Kissinger is riding high on his memoirs. He has been stuck in cold war/Soviet-era policy. But I admit a broken clock is right twice a day, so even can be right every now and then.
I'm not saying he's right.
Kissinger is riding high on his memoirs. He has been stuck in cold war/Soviet-era policy. But I admit a broken clock is right twice a day, so even can be right every now and then.
Many people still remember him, and not wel. Every time he came to Yale there were massive protests over him being a “war criminal.”Hahaha...I'm just impressed that people remember the ole codger...
Many people still remember him, and not wel. Every time he came to Yale there were massive protests over him being a “war criminal.”
Considering the source, that was the Left's blanket term for anybody remotely associated with the conduct of the war. Everybody who came back from Vietnam was a war criminal. Everybody in uniform was a war criminal. Unless you pulled a John Kerry and openly demonstrated your contempt for the military.
My feelings about Kissinger are mixed. He's brilliant, cold, kinda creepy. But brilliant. I think his views on Russia--not to antagonize her--stem from his view on power balances that may not be as relevant now as they were in 1970.
And there's been blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Left when it comes to the Vietnam era. The former members of the "counter culture" worship the World War Two generation now, (i.e. their parents), but hated them then. Many of them still resent Vietnam veterans but forget that it was the World War Two generation that got us involved, ran the war and led the troops.
Was* a legit commentator. That's some straight up appeasement rhetoric when we're talking about a adversary of the west. Allowing Russia to achieve their current goals would create a lack of food security in the west beyond what is currently happening. Ukraine is the largest wheat producer in the world. It's been called the "breadbasket" of Europe.Kissenger is a legit commentator even if you disagree with what he says and you're surprised he's both still alive and younger than you thought he'd be.
Ukraine is the largest wheat producer in the world. It's been called the "breadbasket" of Europe.
Just because you disagree doesn't make him any less legitimate. He's got more experience than either of us and we don't have to agree with him but contributions like this do hold some value even if just to help us test our thoughts.Was* a legit commentator. That's some straight up appeasement rhetoric when we're talking about a adversary of the west. Allowing Russia to achieve their current goals would create a lack of food security in the west beyond what is currently happening. Ukraine is the largest wheat producer in the world. It's been called the "breadbasket" of Europe.
Just because you disagree doesn't make him any less legitimate. He's got more experience than either of us and we don't have to agree with him but contributions like this do hold some value even if just to help us test our thoughts.
Just because you disagree doesn't make him any less legitimate. He's got more experience than either of us and we don't have to agree with him but contributions like this do hold some value even if just to help us test our thoughts.
I've heard him interviewed recently & he's still pertinent. The view to give up territory is an interesting one, considering that it's already happened in three regions. There seems to me to be a realisation with the conflict that either it's time for a resolution or it will continue for years. He's always been controversial & my original view was he was an arch villain, but on reading some of his works I changed tack completely. Has anyone here actually read anything he's published? BTW he's writing another & at his age that's not bad.He might be Dr. Strangelove, but he's got a lifetime of senior statesmanship and global political acumen in that old brain of his and is still able to make some sense. Whether or not it's good sense is a matter of opinion.
I've heard him interviewed recently & he's still pertinent. The view to give up territory is an interesting one, considering that it's already happened in three regions. There seems to me to be a realisation with the conflict that either it's time for a resolution or it will continue for years. He's always been controversial & my original view was he was an arch villain, but on reading some of his works I changed tack completely. Has anyone here actually read anything he's published? BTW he's writing another & at his age that's not bad.
I've heard him interviewed recently & he's still pertinent. The view to give up territory is an interesting one, considering that it's already happened in three regions. There seems to me to be a realisation with the conflict that either it's time for a resolution or it will continue for years. He's always been controversial & my original view was he was an arch villain, but on reading some of his works I changed tack completely. Has anyone here actually read anything he's published? BTW he's writing another & at his age that's not bad.
I've heard him interviewed recently & he's still pertinent. The view to give up territory is an interesting one, considering that it's already happened in three regions. There seems to me to be a realisation with the conflict that either it's time for a resolution or it will continue for years. He's always been controversial & my original view was he was an arch villain, but on reading some of his works I changed tack completely. Has anyone here actually read anything he's published? BTW he's writing another & at his age that's not bad.
I had my doubts…It’s okay, mate, you managed to make sense. We’ll done!