• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Trials of Henry Kissinger

Chris

Well-Known TRIBEr
Just curious if anyone else watched this last night.

Ive read the book, quite the eye opener on him and his career.

At time intesting, at the worst horrifying at some the things he had a hand in.
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
"Sometimes your forced to choose between evils" Henry Kissinger



Most people hate this guy. I find him brilliant, but in that evil sadistic way.
 

whatwaytoturn

TRIBE Member
Yes, admire someone for the sheer systematic abuse of their APPOINTED position.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. -Henry Kissinger
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
"Sometimes your forced to choose between evils" Henry Kissinger



Most people hate this guy. I find him brilliant, but in that evil sadistic way.

You have real insecurities Ditto, which is why you're attracted to power and size.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
You have real insecurities Ditto, which is why you're attracted to power and size.

No his power and his size aren't it, its the fact that he doesn't appologies. He acceptys the decisions he made, good and bad and doesn't change history to justify them.

I see a certain Einstein like quality in him.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by whatwaytoturn
Yes, admire someone for the sheer systematic abuse of their APPOINTED position.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. -Henry Kissinger



He honestly elieved in every decision he made, thirty years later he will still go to the wire for each and every decision made.

Yes he is evil, but I give credit to the man for his abilities. Same as I would say that Hitler was a great public motivator. Doesn't mean they aren't evil, just that I can look past that point.
 

whatwaytoturn

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
No his power and his size aren't it, its the fact that he doesn't appologies. He acceptys the decisions he made, good and bad and doesn't change history to justify them.

They're called sociopaths.. and just because they're rare to see in the public eye, does not make them a novelty. But admire him if you wish, I find him sad.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by whatwaytoturn
They're called sociopaths.. and just because they're rare to see in the public eye, does not make them a novelty. But admire him if you wish, I find him sad.



Sorry you can disagree with his policy all you want, but other than having a thick accent he has never exhibited a single example of avoiding social circumstances. This is a key aspect to the behavious of a sociopath.

Pick a new $5 word if you'd like but he is most definitely not a sociopath.

I understand that to many you have to be benevolent to be able to be respected. Personally I don't limit myself in that manner. He doesn't hide himself, he doesn't role over to public opinion, and he doesn't blame others.
 

whatwaytoturn

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much

Pick a new $5 word if you'd like but he is most definitely not a sociopath.

:rolleyes:

Let's look at the various characteristics that define a sociopath (which, looking at dictionary.com will not tell you, but thanx for letting us know you can use your browser for more than spewing borderline gay admiration for those who abuse power.)

Glibness/superficial charm. -check
Grandiose sense of self-worth. -check
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom -maybe
Pathological lying -check
Conning/manipulative -check
Lack of remorse or guilt -check
Shallow affect -check
Callous/lack of empathy -check
Parasitic lifestyle -maybe
Poor behavioral controls -don't know much about his personally to make that judgement
Promiscuous sexual behavior -frequented Studio54 regularly who knows what he was into
Early behavior problems -haven't looked this far
Lack of realistic, long-term plans -check
Impulsivity -check
Irresponsibility -check
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions -check
Many short-term marital relationships -married twice
Juvenile delinquency -haven't looked this far
Revocation of conditional release -anyone know law around here?
Criminal versatility (Hare, 1986) -check
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by whatwaytoturn
:rolleyes:

Role your eyes all you want he exhibits few of these charactistics. Going to studio 54 and being over 70 with 2 wives doesn't suggest any anti-social signs, if anything its normal. The man is one of the longest term thinkers out there. And his life has been extensively documented. He might be cold and have no value for human life in its simplist of forms but lets be realistic here, he was a secretary of state during the Vietnam war.

And if you call him charming than you have some sick fetish!

But this is not the biography of a sociopath!!!!


Henry Alfred Kissinger was the 56th Secretary of State of the United States from 1973 to 1977, continuing to hold the position of Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs which he first assumed in 1969 until 1975. After leaving government service, he founded Kissinger Associates, an international consulting firm, of which he is chairman.

Dr. Kissinger was born in Fuerth, Germany, on May 27, 1923, came to the United States in 1938, and was naturalised a United States citizen on June 19, 1943. He received the BA Degree Summa Cum Laude at Harvard College in 1950 and the MA and PhD Degrees at Harvard University in 1952 and 1954 respectively.

From 1954 until 1971 he was a member of the Faculty of Harvard University, both in the Department of Government and at the Center for International Affairs. He was Associate Director of the Center from 1957 to 1960. He served as Study Director, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, for the Council of Foreign Relations from 1955 to 1956; Director of the Special Studies Project for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund from 1956 to 1958; Director of the Harvard International Seminar from 1951 to 1971, and Director of the Harvard Defense Studies Program from 1958 to 1971. (He was on leave of absence from Harvard from January 1969 to January 1971).

Secretary Kissinger has written many books and articles on United States foreign policy, international affairs, and diplomatic history. Among the awards he has received are the Guggenheim Fellowship (1965-66), the Woodrow Wilson Prize for the best book in the fields of government, politics and international affairs (1958), the American Institute for Public Service Award (1973), the International Platform Association Theodore Roosevelt Award (1973), the Veterans of Foreign Wars Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Medal (1973), the Hope Award for International Understanding (1973), the Presidentia1 Medal of Freedom (1977) and the Medal of Liberty (1986).

He has served as a consultant to the Department of State (1965-68), United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1961-68), Rand Corporation (1961-68), National Security Council (1961-62), Weapons Systems Evaluation Group of the joint Chiefs of Staff (1959-60), Operations Coordinating Board (1955), Director of the Psychological Strategy Board (1952), Operations Research Office (1951), and Chairman of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America (1983-84).

From 1943 to 1946 Dr. Kissinger served in the U.S. Army Counter-Intelligence Corps and from 1946 to 1949 was a captain in the Military Intelligence Reserve.

He married Ann Fleischer in 1949 and was divorced in 1964. There were two children, Elizabeth and David. In 1974 he married Nancy Maginnes.

http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1973/kissinger-bio.html



This is the biography of a nobel prize winner for peace!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

whatwaytoturn

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much


This is the biography of a nobel prize winner for peace!

Yeah.. for needlessly drawing out the Vietnam conflict then 10's of thousands of lives later calling for peace when he finally realized saw his failed illegal invasions were pointless.. c'mon! I may also mention that Bush & Blair were also nominated for this prize which, was also won by Arafat, Beghin, and Rabin, who all have immensely violent histories which completely outweigh any peace efforts they may have participated in. Please tell me you're just being disingenuous and aren't really that naive.

And again, thanks for showing us you can cut & paste from a website which looks to justify the giving this asshat a prize for peace. It nicely leaves out the hundreds of thousands of needlessly displaced & murdered people at the direct hand of his foreign policy decisions.. it leaves out that this "man of peace" needlessly prolonged the Vietnam war, and deep-sixed initial peace efforts between collective Arab nationalists & Israel to redefine the terms to better serve Israel -which was one of the catalysts to the Yom Kippur war –again just to begin describing his "peaceful" legacy.

You’re right, I don’t like him.. but at least I can back up why.

P.S. Stop referring to the dictionary.com definition of a sociopath. Sociopath does not refer to someone who is anti-social, it refers to a psychological condition where the person is completely apathetic or unfeeling to the generally accepted definitions of what’s right & wrong behaviour.

*insert photoshop of Ditto shining Kissingers Helmut*
 

derek

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
He honestly elieved in every decision he made, thirty years later he will still go to the wire for each and every decision made.

Yes he is evil, but I give credit to the man for his abilities. Same as I would say that Hitler was a great public motivator. Doesn't mean they aren't evil, just that I can look past that point.

he's not evil, he's disillusioned, or more accurately exists in a paradigm where he believes his choices to be right and just. no different than shultz and all the others that were in his place.

he's still a war criminal. if anybody in any other counrty that is not a us client or supported state did that shit he did, they'd be in the world court as i type. america's violence against others is justified as their intentions are always benevolent even if civilians must die. violence against america is always an atrocity. see the mindset there trapped in.

the us tolerates dicators as long as the maintain the status quo, and don't mess with their financial or military interests.

one of the reasons the us didn't join the world court is they new kissinger's ass would be first on the chopping block.

cheers,

derek
 

Rocky

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by derek
he's not evil, he's disillusioned
Semantics.

...although, I don't believe that he really believes his choices to be right and just.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. -Henry Kissinger

"Sometimes your forced to choose between evils" -Henry Kissinger


He's evil.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

derek

TRIBE Member
good and evil are the ultimate semantics, also resulting in the ulitmate disilluionment.

they're dogmatic terms that are completely subjective depending on your point of view.

chossing between [the lesser of] two evils is semantics when there was not other option explored to begin with. it's usually an attmept at apology without saying sorry. doesn't mean he doesn't believe his actions were justified. winston churchill said pretty much the same thing in regards dressden.

if you watch the documentary you will clearly see kissinger attempting to justify the results of the admintstrative decisions made during his, prior & successive eras. it's the maintenance of the monroe doctrine and wilsonian democracy.

peace,

derek
 
Last edited:

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Rocky
Semantics.

...although, I don't believe that he really believes his choices to be right and just.



Again, to his credit. Sometimes you don't have a just and right option. Sometimes history and the world provide you with an accetpable loss.


"I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Winston Churchill

With regards to his gassing of Kurds. See history and values and judgments also change with time and with perpespective. Churchill planned the chemical slaughter of millions of people in Germany. He bombed and gassed thousands of civilians, intentionally and to the objection of his allies. He bombed the poorest neighborhoods of Germany knowing full well that they posed not threat of any kind or any military value. The objective was to “castrate the Germans”.

Tokyo was firebombed to the tune of half a million people. War is an ugly mess and those who stand in control of the armies will also always stand guilty of crimes against humanity. Its not that Kissinger is guilty of crimes against humanity, its not like Sharon isn’t guilty of crimes against humanity. Bush SR, Clinton, Reagan, and Kennedy there aren’t to many US presidents who aren’t guilty of crimes against humanity at some level.

Eventually however we must acknowledge the fact that war is a very strong portion of our culture and of humanity. There has never been a time when war hasn’t occurred and there has never been a time when the victors of war have tried there own military or government for acts of war. You put your enemies that have lost on trial; they don’t put you on trial.

Currently the USA is viewed as the enemy by many. And if you should win in your war against them than by all means bring each and everyone of them on trial. But until that date why would they choose to capitulate there military leaders to a world court. To bring smiles to your faces, or to cost them a small fortune in constantly having to defend each and every one of there generalls and leaders constantly.


I condemn the US for its use of Land Mines. But I understand why they use them and why they don't have a good alternative in certain areas. I don't support the use of deforesting agents, but I understand why they are used.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by derek

chossing between [the lesser of] two evils is semantics when there was not other option explored to begin with.

No its a saying with a much stronger meaning. It doesn't actually mean they had tweo choices, it means that when they weighed and explored various options and what they would require they had to make a choice.

Churchill allowed a town in his own country to be leveled by the germans. If he had chose to attack he would have given up the fact that they could monitor encrypted German codes. If this had happened he would have lost a crusal advantage that they were planning to exploit.

In this case the right choice is forever debatable, is there an acceptable loss, can he allow one town of people to fall for the purposes of saving more.
 

derek

TRIBE Member
i think it mainly means that u.s. violence against others (lesser evil) is justifiable in the face of dissidence against the u.s. you don't have to threaten the u.s. with violence to be treated with violence.

of course they explore different options, but the comparsion of evils isn't their own options. it's a measurement for jusitification of what could of happened to them versus the effectivness of the actions taken in thwarting any harm to themselves. in the end the result is usually violence.

rarely is the us diplomatic in difficult (countries that don't follow the model set for them, ot threaten to go off on there own) situations. they tend to always resort to violence.
 
Last edited:
Top