Comment by unethical_ban

Should a country overthrow the democratically elected government of another country because of non-life-threatening business losses? (Chile)

Should a country delay a peace process with an enemy nation for several years for the sake of optics over peace? (Vietnam)

Should a world leader meant to promote peace and de-escalation of armed conflict intentionally snub and antagonize their chief political rival with nukes, for the sake of optics? (USSR regarding wars in the mideast)

From my brief reading in the past few hours, it seems he decided a number of US policy positions that not only killed a large number of humans, but did so by expressly ignoring the stated principles of liberalism, self-determination and human decency and honor.

So I guess if people were to fully support him and his actions, I would at least ask them to be consistent and say "I do not believe in a rules-based world order and I do not believe the US has any obligation to advance human rights worldwide".

There are times the US has done things that were horrific, but were deemed absolutely essential to saving more lives than they cost - such as the bombing of Japan. Kissinger's difference is that none of the moves he endorsed seem to have been necessary to the survival of the "West" or the US, but it cost more lives than the bombings.