Senator McCain calls anti-Kissinger protesters low life scum

[Hanzhong (Ancient)]

Cavorting with Ukrainian neo-Nazis, and now this. McCain should salvage what remains of his dignity and retire to the Old Senator's Home.

Kissinger of course, should appear before an international tribunal for war crimes.

And destroy our international standing that we're right in what we're doing?

Pffft. You got too much faith.

Oh, I have no faith at all. Note that I was talking about what should happen, not what I expect will happen.

In terms of my expectation, I expect McCain to continue his public descent into senility, with much more hilarious statements to come.

I expect Kissinger to die at home in his bed with no regrets, to be given a state funeral and a cavalcade of adoring obituaries.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That doesn't deny the fact that we cannot apply current morality to the past.

Historians often refrain from it. You cannot judge a person's actions once they are gone and declare them evil scum. You can, however, give honest disapproval of such actions and ensure people remember these things so it never happens again.

let's apply the morality of the day then! what's that? there were still many abolitionists and even abolitionist nations who clearly knew it was wrong, and hell even jefferson said it was wrong, but they did it anyway because it's too much effort to change and it benefits then and justified it with "w-well everyone does it"? basically the same arguments you are almost going to definitely use in defence of U.S. foreign policy and kissinger? lol.

Yes, and? Just because it happened doesn't mean it's not wrong today, in fact it is perfectly reasonable to see it as wrong if something similar was to happen today. Just because slavery happened in the 1700s doesn't mean I don't think slavery is not wrong, and simply because Kissinger's Foreign Policy was definitely amoral doesn't mean I'd like to see an amoral policy return to the United States' policy (which we have departed somewhat from). Do note that I am not, in any way shape or form condemning these actions, because I can't, they're not happening today. I can say however that we need to learn from the past and ensure it doesn't happen again.

In other words, hindsight is useful, but what are you going to do about what happened in the past? Can you go back in time and solve it? No, you can't. It's why we don't bother by being offended with the actions that happened 50 years back and we are more offended if something happens today.

[Alyakia]

let's apply the morality of the day then! what's that? there were still many abolitionists and even abolitionist nations who clearly knew it was wrong, and hell even jefferson said it was wrong, but they did it anyway because it's too much effort to change and it benefits then and justified it with "w-well everyone does it"? basically the same arguments you are almost going to definitely use in defence of U.S. foreign policy and kissinger? lol.

Yes, and? Just because it happened doesn't mean it's not wrong today, in fact it is perfectly reasonable to see it as wrong if something similar was to happen today. Just because slavery happened in the 1700s doesn't mean I don't think slavery is not wrong, and simply because Kissinger's Foreign Policy was definitely amoral doesn't mean I'd like to see an amoral policy return to the United States' policy (which we have departed somewhat from). Do note that I am not, in any way shape or form condemning these actions, because I can't, they're not happening today. I can say however that we need to learn from the past and ensure it doesn't happen again.

In other words, hindsight is useful, but what are you going to do about what happened in the past? Can you go back in time and solve it? No, you can't. It's why we don't bother by being offended with the actions that happened 50 years back and we are more offended if something happens today.

we can't go back and undo any crimes or immoral actions but there's a general guideline that gets followed

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, and? Just because it happened doesn't mean it's not wrong today, in fact it is perfectly reasonable to see it as wrong if something similar was to happen today. Just because slavery happened in the 1700s doesn't mean I don't think slavery is not wrong, and simply because Kissinger's Foreign Policy was definitely amoral doesn't mean I'd like to see an amoral policy return to the United States' policy (which we have departed somewhat from). Do note that I am not, in any way shape or form condemning these actions, because I can't, they're not happening today. I can say however that we need to learn from the past and ensure it doesn't happen again.

In other words, hindsight is useful, but what are you going to do about what happened in the past? Can you go back in time and solve it? No, you can't. It's why we don't bother by being offended with the actions that happened 50 years back and we are more offended if something happens today.

we can't go back and undo any crimes or immoral actions but there's a general guideline that gets followed

Yes, and if that general guideline doesn't happen because of any reason all you are doing is saying "well it's immoral!" immoral as opposed to what? The present? Your morals?

The present learned from the past and if you'd have lived in that era you probably would have been no better. So there's no point in feeling offended about crimes or immoral actions that happened in the past, but rather learn from them and prevent their happening again.

[The Emerald Dawn]

we can't go back and undo any crimes or immoral actions but there's a general guideline that gets followed

Yes, and if that general guideline doesn't happen because of any reason all you are doing is saying "well it's immoral!" immoral as opposed to what? The present? Your morals?

The present learned from the past and if you'd have lived in that era you probably would have been no better. So there's no point in feeling offended about crimes or immoral actions that happened in the past, but rather learn from them and prevent their happening again.

I'm going to need some sort of proof for the underlined.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, and if that general guideline doesn't happen because of any reason all you are doing is saying "well it's immoral!" immoral as opposed to what? The present? Your morals?

The present learned from the past and if you'd have lived in that era you probably would have been no better. So there's no point in feeling offended about crimes or immoral actions that happened in the past, but rather learn from them and prevent their happening again.

I'm going to need some sort of proof for the underlined.

Well, we don't think the holocaust is an awesome thing nowadays and that Jewish people are scum, do we?

I mean, there's people who do, but they are now regarded as crazy.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm going to need some sort of proof for the underlined.

Well, we don't think the holocaust is an awesome thing nowadays and that Jewish people are scum, do we?

I mean, there's people who do, but they are now regarded as crazy.

That all depends on where you live, mate.

[Hanzhong (Ancient)]

Well, we don't think the holocaust is an awesome thing nowadays and that Jewish people are scum, do we?

I mean, there's people who do, but they are now regarded as crazy.

That all depends on where you live, mate.

Also, genocide is still very much a thing.

So have "we" really learned?

[Marcurix]

That doesn't deny the fact that we cannot apply current morality to the past.

Historians often refrain from it. You cannot judge a person's actions once they are gone and declare them evil scum. You can, however, give honest disapproval of such actions and ensure people remember these things so it never happens again.

let's apply the morality of the day then! what's that? there were still many abolitionists and even abolitionist nations who clearly knew it was wrong, and hell even jefferson said it was wrong, but they did it anyway because it's too much effort to change and it benefits then and justified it with "w-well everyone does it"?

That's an incredibly simplistic and incorrect way of looking at it.

basically the same arguments you are almost going to definitely use in defence of U.S. foreign policy and kissinger? lol.

As blessed as you are with hindsight and not being put in said situation, you've still missed the point of being objective.

[Orlogtun]

Kissinger is an ass with a massive infatuation with realpolitik and a hard-on for Bismarck large enough for its own zip code. However, he is also a master of foreign policy and an amazing diplomat. I don't like Kissinger, but you really can't help but respect him. I'm pretty much apathetic towards the protesters. McCain is the only real bad guy here.

And seriously, calling Kissinger a war criminal is a bit much. No politician is a paragon of decency.

When your policies result in the deaths of innocents, you deserve to be called out on it. We don't give Hitler respect because he was a good manipulator do we? Nor do we give respect to Stalin who stabilized Russia through use of his iron fisted rule

One alternative was to continue the dogmatic pursuit of containment as the US had done during the years after the end of the Second World War. Kissinger's impact on US foreign policy cannot be underestimated in spite of the occasional misstep. He was the first US Secretary of State to realise that American dominance was entirely contingent upon its acquiescence to the political and even territorial aims of its allies.

[Aryavartha]

kissinger and nixon knew of bangladeshi genocide by pak army by the so called blood telegrams. and they chose to be ok with it.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

McCain's wording was very harsh, but I do think that Kissinger was an intelligent, rational diplomat. Calling someone "low life scum" because they disagree with you says a lot about a person. People love to call McCain a "maverick" as if it's a good thing, but it's basically the nice way to say "you're a dick."

[The Emerald Dawn]

McCain's wording was very harsh, but I do think that Kissinger was an intelligent, rational diplomat. Calling someone "low life scum" because they disagree with you says a lot about a person. People love to call McCain a "maverick" as if it's a good thing, but it's basically the nice way to say "you're a dick."

Really? I thought "McCain's a dick" *was* the nice way to put it.

He's a total embarrassment to the uniform he wore, and the office he's serving in.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

McCain's wording was very harsh, but I do think that Kissinger was an intelligent, rational diplomat. Calling someone "low life scum" because they disagree with you says a lot about a person. People love to call McCain a "maverick" as if it's a good thing, but it's basically the nice way to say "you're a dick."

Really? I thought "McCain's a dick" *was* the nice way to put it.

He's a total embarrassment to the uniform he wore, and the office he's serving in.

Eh, perhaps he just became grumpy when he aged. But saying that McCain is a dick is the nicest way I can talk about the man.

...Kissinger was still great, though.

[Geilinor]

Kissinger was honestly a terrible Secretary of State and advisor. He is arguably responsible, at least in part, for many of the US's worst foreign policy moves, including letting in the Shah

Kissinger was nowhere in the government in 1953. It's almost as if he magically appears where a bad move is made *nods*.