Visa Express Bangkok stole 2000 usd from me directly. Natchuda continued to direct my stay under the false assertion that she was legally operating a legitimate business. I lost roughly 4000 usd total because of that.
The more I research Henry Kissinger the more damning the evidence against him gets. What say Pinetree, TWS30 and McTavish in defence of Kissinger?
Probably nothing. But at least I asked them.
Your position is given on the assumption that everyone plays by the rules, that the prevailing codes are one of decency, honour, chivalry etc. On the contrary, much of the world plays by whatever they can get away with and it is often vile, cruel and deceitful. Dr. Kissinger and the USA adapted and compensated for those rules, albeit too late for some, and those were still far more humane, compassionate and reasonable than those who were on the opposing side.
Dr. Kissinger and the USA often gets beaten up over the bombing of Cambodia. What is never mentioned is that China, the VietCong and North Vietnamese regulars used supply routes through Cambodia and Laos. They were the first to violate and to exploit the purported neutrality of these countries. China and Russia were instrumental in the creation of the Pol Pot regime of terror. The USA negotiated in good faith the Paris Peace Accords. It was North Vietnam and China which quickly broke the agreement. It was the North Vietnamese who shot down UN peacekeeper aircraft and it was the Viet Cong North Vietnamese army who ruthlessly kidnapped the Canadian UN peacekeepers.
Many of the arguments made against the USA and Kissinger are driven more by ideology rather than hard factual evidence. The fact remains is that the Nixon presidency with Kissinger laid the groundwork for a reduction in world hostility between the nuclear powers and gave us arms control treaties and the building of trust between these nations. I am grateful that the nuclear war threat was reduced in that period.
As an illustration of the impact of playing by your imagined code of ethics, one need only look at the turmoil of Lebanon of the early 1980's. Diplomats and journalists from many countries were kidnapped, tortured, murdered or held for ransom. The UK , USA, and France all suffered. The UK and USA "good boy" approach resulted in their nationals' deaths and a cycle of killings and kidnappings. The French paid ransoms and retrieved their people, and also indirectly encourage further attacks on French nationals. The one country who did not screw around was the Soviet Union. The Russians played hard. The turning point was in 1985 when 4 Soviet diplomats were kidnapped by Lebanese terrorists, with a cultural attache tortured and then murdered, the Russians communicated in a form that the arabs understood; The KGB engineered the kidnapping of the Hizbollah leader and started kidnapping various members of Hizbolla and Islamic Jihad, cutting off their fingers and sending the digits back to the organizations. Not nice, but effective. After this demonstration of what happens when you attack the Soviets, they were never bothered again. That is what real politik is. The Soviets also tried to explain to westerners what need to be done, but the arrogant west replied with the same arguments you offer and suffered the consequences.