the people killed are”poverty” stricken or wealthy – though it does increase the likleyhood manyfold.

TP, that’s a fabulous display of look-over-thereism…

…wars are started eg by the north vietnamese when they invaded south vietnam…

Or Indonesia when, with the backing of Ford and Kissinger, it invaded East Timor, killing tens of thousands.

…are escalated eg by the north vietnamese when they broke the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

Or Henry Kissinger, when he helped to engineer the bombing of Cambodia and Laos.

And, as I said to Kojak, it’s his misdeeds, not those of the Vietnamese, that are relevant at the moment.

BenSix re: Comment 30,

Your last paragraph get’s to the heart of your concern.

“It’s about their apparent belief that he represents a model of good statesmanship”

Representation. That’s what’s bothering you, the old concern with appearances and defining the self in relation to proximety to the other.
Boo-Hiss politics and knee jerk reaction rather than consideration.

You might think Dr Kissinger is a right bastard but look at your computer screen, at the keyboard, then at the mouse and repeat 10 times:

“Without Henry Kissinger I wouldn’t enjoy all these low cost items which are so important and dear to me”.

Then be honest.
Ask yourself if you would relinquish it all for some pens and paper to bring back many thousand lives of Cambodian farmers?

Address your postcard to: SE1 7JX

Kojak (if I may butt in)…

War is fighting and inevitably people get killed.

On the other hand, one can minimise the killings. The fact that they’re inevitable doesn’t give one an excuse to disregard casualties, let alone initiate actions that’ll lead to them, quite unnecessarily.

Surely it is of no moral bearing whether the people killed are”poverty” stricken or wealthy – though it does increase the likleyhood manyfold.

Well, yes to the last sentence – nail, head, hit etc.. If you drop a big pile of death onto an area without food, medicine, hospitals, proper transport etc., you’d have to be a fool not to realise that it’ll maximise casualties.

FlyingRodent re: Comment 28,

This was the kindof Vietnamese pensioner I had in mind, not the Miss Marple kind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguyen_Giap

That’s what’s bothering you, the old concern with appearances and defining the self in relation to proximety to the other.

Er, Kojak, if Gordon Brown threw a party in the honour of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and proceeded to extol his wit, warmth and sagely held anti-zionism, would you begin to get the idea that – maybe – old Broon’s not feeling too hot for Israel?

Well, now that a bunch of Tory hawks (who, in contrast with my hurried analogy, do share common ground with the man they’re celebrating) are holding a bash in the honour of Henry K, it leads me to think that, maybe, they’re not too serious about Western war crimes (they are, after all, feting a war criminal), and are quite up to sending our military globetrotting (they are, after all, lauding a man who’d back or take part in conflict with little care for the resulting casualties).

You might think Dr Kissinger is a right bastard but look at your computer screen, at the keyboard, then at the mouse and repeat 10 times:

Aw, condescension is so sweeeet!

““Without Henry Kissinger I wouldn’t enjoy all these low cost items which are so important and dear to me”.”

Why?

BenSix re: Comment 39,

I don’t know if Henry Kissinger is a ‘War Criminal’ or not. Some people say he is but apart from Christopher Hitchens is no one has tried to do anything about it. No human rights lawyers have been pesky enough to disrupt his travels to over here. That no Courts are prepared to seriously consider the accusations makes me think there’s less basis for the accusation than you suggest.

I don’t want to bring you crashing to the earth with too much of a thud, but the issue of Western ‘war crimes’ doesn’t really interest Western politicians who seriously consider holding the offices of power. because for the last 20 years the US, Britain, France, NATO have been bombing the hell out of one place or another.

As far as my remarks about your computer ……….. without Nixon and Kissinger instigating rappochement with China you would be using overpriced clumsy hardware from IBM or a Sinclair ZX80.

40. Fellow Traveller

Dr Kissinger certainly gets about a bit.

Kojak

I don’t know if Henry Kissinger is a ‘War Criminal’ or not. Some people say he is but apart from Christopher Hitchens is no one has tried to do anything about it.

I’m

With a trial of Gen. Augusto Pinochet increasingly unlikely here, victims of the Chilean military’s 17-year dictatorship are now pressing legal actions in both Chilean and American courts against Henry A. Kissinger and other Nixon administration officials who supported plots to overthrow Salvador Allende Gossens, the Socialist president, in the early 1970′s.

In perhaps the most prominent of the cases, an investigating judge here has formally asked Mr. Kissinger, a former national security adviser and secretary of state, and Nathaniel Davis, the American ambassador to Chile at the time, to respond to questions about the killing of an American citizen, Charles Horman, after the deadly military coup that brought General Pinochet to power on Sept. 11, 1973.

afraid

Mr. Kissinger is their biggest quarry yet, and they are getting closer all the time. Now, prosecutors in Chile, Argentina, Spain and France want him to testify about what happened in Chile. Last month, a Chilean judge staged a re-enactment of the Horman killing at Santiago’s National Stadium, and now wants Mr. Kissinger at least to answer written questions about U.S. involvement in the coup.

you’re

In May last year, during a stay at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, he is visited by the criminal brigade of the French police, and served with a summons. This requests that he attend the Palais de Justice the following day to answer questions from Judge Roger Le Loire…

In the same week, Judge Rodolfo Corrall of Argentina invites Kissinger’s testimony in the matter of “Operation Condor” – codename for a state-run death squad, operated by the secret police of six countries – Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Ecuador – during the 1970s and ’80s…

On September 10, a major civil suit is filed in the Federal Court in Washington DC by the relatives and survivors of General Rene Schneider, the former head of the Chilean general staff, who was assassinated in 1970 because of his opposition to a military coup…

Earlier this month, a petition for Kissinger’s arrest is filed in the High Court in London, citing the destruction of civilian populations and the environment in Indochina during the years 1969-75. The High Court rules in such a manner as to leave room for a further application.

…wrong about that.

No human rights lawyers have been pesky enough to disrupt his travels to over here. That no Courts are prepared to seriously consider the accusations makes me think there’s less basis for the accusation than you suggest.

As I’ve shown, several Courts are suitably “pesky“.

I don’t want to bring you crashing to the earth with too much of a thud but the issue of Western ‘war crimes’ doesn’t really interest Western politicians who seriously consider holding the offices of power. because for the last 20 years the US, Britain, France, NATO have been bombing the hell out of one place or another.

Erm — yes, I know. I’m suggesting – much to your derision, earlier – that Conservative slobbering over Henry K suggests that change will not be forthcoming.

As far as my remarks about your computer ……….. without Nixon and Kissinger instigating rappochement with China you would be using overpriced clumsy hardware from IBM or a Sinclair ZX80.

The 1970s detente led to modern technology? No, sorry, unless who have one mo’fudger of a link, I can’t take that seriously. Next you’ll be saying that without Emperor Hirohito we wouldn’t have really cool robots.

@TP: wars are started eg by the north vietnamese when they invaded south vietnam and yes wars are escalated eg by the north vietnamese when they broke the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

WTF? What is this “South Vietnam” you’re talking about? The Viet Minh agreed to a temporary withdrawal after they’d punted out the French in the fifties, based on a temporary demarcation at the 17th parallel, with a French-loyal government south of that line. That was supposed to be until elections were held 24 months later, at which point the winner of a national election would run the entire country.

The partition actually lasted 19 years, because the US refused to allow an election on the grounds that Ho Chi Minh would’ve won about 80% of the vote. The “Capital” of “South Vietnam” was Saigon, i.e. the French Imperial headquarters. “South Vietnam” was an entity that the Americans pulled out of their arses to justify sending the world’s most terrifying military machine to blast fuck out of a nation filled with subsistance farmers, to protect a fictional country from invasion by its own people.

There’s a reason why the White House fought the release of the Pentagon Papers, and it’s because it revealed the entire war was based on lying horseshit of this nature from the word “Go”.

This was the kindof Vietnamese pensioner I had in mind, not the Miss Marple kind:

Hell’s bells man, are you illiterate? Can you see any sterling defences of the Vietnamese here?

For about the fifth time, nobody gives a monkeys about General Giap, because Giap has not been invited to address a bunch of Tories in London. Kissinger has. Nobody is pretending that the Vietnamese were a nice bunch or that they didn’t commit all kinds of horrific atrocities. OTOH, they are not addressing the Tories in London so nobody gives a damn about the Vietnamese.

Kissinger is addressing the Tories. The tens of thousands of deaths on his hands are a matter of historical record, and whether the VIetnamese acted Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader makes no difference at all to that fact.

War is fighting and inevitably people get killed.

I’m sure this rhymed when Boy George wrote it.

FlyingRodent re: Comment 43,

No I’m not illiterate (though my spelling is suspect), If you follow the threads you will see that I started by looking at who we might call a ‘war criminal’.

Apologies, I didn’t think it was just a Tory bashing conversation pure and simple. I thought the talking about a ‘war criminal’ from 35 years ago was a bit suspect, especially as the subsequent years have been so eventful.

Perhaps I hold this wesite to higher standards than the writers / editors.

Re: Comment 42,

“WTF? What is this “South Vietnam” you’re talking about?”

I suggest the South Vietnah he was referring to was the one that used to appear on the maps, have diplomatic relations with much of the world etc – not just an American dominated entity.

If you follow you train of thought that South Vietnam was an invalid consequence of the war you must also apply the same thinking to South Korea.

Does South Korea really exist – or is it just an American dominated entity as well?

As far as ……. “the entire war was based on lying horseshit of this nature from the word “Go”.” Sorry to be the one who has to break it to you: Most of them are.

BenSix re: Comment 41,

Well done pointing out my incorrect use of the words “no one”. There have been many people seeking to hold Henry Kissinger to account – however no one has succeeded have they? To my way of reckoning a few minor papers filed at court are pesky until they stop him traveling abroad and lead to his arrest.

I cannot help but laugh at comments 32 and 33 in response to my earlier posts. I have seen so many people like you commenting in threads such as this making the erroneous assumption that I only apply certain standards to “one side” and not another. The standards I regard as just in such matters apply to all. But of course, not all war criminals are being feted in London by our own political establishment, an important point to note.

As for this particular comment by TP @32:

Yes – wars are started eg by the north vietnamese when they invaded south vietnam and yes wars are escalated eg by the north vietnamese when they broke the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.

Well, I do not suppose I should be surprised at such ignorance of the freely available historical facts. The United States was bombing and killing with abandon in South Vietnam in response to an indigenous uprising long, long before a single North Vietnamese soldier set foot in the country. I also suspect you could read this, go away and verify it (quite easily) yet immediately forget this elementary fact in all future discussions of the subject because it simply does not fit the convenient narrative you wish to maintain.

As for the 1973 Peace Accords, that is an interesting one, since Kissinger and Nixon declared outright immediately after they were signed that they were simply going to disregard their substance. This led to a quick increase in internal repression in South Vietnam. I am afraid the historical facts once again fail to conform to your fairy story. Once again, you could go away and verify all of this but you would no doubt simply ignore anything inconvenient to that narrative you have internalised over many years. Or perhaps I am doing you a disservice and you are in fact a person of intellectual integrity who is legitimately interested in an honest understanding of complex historical events.

Frollix 22 re: Comment 46,

“I cannot help but laugh at comments 32 and 33 in response to my earlier posts. I have seen so many people like you commenting in threads such as this making the erroneous assumption that I only apply certain standards to “one side” and not another.”

Come now, that’s a bit rich coming from the person who in Comment 30 characterized me as: “people such as Kojak often portray Bush and Blair as poor chaps who just had to make that tough decision to send hundreds of thousands of people to terrible deaths. Yep, it is George and Tony and Henry we should feel sorry for, not the millions of victims of their despicable decisions.”

To avoid to this point I suggest you avoid making sweeping statements about the opinions of people you haven’t had a proper discussion with – then they will be less inclined to do the same to you.

Thanks for the advice Kojak but I think you missed the point that while I admittedly do not have any particular knowledge about your specific attitudes towards Bush, and Blair my “sweeping statement” is actually based on your own words, specifically those in comment 20. So I don’t think it is a “bit rich”, to be honest.

@45

Actually, South Korea is a nice example. After hundreds of years of unity, Korea was artificially divided as part of drearily predictable imperialist manoeuvres by the United States and Russia, each installing their own favoured politicians in their “sphere of influence” (communists in the north and a delightful bunch of criminals and Japanese collaborators in the south). This of course created the tinderbox conditions which led to the Korean War.

In fact, South Korea and North Korea were indeed artificial imperially mandated entities the creation of which led to a bloody conflict. So in fact your very own example supports the point you brought it up to oppose.

After 60 years of diverging cultural and economic development in the north and south one might intelligibly take differing stances on the issue now but that does not change the historical facts.

If you follow the threads you will see that I started by looking at who we might call a ‘war criminal’.

Providing a series of extremely poor and hilariously obvious excuses for why Kissinger should be cut some slack, more like.

I thought the talking about a ‘war criminal’ from 35 years ago was a bit suspect…

“A bit suspect?” The bloke’s either a war criminal or he isn’t – it’s a pretty clear-cut issue in law, not some relativised concept dependent on the nastiness of the Viets.

I put it to you that Kissinger will not be visiting, say, Spain for the rest of his natural, and not because he’s allergic to sangria. It’s because he’d be prosecuted at the Hague and found guilty. Perhaps he should crack some I’m a notorious butcher of humanity and a fugitive from justice gags at the Atlantic Bridge conference?

…especially as the subsequent years have been so eventful

What, did the world look at Srebrenica and Rwanda and think you know, actually, this “deliberately exterminating civilians for military advantage” lark is quite fun, let’s cut old Henry a break? That was still against the law last time I looked.

I suggest the South Vietnah he was referring to was the one that used to appear on the maps, have diplomatic relations with much of the world etc – not just an American dominated entity.

South Vietnam = not just an American dominated entity. They should’ve put that on the flags, to encourage tourism. What a hoot.

Well done pointing out my incorrect use of the words “no one”.

No one/lots of prominent people – what’s the difference, eh? And, as for “stop[ping] him traveling abroad“, well – if you’d read my links, you’d realise that the man had to hot foot it out of France, and can’t set foot in a number of countries. Thing is, having the world’s largest military superpower behind you is like being mates with the tallest, thickest PE teacher in a school. Pretty damn hard to nail him.

Well done pointing out my incorrect use of the words “no one”.

No one/lots of prominent people – what’s the difference, eh? And, as for “stop[ping] him traveling abroad“, well – if you’d read my links, you’d realise that the man had to hot foot it out of France, and can’t set foot in a number of countries. Thing is, having the world’s largest military superpower behind you is like being mates with the tallest, thickest PE teacher in a school. Pretty damn hard to nail him.

Everyone but Kojak 47 Kojak 0

DHG re: Comment 53,

If you think FlyingRodent, BenSix and Frollix 22 are everyone, I suggest you go out more often.

@54, “although all the other participants in this argument have whipped my arse, there are six billion other people in the world who haven’t so I didn’t lose” is an absolutely awesome defence, and one that I’m going to make sure I use in future.

If you think FlyingRodent, BenSix and Frollix 22 are everyone, I suggest you go out more often.

Well, judging by this thread, they certainly speak for a good majority here, though feel free to develop this pedantic theme. The longer you stick around talking rubbish, the more Rodent and co will slap you about for my and – let’s not exaggerate now – many, many others’ amusement.

@55
Ha ha


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Lianne de Mello

    RT @libcon: A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx and wins award "for his dedication to academia, public service and peace" HA!

  2. matt_heath

    This is (so far) an explanatory mocking of a troll. (in the comments obv) http://bit.ly/401xnl

  3. thabet

    The New Tory Party loves Warmongering Bastards like Henry Kissinger RT @libcon A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx

  4. JamieSW

    RT @libcon A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx #HenryKissinger

  5. London Posse

    Liberal Conspiracy » A war-criminal comes to London – So, on Tuesday, Liam Fox, the man who's likely to be our next… http://ow.ly/160iRs

  6. Paulo Coimbra

    but london already has its own RT @libcon: :: A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx

  7. Adam Bienkov

    RT @libcon :: A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx

  8. Clay Harris

    RT @AdamBienkov: RT @libcon :: A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx

  9. andrew

    Liberal Conspiracy » A war-criminal comes to London: HK was notorious for seeing Communist conspiracies everywh.. http://bit.ly/44WzBf

  10. Omar El-Khairy

    RT @jamiesw: RT @libcon A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx #HenryKissinger

  11. The Sliver Party

    A war-criminal comes to London http://alturl.com/79rt

  12. Ben Six

    Me at LibCon (it chugs along, like my mind at one o'clock in't morn')…http://tinyurl.com/ykpcos6

  13. A War Criminal In London… « Back Towards T' Locus

    [...] Vomit, War [6] Comments  This post, in a slightly expanded form, has kindly been published on Liberal Conspiracy. It is, the first commenter informs me, “radical left/commie in [...]

  14. A war criminal comes to London « Harpymarx

    [...] A war criminal comes to London From Liberal Conspiracy [...]

  15. JamieSW

    RT @libcon A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx #HenryKissinger

  16. London Posse

    Liberal Conspiracy » A war-criminal comes to London – So, on Tuesday, Liam Fox, the man who's likely to be our next… http://ow.ly/160iRs

  17. Paulo Coimbra

    but london already has its own RT @libcon: :: A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx

  18. Adam Bienkov

    RT @libcon :: A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx

  19. Clay Harris

    RT @AdamBienkov: RT @libcon :: A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx

  20. andrew

    Liberal Conspiracy » A war-criminal comes to London: HK was notorious for seeing Communist conspiracies everywh.. http://bit.ly/44WzBf

  21. Omar El-Khairy

    RT @jamiesw: RT @libcon A war-criminal comes to London http://bit.ly/tfavx #HenryKissinger

  22. The Sliver Party

    A war-criminal comes to London http://alturl.com/79rt

  23. Justin McKeating

    A war-criminal comes to London… http://is.gd/4QQy1

  24. unslugged

    RT @chickyog A war-criminal comes to London… http://is.gd/4QQy1

  25. Justin McKeating

    A war-criminal comes to London… http://is.gd/4QQy1

  26. Liberal Conspiracy » Atlantic Bridge: Is this really a non-partisan charity?

    [...] already reported on Liberal Conspiracy, Tuesday night is destined to see Dr Henry Kissinger deliver the Margaret Thatcher Lecture to the [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.