Finished up today and strolled to the bar. Had a gin and tonic, read the paper, and walked out. Bumped into Henry Kissinger.

HE'S VERY SHORT

I was tempted to ask him about his rather lenient attitude towards the dirty war in Argentina during the 70's, but in the event I displayed my usual level of apathy and dawdled off to my room.

We have the head of MI5 here in a couple of weeks. Maybe I'll be as spectacularly incisive then.

Doubt it.

My Motto: Set yourself extremely low standards. And then fail to achieve them.

Carry on

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

mmm... napalm against civilians.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkyrooster
My Motto: Set yourself extremely low standards. And then fail to achieve them.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I couldn't care less by then. Italy had beaten Scotland earlier in the day and I was as happy as a dog with two dicks regardless

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Italy look to be not too far off being a good side.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Hmmm. Back on topic, I wonder how Henry Kissinger judges the reorganisation of the Welsh rugby set-up.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

One of my old boyfriends got drunk with Henry Kissinger at the Bohemian Grove one year. Unfortunately he wouldn't go into much detail.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Um...why didnt you get me his autograph? Hes one of my personal heros...

His answer about the Argentina question would have been:

quote:

---

The Argentine civil war required a resolution. The last thing American foriegn policy would tolerate was the further expansion of Soviet influence throughout the American hemisphere. In this vein I encouraged both a speedy outcome and a finalization of hostilities. The methods and specifics of the Argentine military's actions within its own sovereign borders were neither transparent to myself nor under my direct influence. The best one could hope for is a swift victory instead of prolonged bloodshed and this is what I urged.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Neither transparent to myself?

Fucking hell, that's lame. He knew precisely what was going on:


".....Henry Kissinger gave his approval to the "dirty war" in Argentina in the 1970s in which up to 30,000 people were killed, according to newly declassified US state department documents.

Mr Kissinger, who was America's secretary of state, is shown to have urged the Argentinian military regime to act before the US Congress resumed session, and told it that Washington would not cause it "unnecessary difficulties".

The revelations are likely to further damage Mr Kissinger's reputation. He has already been implicated in war crimes committed during his term in office, notably in connection with the 1973 Chilean coup.

The material, obtained by the Washington-based National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, consists of two memorandums of conversations that took place in October 1976 with the visiting Argentinian foreign minister, Admiral César Augusto Guzzetti. .

According to a verbatim transcript of a meeting on October 7 1976, Mr Kissinger reassured the foreign minister that he had US backing in whatever he did.

"Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed," Mr Kissinger is reported as saying. "I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems, but not the context.

"The quicker you succeed the better ... The human rights problem is a growing one ... We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help."

One day earlier, October 6 1976, Adml Guzzetti was told by a senior state department official, Charles Robinson, that "it is possible to understand the requirement to be tough". Mr Robinson is also reported as saying that "the problem is that the United States is an idealistic and moral country and its citizens have great difficulty in comprehending the kinds of problems faced by Argentina today".

"There is a tendency to apply our moral standards abroad and Argentina must understand the reaction of Congress with regard to loans and military assistance. The American people, right or wrong, have the perception that today there exists in Argentina a pattern of gross violations of human rights."

The US ambassador to Argentina, Robert Hill, had been putting pressure on the regime to stop human rights abuses. But after Adml Guzzetti returned from Washington, Mr Hill wrote from Buenos Aires to complain that the Argentinian foreign minister had not heard the same message from Mr Kissinger.

Adml Guzzetti had told the ambassador that Mr Kissinger had merely urged Argentina to "be careful", and had said that if the terrorist problem could be resolved by December or January, "serious problems could be avoided in the US". Mr Hill wrote at the time: "Guzzetti went to US fully expecting to hear strong, firm, direct warnings on his government's human rights practices. He has returned in a state of jubilation, convinced that there is no real problem with the USG [government] over that issue."

The then US assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Harry Shlaudeman, who attended both the Kissinger and the Robinson meetings with Adml Guzzetti, replied to Mr Hill: "As in other circumstances you have undoubtedly encountered in your diplomatic career, Guzzetti heard only what he wanted to hear. He was told in detail how strongly opinion in this country has reacted against reports of abuses by the security forces in Argentina and the nature of the threat this poses to Argentine interests."

However, as the newly released documents make clear, Adml Guzzetti was correct to believe that the regime had, in effect, been given carte blanche by the US government to continue its activities.

In a previously released cable, Mr Hill reported how his human rights concerns were dismissed by the Argentinian president, Jorge Videla: "[The] president said he had been gratified when Guzzetti reported to him that secretary of state Kissinger understood their problem and had said he hoped they could get terrorism under control as quickly as possible.

"Videla said he had the impression senior officers of the USG [government] understood situation his government faces, but junior bureaucrats do not. I assured him this was not the case. We all hope Argentina can get terrorism under control quickly - but to do so in such a way as to do minimum damage to its image and to its relations with other governments. If security forces continue to kill people to tune of brass band, I concluded, this will not be possible."

The revelations, which were also announced at a conference in Argentina yesterday, confirm suspicions at the time that the regime would not have continued to carry out atrocities unless it had the tacit approval of the US, on which it was dependent for financial and military aid.

The junta, which ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983, fell after the military's defeat in the Falklands war. During its period in power an estimated 30,000 people may have been arrested, tortured and killed. Many bodies have never been found.

An investigation into those crimes has begun in Argentina.

Mr Kissinger has been asked by the Chilean authorities to give evidence in connection with human rights abuses during the 1973 Chilean coup and the support he gave to the former dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. He is likely to be asked to do the same in Argentina"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina...1101122,00.html

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Kissinger didnt get fuckin dailys from the Argentine army for Gods sake...they were already fighting, its not like he started the mess. Anywho..I just typed what I figure his response would be. As you can see from the LACK of quotes of his in that stupid ass article the man wanted a resolution to the conflict and a balancing of power/stabalization of the region(100% consistent with his realist thought)...he did not advocate a prolonged civil war, he actually wanted to minimise the conflict by encouraging a swift outcome. Like it or not there was never a chance that the nations army was going to lose the conflict...this was a hard reality of the situation. The best one can do in that case is encourage a speedy settlement...or do you think the leftists should have been supported? I mean, its not a great choice but one had to be made.

Robinsons quote applies to you. Curb your idealism...it is worthless.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

'Swift outcome' isn't necessarily the same as minimising casualties at all, not when putting down a revolution or civil war.

I am pretty sure that no one has ever described funkyrooster as an idealist before. It is a bizarre thought.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

What Smug said

Essentially, the dwarf was quite happy for massive and systematic human rights abuses to occur, directed in a random and indicriminate way to thousands upon thousands of innocent people. And it was targeted at liberals as well as 'leftists'.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'm just disappointed that you drink gin & tonic.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mugtoe
I'm just disappointed that you drink gin & tonic.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mugtoe
I'm just disappointed that you drink gin & tonic.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ends matter...not means. This is where you and the dwarf disagree...

But seriously...the man runs laps around all of us in the smarts department...and if anything hes consistent. Also, in this case...I think he was right. I dont think it fair to condemn foreign policy makers if you would have done the same thing. In real life he didnt advocate random brutal slaughter for random brutal slaughters sake...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

So brutal random slaughter is OK so long as you aren't doing it just because you enjoy it? Is it OK to enjoy it if it is necessary?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

What would you have done then, Mr. Principles? First, I do not think that Kissinger had first hand knowldge of what was going on...hes got plausible deniability at least and even though he could have made a pretty good guess, like I said, he didnt get dailys from the Argentine military...of course we knew people were killing and being killed...it was a fucking civil war(coup, whichever you want). He backed one side of a civil war(in word only)...again, what would you have done? And dont ask me questions that you and I both know are loaded and rhetorical...just type 'postcount ++' instead, save us some time.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
So brutal random slaughter is OK so long as you aren't doing it just because you enjoy it? Is it OK to enjoy it if it is necessary?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3MTA3
What would you have done then, Mr. Principles? First, I do not think that Kissinger had first hand knowldge of what was going on...hes got plausible deniability at least and even though he could have made a pretty good guess, like I said, he didnt get dailys from the Argentine military...of course we knew people were killing and being killed...it was a fucking civil war(coup, whichever you want). He backed one side of a civil war(in word only)...again, what would you have done? And dont ask me questions that you and I both know are loaded and rhetorical...just type 'postcount ++' instead, save us some time.

---

Last edited by Smug Git on 03-13-2004 at 08:12 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

You make me have to pee.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Rooster hints at war criminal with his guardian article and says Kissinger was happy with what was going on...I think the only people that can do that are sitting in a pretty well defined portion of the ideological spectrum...idealist. In this case I think funky is pretty much ignoring the reality of the situation as it was...as idealists often do...and making a moral judgement on an amoral issue(its a security matter, nothing moral about it).

Idealist - One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with practical considerations.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Funkyrooster is a strategic analyst or something like that; in my conversations with him about past historical events he has always been far more interested in 'what worked' than in what was 'morally right'. And all he says is that Kissinger knew what was going on and felt that it wasn't appropriate for him to criticise it ('lenient attitude'). That is in essence the content of the phrase 'happy for...', too, despite the use of the word 'happy'. Assuming that you have read the posts that he has made in this forum over the last couple of years, I find it odd that you think him an idealist.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I dont really pay attention to peoples names.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Two things. Idealist or realist? Neither. But one of my pet hates is unqualified observers claiming stridently that idealsim is dead, and that realism is the only currency. Until you have been there, until you have seen the results of the ''strong' doing what they will, you have no right to claim that ground. It's all very well in theory, but coming across the body of a 12 year old girl who has had her eyes gouged out and who has been worked over with a blowtorch might make you think differently.

As for Kissinger, he knew precisely what was going on. I merely claim that his cynical attitude towards the affair, his absolute lack of concern at how the Junta was behaving as long as certain policy objectives were achieved, are distatesteful and stand in glaring contrast at the hagiographies that follow him around

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged