That I was goalseeking my conclusion of Kissinger is a false claim. Perhaps you are goalseeking that it was my conclusion from the start. Let's at least be honest, shall we?
In fact, throughout my posts I often did acknowledge the middle ground. For instance:
How accurate are your sentiments when put under scrutiny, Pinetree?
Fair and balanced question, isn't it?
Fair and balanced as well.
Again, fair and balanced.
Now I did point out much of Kissinger's dark underbelly. But none of the facts I raised about him were untrue. In fact they were accurate. And undeniable.
Now if Pinetree, or anyone else for that matter, paints Kissinger as a saint then I am not shy about bring them back to reality. For in no way was he a saint, nor should his visage ever be coined or seen on a postage stamp. His faults ran too deep.
And neither would I attempt to excuse him for his faults by citing "circumstances" or "the times."
There's a fallacy which many have about man. People tend to believe that there are "good" people and there are "bad" people in the world. Neither one exists. At least not in the absolute. What is true is that every man and women is a mixture of both "good" and "bad." To varying degrees, of course. But no one can be judged as "pure evil." Again, such a one-sided creature exists nowhere. Though they can be painted as such. And vice versa.
Perhaps the best compliment I can give Kissinger is that he was an idealist. I would say that to be true and accurate. Unfortunately, as they say, even the best intentioned can do ungodly harm.
Kissinger devised and personally led Operation Menu, which led to the deaths of untold Cambodian civilians. In fact it targeted civilians. That is acceptable? To whom? I repeat, to whom? And for whose "greater good?"
And here comes the rational, the reasoning, to justify the outright slaughter of innocents and the utter disregard for sanctity of life. Reminds me of another fanatic, on Madeline Albright, who, when asked if the deaths of 500,000 children was worth it, replied in the affirmative.
The death of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was "a very hard choice, but the price-we think the price is worth it" ~Madeleine Albright
To partially quote you; "What is never mentioned is that . . . " Yes, what is never mentioned is that the aims and intentions of geopolitics are rarely what they appear to be. I warned in my earlier post to beware of taking all at face value. I need to be more emphatic so I will add a flashing red light to that warning.
It is a well known fact that is undeniable that Kissinger, and Nixon for that matter, acted oftentimes in utter secrecy. Why? Because the reasoning they gave the people for their actions was not the face value amount. They had to lie, and lie often, else their true intentions would have never had been accepted or allowed to pass.
Ever notice the framing of so much dubious governmental action as being "in the interests of national security and the national interests of our country" has become the go-to euphemism used with ever greater frequency to obfuscate government's true intentions? And that if anyone determines to obtain any information regarding those actions it is all bound up in secrecy and denied on grounds of national security?
Kissinger himself made a pact with the custodian of his personal papers that they not be released until five years after his death.
Now if you don't accept what you're told at face value, given the endless known and proven lies of governments and politicians throughout history, you are automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist. The term is a deliberate invention to equate mere questioning, which is an inherent human characteristic that is impossible to quash, with madness. Anyone who questions officialdom, anyone who, again despite the endless instances of known and proven lies of officialdom, is labeled a nut job.
How much more evidence of deceit must one have before they retract their blind trust to officialdom? For one thing which is plainly and painfully obvious is that the true intentions of governments and their actors are rarely what they appear to be.
I'd say the same applies to Kissinger. For all of his blessings, and he was highly blessed in many regards, he was a proven liar and therefore not to be trusted. Only those, in my humble opinion, who turn a blind eye to inconvenient facts and truths and thus play with only half a deck, are satisfied with his portrait as . . .