this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
47 points (76.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26981 readers
2311 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It stands to reason he must have been doing something right to have stayed so close to the halls of power.

I was a toddler when he was carpet bombing Cambodia, never knew him as anything but "an important person" that was sometimes on the TV. Only learned of his crimes in the past decade.

How did an in-your-face war criminal retain such influence for so long?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

On one hand, Kissinger was undoubtedly effective at achieving America's foreign policy goals and was undoubtedly one of the most influential Secretaries of State in US history. Unfortunately on the other hand, his brand of "realpolitik"--working pragmatically towards concrete policy objectives without concern for ethics or ideology--meant doing things that prolonged and worsened wars, knowingly propped up autocrats and dictators, etc.

Objectively speaking, Kissinger was a powerful diplomat who accomplished a lot of what he set out to do. At the same time, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and a lot of us can only look back and judge him harshly for the long term effects of his decisions. Kissinger is the perfect example of a person who is highly intelligent and objectively effective at what they do, but because he had so little concern for simple human concepts like right and wrong, it's hard to look back at any of his "achievements" today with anything other than harsh judgement and disdain for the soulless husk of a man.