Khmer Rouge And The West.

[cdnvic]

It wouldn't be the first time the Chinese played opposing cold war nations off each other.

[ColPyat]

It wouldn't be the first time the Chinese played opposing cold war nations off each other.

Same counts for the US - having very successfully played the China and Russia out against each other as well. Victims of that were the Tibetans (read 'Orphan's of the Cold War'), and also the Cambodians (Vietnamese supported by Russia - Khmer Rouge supported by the West and China in the civil war era).

Sickening history.

[keemapoot]

I was on the border from 1980-85 and again 1991-93 and can state first hand that in both policy and fact, the US did not provide any type of aid or material support to the KR.

of course not... if your source is the "National Enquirer".

You are a quite blustery misinformed, old fool aren't you?

* Could this be related to the fact that Germany got whipped and you haven't recovered from this?

i am sure you are right little poor boy. old german fools like me carry the heavy burden that Germany got whipped with them till they die. it's especially hard in the mornings when i open my eyes and my first thought is "why did Germany get whipped?"

Dr. Water, I'm not a poor boy, and am in fact, quite rich. However, I'm very happy that the Marshall Plan and the US supported Germany after the war to rise to its rightful place as an economic power. But, this is of course, off topic of Khmer Rouge.

[Amararete]

Do you speak Chinese at home? Do you speak russian at work? Do the People of China, Japan, Thailand, and Indochina speak Japanese? Do the citizens of Europe all speak German?

No?

You're all quite welcome. Sorry about all the bombing and the sneaky financing. Right up to this day, as the cost is dearly laid upon the alter of freedom for those Iraqis and Afghans, for the Albanians, and for the South Koreans who do not have to sing Kim Jong Elvis's praises.

Sorry 'bout all the noise.

Millions died in Cambodia, what a devestating tragedy it was. 30 Million died in China, 32 Million in Russia. 9 Million in Germany, 11 Million in Japan. On and on it goes.

Where does it stop?

It does not. Pick a team. Play your part.

If you choose not to decide, you abdicate to those who have chosen to act. Everyone waging war, who is waging peace? How is that done EFFECTIVELY, such that killing in six figures stops?

Absent that small piece of the puzzle, you may expect this to continue as it has.

In fifty years, our economies will no longer be running on oil. Who will have the economic weight to wage peace then?

Pol Pot sucked, because he made it as simple as it could be: Find everyone who does not agree to our plan, and kill them.

Oh, wait! That's Al Quaeda's Line! Oh, OKAY! I get it!

Do You?

[ColPyat]

Sorry about all the bombing and the sneaky financing. Right up to this day, as the cost is dearly laid upon the alter of freedom for those Iraqis and Afghans, for the Albanians, and for the South Koreans who do not have to sing Kim Jong Elvis's praises.

Sorry 'bout all the noise.

If you still believe that it is all about freedom, then you should read Gen. Smedley Butler's "War Is a Racket".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

Nothing changed.

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints."

Gen. Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, 1935

"There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders. In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialed."

Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, on the Iraq War, 2007

"A business absolutely devoted to service will have only one worry about profits. They will be embarrassingly large."

Henry Ford, American entrepreneur, founder of Ford Motor Company, awarded 1938 the Grand Cross of the German Eagle - the highest award Nazi Germany gave to foreigners

etc.

Edited October 14, 2007 by ColPyat

[ColPyat]

Actually, that's fun:

"It is our conduct, our patriotism and belief in our American way of life, our courage that will win the final battle."

Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush, indicted under the trading with the enemy act in 1942, for his collaboration with Nazi Germany.

[dog412]

It wouldn't be the first time the Chinese played opposing cold war nations off each other.

Same counts for the US - having very successfully played the China and Russia out against each other as well. Victims of that were the Tibetans (read 'Orphan's of the Cold War'), and also the Cambodians (Vietnamese supported by Russia - Khmer Rouge supported by the West and China in the civil war era).

Sickening history.

sickening history indeed, however it is reality. in this particular topic, however, you may have made a better point by criticising Stalin, Mao, and Ho himself, for the beginning of the violence that was thought necessary to dispose of the French presence. uncle Ho was no angel.

[ColPyat]

sickening history indeed, however it is reality. in this particular topic, however, you may have made a better point by criticising Stalin, Mao, and Ho himself, for the beginning of the violence that was thought necessary to dispose of the French presence. uncle Ho was no angel.

He definitely wasn't an angel.

The fun part here though is that Uncle Ho worked during WW2 for the OSS - the preceding organization for the CIA, because he was promised by the US a free Vietnam. After De Gaulle's pressure the US though returned Vietnam to France after WW2.

We don't need to debate on Stalin - he was one of the worst mass murderers humanity has seen. Mao is a bit more controversial. I personally believe that the revolution in China was necessary, and there simply was at the time no realistic alternative to Mao (and Chiang Kai Check was IMHO no alternative, and not one bit better than Mao). Only after the revolution Mao has quickly lost it, and caused tremendous suffering.

Edited October 14, 2007 by ColPyat

[dog412]

sickening history indeed, however it is reality. in this particular topic, however, you may have made a better point by criticising Stalin, Mao, and Ho himself, for the beginning of the violence that was thought necessary to dispose of the French presence. uncle Ho was no angel.

He definitely wasn't an angel.

The fun part here though is that Uncle Ho worked during WW2 for the OSS - the preceding organization for the CIA, because he was promised by the US a free Vietnam. After De Gaulle's pressure the US though returned Vietnam to France after WW2.

We don't need to debate on Stalin - he was one of the worst mass murderers humanity has seen. Mao is a bit more controversial. I personally believe that the revolution in China was necessary, and there simply was at the time no realistic alternative to Mao (and Chiang Kai Check was IMHO no alternative, and not one bit better than Mao). Only after the revolution Mao has quickly lost it, and caused tremendous suffering.

if i remember correctly, th

was involved

[Amararete]

Half of it: "If you still believe that it is all about freedom, then you should read Gen. Smedley Butler's "War Is a Racket".

Other Half of it: "It is our conduct, our patriotism and belief in our American way of life, our courage that will win the final battle."

The trick is this: If 300 million people with the finest technological and creative skill set on the planet all believe it is for freedom and patriotism, then they will fight for that with resolve and courage - and they will win. Having won, they will not pay much attention to the losers or the bystanders making counter-arguments about why the fight was made.

If you still think you can dissuade the USA from believing that it is about freedom, well then - good luck to you. Leftists embracing communism, new-agers embracing pylons, or whatever silly thing you like. To the mainstream machinery of industry, capitalism, firepower, and fun, those alternative points of view are just curiosities. Hippie talk, or Yuppie talk, or WHATEVER.

Capture the imagination of America, and the whole world will turn your way. Right you are that the Capitalists want the military and the government to do their bidding. Scary too. Those big pieces of pie are terrifying, at least to me. Spin all the conspiracy theories you like.

In the end, the foreign policy of the United States is very uncomplicated and guileless: 1) dont mess with the USA. 2) Basic Human rights come first, everything else comes after that on the strength of its ability to compete for attention, votes, US Aid, or world markets. 3) Encourage democracy as a neighbor, do not impose it as an agressor...(THE USA TOTALLY CRAPPED ON ITSELF BY VIOLATING THIS PRECEPT AND UNILATERALLY INVADING IRAQ). Now that we radicalized that last piece of foreign policy, the USA has lost credibility. Those who seek to gain more power in the world have seized on that, and want it said that the USA has lost ALL credibility. No. Just lost some credibility. The US acts with restraint all over the place. Nations that uphold their people's rights enjoy very favorable circumstances with the USA. Nations that do not respect their people's human rights have significant problems with the USA.

There are disgusting exceptions, but that is the rule, and it has been followed in the overwhelming majority of US history. Had it not been, we would have no allies to speak of. The exact opposite is true. We have alliances with all of the most enlightened and advanced nations on earth, tight economic and military ties, and a fairly unified view of where we all want things to be headed in the future.

Lately, there is alot of pissing in Uncle Sam's beard. But its just piss. Insulting as it may intend to be, it is just piss. Nothing there to back it up.

If we think its for freedom, we will fight. Regardless of what anyone else does, we will fight. And win. With or without the help of all those nations we liberated, rebuilt, and embraced in trade and defense. They were not our friends before 1940. Now they are not our friends after 2003.

Difference is, now we are wide awake. No more games. That is the piss. Alot of once proud nations, with colonies everywhere, have lost their empires, and it bothers them. Do you know that we in America could have cared less either way, and even did our part to help re-establish those nations' colonies. But those colonies all caught fire and burned unceasingly for liberation. Those fires still burn today, all over the world.

[dog412]

sickening history indeed, however it is reality. in this particular topic, however, you may have made a better point by criticising Stalin, Mao, and Ho himself, for the beginning of the violence that was thought necessary to dispose of the French presence. uncle Ho was no angel.

He definitely wasn't an angel.

The fun part here though is that Uncle Ho worked during WW2 for the OSS - the preceding organization for the CIA, because he was promised by the US a free Vietnam. After De Gaulle's pressure the US though returned Vietnam to France after WW2.

We don't need to debate on Stalin - he was one of the worst mass murderers humanity has seen. Mao is a bit more controversial. I personally believe that the revolution in China was necessary, and there simply was at the time no realistic alternative to Mao (and Chiang Kai Check was IMHO no alternative, and not one bit better than Mao). Only after the revolution Mao has quickly lost it, and caused tremendous suffering.

if i remember correct, the OSS was involved during the Japanese occupation. uncle Ho did get around. but, it was the Chinese backing, with the compliance of the Russian state, that supported the Viet Minh, which was Ho's own personal "solution" to the problems he saw were at hand.

[ColPyat]

Half of it: "If you still believe that it is all about freedom, then you should read Gen. Smedley Butler's "War Is a Racket".

Other Half of it: "It is our conduct, our patriotism and belief in our American way of life, our courage that will win the final battle."

The one half was a highly decorated General that became disgusted by the conduct of the US governments bing only a front for big business, and the patriotic half was a by a collaborator of the Nazis. Hmmm...

The US has already lost all credibility during the overthrow of Sukarno, installing Suharto, and causing the death of millions in the first two years after, and decades of suffering under Suharto's brutal regime. I don't think i need to remind you of the support for countless brutal dictators all over the world.

Heck - even Osama Bin Laden was once CIA's favorite boy, and so were the Taliban.

No, it's not about freedom - it's only about US corporate interests, always was, even during the Lewis and Clarc expedition, while you believed it was about freedom, and actually still trust your government when they send you off to war and kill and die for their corporate interests.

I feel sorry for you guys.

[ColPyat]

if i remember correct, the OSS was involved during the Japanese occupation. uncle Ho did get around. but, it was the Chinese backing, with the compliance of the Russian state, that supported the Viet Minh, which was Ho's own personal "solution" to the problems he saw were at hand.

Many liberation leaders with a socialist tinge were by anti communist paranoia forced into the hands of Russia or China because they could not get support from the west. There are still letters of Ho Chi Minh pleading with several US presidents not to go to war with Vietnam, even the last ones during the US involvement in Vietnam.

[Amararete]

Us rules of foreign policy continued...

4) if all attempts to make things work out with handshakes, bags of money and flexed muscles fail anyway - cheat like dirty crooks, kill key opponents, and deny deny deny.

Out CIA and its tentacle support groups has very badly undermined the principles the american public believes they stand for, and the principles that americans believe their foreign policy is based upon. This is where most people like myself have a schizophrenia about the role the US has played in countries (like Cambodia) everywhere. We know what we will vote for. But our intelligence operations have carried out an opposite agenda: if you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough. Because the other guy is definitely cheating. Dirty fighting. Dirty business, and most Americans are horrified by it, deny it because they do not believe it, do not want to find out its true, and would not know where to begin apologizing for it.

I rationalize it thusly:

We fought fair to start out, but we met some dirty dirty opponents, some we still twist with today. They fought with every trick they could find, no atrocity was off the table. We learned, we fought back dirtier and dirtier ourselves until we were winning, and then we did something very American with it: We created an entire science and technology around the black arts of fighting dirtiest. Now we are that scary, that dirty, and we should not be. We raised it to a whole new level. Not more sicko and obcene, just more ferocious, more terrifying, more omnipresent and invasive. I wish we as a people had never gone down into these dirtiest of warfare sciences, but here we are, at the cutting edge of how to kill everyone, and how to watch everyone.

I dont even care how off that is. Your country indulges in the same dirty rotten stuff. THEY ALL DO. Nothing can really be established by reaching down into all that sick-pup soup, grabbing up one turd from an ocean of them, and saying "See this turd This is why it is bad here! This one particular turd is the cause of all the trouble!"

Make peace. If you cannot, then make love. Let those who make war make the decisions for you, because they are willing to risk their butts to change things, to control some of the chaos. You are not willing. So move aside. Whether you should have to put your butt on the line or not, is a meaningless argument when you cannot effectively wage peace and win.

[keemapoot]

Quite interesting and telling that the Mods give and encourage free reign to Amararete in bashing the USA with abandon and without any nexus to Thailand, as they so proudly proclaim in every other thread as a requirement.

Give this Post maybe 3 minutes....

Edited October 14, 2007 by keemapoot

[dog412]

if i remember correct, the OSS was involved during the Japanese occupation. uncle Ho did get around. but, it was the Chinese backing, with the compliance of the Russian state, that supported the Viet Minh, which was Ho's own personal "solution" to the problems he saw were at hand.

Many liberation leaders with a socialist tinge were by anti communist paranoia forced into the hands of Russia or China because they could not get support from the west. There are still letters of Ho Chi Minh pleading with several US presidents not to go to war with Vietnam, even the last ones during the US involvement in Vietnam.

any "liberation" leader that accepted finances from Russia and China in those days, would,of course, have had very little politically in common with the U.S. He was after all a communist. however, i will grant you things could have been handled better. i think what i am trying to get across, to some extant, is that the South East Asian war crisis comprised more than just the American involvement.

[ColPyat]

any "liberation" leader that accepted finances from Russia and China in those days, would,of course, have had very little politically in common with the U.S. He was after all a communist. however, i will grant you things could have been handled better. i think what i am trying to get across, to some extant, is that the South East Asian war crisis comprised more than just the American involvement.

No doubt about that. Laos was not just bombed the the US, but by China and Vietnam as well.

That doesn't make US involvement any less shameful. The Khmer Rouge support by the US and the UK especially was maybe the most surreal situation - the most barbaric system that came out of communism was supported by the most anti-communist superpowers, together with Maoist China, against Socialist Vietnam.

Bullshit baffles brain...

[dog412]

any "liberation" leader that accepted finances from Russia and China in those days, would,of course, have had very little politically in common with the U.S. He was after all a communist. however, i will grant you things could have been handled better. i think what i am trying to get across, to some extant, is that the South East Asian war crisis comprised more than just the American involvement.

No doubt about that. Laos was not just bombed the the US, but by China and Vietnam as well.

That doesn't make US involvement any less shameful. The Khmer Rouge support by the US and the UK especially was maybe the most surreal situation - the most barbaric system that came out of communism was supported by the most anti-communist superpowers, together with Maoist China, against Socialist Vietnam.

Bullshit baffles brain...

forgive me, did we forget to mention the "invasion" of Cambodia by the Vietnamese before the liberation? or how about the intrusion by the vietnamese into Laos? does anyone think Thailand accepted and agreed to U.S. military aid for no reason? no, i believe that this period of time was a serious power struggle, and while i am no scholar, the literature is out there for us all. good reading and best to us all.

[dog412]

any "liberation" leader that accepted finances from Russia and China in those days, would,of course, have had very little politically in common with the U.S. He was after all a communist. however, i will grant you things could have been handled better. i think what i am trying to get across, to some extant, is that the South East Asian war crisis comprised more than just the American involvement.

No doubt about that. Laos was not just bombed the the US, but by China and Vietnam as well.

That doesn't make US involvement any less shameful. The Khmer Rouge support by the US and the UK especially was maybe the most surreal situation - the most barbaric system that came out of communism was supported by the most anti-communist superpowers, together with Maoist China, against Socialist Vietnam.

Bullshit baffles brain...

forgive me, did we forget to mention the "invasion" of Cambodia by the Vietnamese before the liberation? or how about the intrusion by the vietnamese into Laos? does anyone think Thailand accepted and agreed to U.S. military aid for no reason? no, i believe that this period of time was a serious power struggle, and while i am no scholar, the literature is out there for us all. good reading and best to us all.

[ColPyat]

forgive me, did we forget to mention the "invasion" of Cambodia by the Vietnamese before the liberation? or how about the intrusion by the vietnamese into Laos? does anyone think Thailand accepted and agreed to U.S. military aid for no reason? no, i believe that this period of time was a serious power struggle, and while i am no scholar, the literature is out there for us all. good reading and best to us all.

A very impressive documentary was "Fog of War", about McNamara.

A very important part there was when McNamara met Giap, and Giap told him that the Domino theory was false - that they had no plans to invade and take over Thailand.

Cambodia always, throughout history, had to suffer aggressive attacks from both Vietnam and Thailand. Thailand also has invaded Laos in the late 19th century, and fought a incredibly brutal war with many Laotian villages burned to the ground and its inhabitants massacred.

I am of the view that the US had nothing to do in this part of the world at the time, and its intervention made things only worse, including establishing both with its partners and its enemies political systems through its involvement we still suffer from, and costing millions of lifes.

Edited October 14, 2007 by ColPyat

[aaaaaa]

Reading back over the history of the khmer rouge I see a disturbing fact showing up again and again that doesn't seem to get much notice is that the khmer rouge, who perpetrated one of the worst genocides of the twentieth century, were recipients of aid and military support from both Thailand and the United States.

U.S. Aid for Khmer Rouge Is Repugnant - New York Times

So why was so much western aid going to a regime who murdered 20-30% of the entire country's population?

WHY indeed ! what a mystery, huh?

the same kind of "WHY" Contra in Nicaragua was supported, Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh ('71), Saddam shaking hands with US top officials and supplied weapons to fight with Iran, Osama and his mojahedeens in Afgan.....

Wiki explains it simply: US didn't want Vietnamese commies to take over whole Indo-China. It used the old good tool of "divide and conquer", using China to support KR, because that time China has big tensions with Soviets and was too happy to undermine their influence in the region.

US has been paranoiac about spread of Soviets' influence, and would do anything to stop or prevent it...

and of course - even that was only a tip of an iceberg. the main reason was actually - making money on "Arms Race" boom. Hysteria about commies danger was just too good cover to refuse - same as WMD for Iraq invasion.

and Thailand - well, it has always been good at following the wind directions (= winning side) ! in WWI they've declared war on Germany to win favor of Brits and France, in WWII - taken Japan's side, after that during Cold War - US's and Allies side in the "Holy Jihad on Commies".....

and it did all that pretty well - look at where it is now in terms of Economic development! would it ever be there without constant sides switching, especially without tremendous bucks pumping by US?

[dog412]

forgive me, did we forget to mention the "invasion" of Cambodia by the Vietnamese before the liberation? or how about the intrusion by the vietnamese into Laos? does anyone think Thailand accepted and agreed to U.S. military aid for no reason? no, i believe that this period of time was a serious power struggle, and while i am no scholar, the literature is out there for us all. good reading and best to us all.

A very impressive documentary was "Fog of War", about McNamara.

A very important part there was when McNamara met Giap, and Giap told him that the Domino theory was false - that they had no plans to invade and take over Thailand.

Cambodia always, throughout history, had to suffer aggressive attacks from both Vietnam and Thailand. Thailand also has invaded Laos in the late 19th century, and fought a incredibly brutal war with many Laotian villages burned to the ground and its inhabitants massacred.

I am of the view that the US had nothing to do in this part of the world at the time, and its intervention made things only worse, including establishing both with its partners and its enemies political systems through its involvement we still suffer from, and costing millions of lifes.

nice piece. however, i do believe that their were concerns that both Thailand and Vietnam had concerns on Cambodia, at that time, and neither of those scenarios were acceptable.

[ColPyat]

nice piece. however, i do believe that their were concerns that both Thailand and Vietnam had concerns on Cambodia, at that time, and neither of those scenarios were acceptable.

The situation in Cambodia wasn't acceptable either - Khmer Rouge were rather methodically eliminating their population, and it just beats me how the west, together with China, has then, after the ouster of the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese, supported the Khmer Rouge with weapons, and even training.

I just think that interventionism, other than by diplomacy, and by fair trade, and tourism, will make things worse. The road to hel_l is paved with good intentions. Regarding the US (and the west, mostly in semi vassal status to the US) - somewhat related to the thread topic, extrapolating in a general sense - i don't even believe in its good intentions most of the time, looking again at Gen. Butler's 'War is a racket'.

Edited October 14, 2007 by ColPyat

[dog412]

nice piece. however, i do believe that their were concerns that both Thailand and Vietnam had concerns on Cambodia, at that time, and neither of those scenarios were acceptable.

The situation in Cambodia wasn't acceptable either - Khmer Rouge were rather methodically eliminating their population, and it just beats me how the west, together with China, has then, after the ouster of the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese, supported the Khmer Rouge with weapons, and even training.

I just think that interventionism, other than by diplomacy, and by fair trade, and tourism, will make things worse. The road to hel_l is paved with good intentions. Regarding the US (and the west, mostly in semi vassal status to the US) - somewhat related to the thread topic, extrapolating in a general sense - i don't even believe in its good intentions most of the time, looking again at Gen. Butler's 'War is a racket'.

while idealism is the right of those that can, i advise us to pick and choose our "friends" as carefully as is humanely possible. politics is just an extrapolation of the human predicament. like it or not, it is a natural function.

[LaoPo]

Top Khmer Rouge leader charged

Khieu Samphan is the fifth Khmer Rouge official to be detained

The Khmer Rouge's former head of state, Khieu Samphan, has been charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity at a UN-backed tribunal in Cambodia.

The 76-year-old was earlier arrested at a hospital in the capital, Phnom Penh, and taken to face the panel of judges.

He is the fifth person to be targeted by the court, set up to bring surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge to justice.

More than one million people are thought to have died between 1975 and 1979 under the brutal Maoist regime.

Khieu Samphan 's lawyers have said they will appeal against his detention, a tribunal spokesman said.

More here:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7101154.stm

LaoPo

[JimsKnight]

Not just the US either. I've read reports of British military training for the KR as well as them being able to retreat to the safety of the Thai border, under the protection of Thai and US forces.

Total BS I reckon.

Which bar did you hear that one from Cd?

The Thais were extremely wary of the KR.

The British military washed its hands of any involvement in Indo-China after WW2.

There were no vested interests for Britain with the IRA and the Warsaw Pact giving them enough headaches as it was.

[Rinrada]

Top Khmer Rouge leader charged

Khieu Samphan is the fifth Khmer Rouge official to be detained

The Khmer Rouge's former head of state, Khieu Samphan, has been charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity at a UN-backed tribunal in Cambodia.

The 76-year-old was earlier arrested at a hospital in the capital, Phnom Penh, and taken to face the panel of judges.

He is the fifth person to be targeted by the court, set up to bring surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge to justice.

More than one million people are thought to have died between 1975 and 1979 under the brutal Maoist regime.

Khieu Samphan 's lawyers have said they will appeal against his detention, a tribunal spokesman said.

More here:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7101154.stm

LaoPo

Good one...Pol Pot aka.. Saloh Sar was the front man in the KR-NADK while Brother Khieu was the brains behind the outfit..and on a lighter note most of the dosh raised by UK kids and Blue Peter....Remember...went to the sods...