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 . . .
Now I didn't respond to the rest of your post. Yet. The reply to your opening paragraph turned out to be lengthier than I expected.
However, I did notice that within your reply you did not address the important question which I suggested you ask yourself to determine whether or not this concept of "the greater good" is indeed a valid one. I made the question stand out so as not to miss it.
Now if your answer is that you would willingly and eagerly sacrifice yourself, your family, and your loved ones for this "greater good" then I have to ask you, do you have any other suicidal thoughts?
Can you answer that question directly now? Yes or no. Expounding on your answer is optional.