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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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’m sure this rhymed when Boy George wrote it.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

…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.

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.