Would you support the extradition of Henry Kissenger to the ICC?

[Cory]

Absolutely not.

[Cory]

Grounds?

Not being naive about foreign policy. They just don't understand that we need people like him.

[Cory]

Yeah, 'cause East Timor was such a threat to U.S. interests.

There is more then East Timor in Kissinger's record. Don't cherry pick an incident and build a career spanning narrative around it. Detente, the Opening of China, Shuttle Diplomacy in the Yom Kippur War to name a few.

Don't be silly. Foreign policy is more complicated then good guys and bad guys.

[Cory]

The opening of China was built directly on Bangladeshi lives. All completely unnecessary too--he could have opened contact with China thru Romania.

Go on/extrapolate.....

So you think Chauchescu could operate as a serious go-between for Nixon and Mao?

[Cory]

If Kissinger were to be extradited to the ICC it would be on the basis of specifc crimes and not on an evaluation of his entire career/time in office and whether that was "beneficial". So the cherry picking accusation is pointless.

If a guy committed a murder in the past it is not cherry picking to bring him to justice for that, even if he was generally a very productive and beneficial member of society (lets say an entrepreneur who founded a major company and created thousands of jobs).

So are you going to have literally every foreign policy maker for every country tried? Foreign policy isn't pretty. It's the most "dark" of the political arts because it is all about either national interest or ideological objectives.

[Cory]

It's the most "dark" of the political arts because we allowed it to be so.

It's not that simple and you know it.

[Cory]

My argument is already more complex that your "it is so because it has to be so" fallacy.

No it isn't.

What's your prescription for Cold War geo-politics from the American perspective? Just play nice and hope things will work out?

[Cory]

I'd really like to hear Cory explain why expanding air bombing into Cambodia and Laos over the objections of Congress without informing Congress was necessary to win the Cold War.

The bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trial was needed to interdict enemy supplies flowing from the North. Cambodia and Laos were "neutral" in name only. As for Congress, they often times lack the vision or understanding of these issues to be informed of everything. They would just make political hay out of it.

Or the subsequent support of the Khmer Rouge regime because it was pro-Beijing and not pro-Moscow.

The more we can do to turn China and the Soviets against each other, the better. Have them duke it out and use them as wedges against each other. This strategy worked quite well, actually.

It can't be because of a vested need to fight Communism in SE Asia because Kissinger also oversaw peace with Hanoi and the withdrawal from Vietnam.

The goal was not regime change in the North.

Oh, perhaps Cory's referring to the coup and murder of the president of Chile that Kissinger supported. That essential Cold War victory.

I never said I support literally everything they did. But from a raw geo-political perspective, yes the installment of a pro-American dictator and in Chile was a win.

You objections seem to be based more on moral grounds then actual policy failures.