Not only did he do everything in service of the US empire, but there's not a single notable politician who disagrees with him or his agenda because it's also their agenda. Was he just the Trump before Trump, being indifferent about the optics?
I prefer "liberals have supported every war when the news told them to".
They don't see atrocities as the result of a system, just outliers, mistakes, bad individuals, and other things they can overlook.
Whereas showing them every single military conflict the US has engaged in since WWII, it's much harder for them to say "Oh, yes we were wrong all those other times, but Ukraine or China or Iran or <future conflict> is different"
They don't see atrocities as the result of a system, just outliers, mistakes, bad individuals, and other things they can overlook.
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/ep-13-the-always-stumbling-us-empire
I think the full quote is:
Liberals are against every war except the current one and they support every civil rights action except the present one.
Something very close to that effect anyway.
Liberals love being on the right side of history, but only after it happens.
-
he was a republican, and tied to nixon
-
he was in power long enough ago that it is safe to criticize the things america did while he was around
-
it's popular to hate him
-
they simply don't know that hillary and establishment dems loved him and looked up to him
-
What makes you think liberals hate Henry Kissinger? Last I knew they all thought he was a once-in-a-lifetime diplomat and statesman, who was willing to make the hard decisions necessary.
r/neolib civics nerds may defend Kissinger.
Your average Lib these days is somebody with a "gay pride" bumper sticker on their Subaru who thinks they're way more left wing than they actually are. They probably think they hate Kissinger but don't have any idea why, Jon Steward made a joke about him being bad once that's all they remember.
Same reason they love MLK. He's dead and it doesn't make a difference.
Isn’t it crazy that to this day no one has a coherent reason for the Vietnam war happening? Like libs still use domino theory as a justification as if that shouldn’t make you question your sanity.
What do you mean coherent theory? Like the reasoning is stupid but isn't that exactly why we went in?
Domino theory is stupid because it relies on the premise that nations turn to communism due to their proximity to other communist nations and not the multitude of other reasons they would choose to become communist. It’s basically “the communist mind virus” as a foreign policy. It’s not coherent at all and actively spits in the face of historical materialism.
Also, why isn't Thailand communist? Why isn't Khazakstan communist? Finland? Turkey? India?
Why did the nominally communist government in Cambodia get destroyed by Vietnam? Why no new communist government there? How about Burma?
It's clear from the following history that being adjacent to a communist state doesn't turn a state communist.
I thought that "they were dabbling in communism and we had to set them straight" qualifies as an acceptable reason for a military invasion for most of the Americans.
The cool food guy on tv told them to, before also telling them it would be dope to bomb iran.
Yeah, I'm kind of confused too, I don't remember him saying anything like that. I'm sure it'd be brought up here more often if he did.
I did find this blog where he says some real enlightened centrist shit.
https://blogsofwar.com/anthony-bourdain-talks-travel-food-and-war/
As a political ideology and as a practical matter, I loath communism. However, I often find myself getting along very well with communists. I feel the same way about Red State America. Not my world, not always my point of view. But I always have a good time in gun country America and tend to like the people I meet. Palin sticker on your bumper or Che Guevara–if you have a sense of humor and enjoy food made with pride, chances are, we can be pals.
Look he's a TV chef with a drug problem. He's not gonna be right 100% of the time.
*was
Definitely don't expect that, and just the fact that he went to places like Iran and didn't demonize them makes him better than a hell of a lot of people to me.
Do they even hate Kissinger? I assumed they at least ReSpEcTeD him.
they disagreed with him when he said doing the ukraine bit would be a bad idea... kissinger lived long enough to become a putin bot.
The focus group results said their approval ratings would go up if they show a mild disdain for Henry Kissinger.
Well, a lot of liberals like Henry Kissinger. His endorsement was sought out by the Clinton campaign in 2016. He was very popular among those in power for a very long time and that definitely includes establishment democrats. I think your average democrat voter simply never thought of Henry Kissinger positively or negatively.
If they dislike him now, it's probably because he's dead and irrelevant.
He said that we should do peace talks in ukraine, so suddenly people who really disliked his Ukraine takes started remembering all the fucked up things he's done over the years and made him an acceptable target of liberal hate in addition to the standard communist hate he would get.
They associate him with Watergate, which brought The Office of The President of The United States (TM) (swelling West Wing music in background) into disrepute.
Most liberals don't even know who he is. They live in a fog of political slogans and whatever the NYT (filtered through Reddit or the local news or radio) told them to believe last week.
when to bomb and when to peace
